The ALJ denied the petition, concluding that the Sanalina HOA did not violate its Bylaws when it removed Petitioner John Zumph from the Board of Directors. The tribunal held that a 'regular meeting' can occur even without the presence of a quorum necessary to conduct business, validating the HOA's decision to declare his office vacant after three consecutive absences.
Why this result: The Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the Bylaws. The ALJ determined that the meetings existed despite lack of quorum, and the Petitioner's intentional absences constituted an abuse of process and were not in the spirit of the bylaws.
Key Issues & Findings
Wrongful removal from the Board of Directors
Petitioner challenged his removal from the Board of Directors, arguing that his three consecutive absences from regularly scheduled meetings (July 8, 2021, September 9, 2021, and November 11, 2021) did not count because no quorum was met at those meetings, meaning the meetings did not exist.
Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.R.S. § 41-1092
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
Sanalina Bylaws Article VII Section 1(d)
Sanalina Bylaws Article VI Section 3
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Board Removal, Quorum Dispute, Bylaw Interpretation, Director Absence, Regular Meeting Definition
These sources document an Arizona administrative hearing and the subsequent legal ruling regarding a dispute between John Zumph and the Sanalina Homeowners Association. Zumph challenged his removal from the Board of Directors, which the association justified based on his absence from three consecutive meetings. While Zumph argued that these sessions did not legally qualify as meetings due to a lack of quorum, the association contended he intentionally skipped them to obstruct board business and force leadership changes. The provided transcript details the testimony and cross-examination of the parties involved, highlighting the internal conflicts within the board. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the association, concluding that meetings can exist even without a quorum to transact business. The final decision affirmed that Zumph’s intentional absences harmed the community and legally permitted the board to declare his seat vacant.
What was the core disagreement regarding the definition of a quorum?
Explain the impacts of the board’s inability to conduct official business.
How did the Administrative Law Judge rule on the petitioner’s removal?
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 1:35 PM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Blog Post – 22F-H2222049-REL
Select all sources
986676.aac
988629.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
22F-H2222049-REL
2 sources
These sources document an Arizona administrative hearing and the subsequent legal ruling regarding a dispute between John Zumph and the Sanalina Homeowners Association. Zumph challenged his removal from the Board of Directors, which the association justified based on his absence from three consecutive meetings. While Zumph argued that these sessions did not legally qualify as meetings due to a lack of quorum, the association contended he intentionally skipped them to obstruct board business and force leadership changes. The provided transcript details the testimony and cross-examination of the parties involved, highlighting the internal conflicts within the board. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the association, concluding that meetings can exist even without a quorum to transact business. The final decision affirmed that Zumph’s intentional absences harmed the community and legally permitted the board to declare his seat vacant.
What was the core disagreement regarding the definition of a quorum?
Explain the impacts of the board’s inability to conduct official business.
How did the Administrative Law Judge rule on the petitioner’s removal?
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 1:35 PM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
John Zumph(petitioner) Sanalina Homeowners Association Also referred to as John Zump or John Edward Dump; Former Board member removed from his position
Pete Selei(board member) Sanalina Homeowners Association Aligned with petitioner's refusal to attend meetings; Board member removed/vacated position; Also referred to as Joe Pete or Pete
Joe(board member) Sanalina Homeowners Association Aligned with petitioner's refusal to attend meetings
Respondent Side
Nick Eicher(HOA attorney) Sanalina Homeowners Association Also referred to as Nick Aker
Lisa Jean Terror(board member) Sanalina Homeowners Association Board Secretary; witness for Respondent
Neutral Parties
Adam D. Stone(ALJ) OAH
Louis Dettorre(commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Miranda Alvarez(legal secretary)
Other Participants
Thomas Campanella(property manager) Sanalina Homeowners Association Community Manager; Also referred to as Thomas Pampanella
Javier Gimenez(management representative) Sanalina Homeowners Association Handled minutes for March meeting
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), finding that the HOA and its property managers had made records reasonably available for examination.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required by A.A.C. R2-19-119. The evidence showed Respondent responded timely to requests, provided some documents, and offered Petitioner appointments to review other sensitive or older records in the office, which she failed to schedule.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to provide books, records and accounts
Petitioner alleged Respondent failed to provide required HOA records, including bank statements, invoices, and contracts, following requests made primarily in March 2022, thereby violating statute A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).
Orders: Petitioner's petition denied.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1805
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Records Access, Statutory Violation, Burden of Proof, Special Assessment Dispute
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 33-1805
A.A.C. R2-19-119
State ex rel. Thomas v. Contes, 216 Ariz. 525, 527, 169 P.3d 115, 117 (App. 2007)
Marsoner v. Pima County, 166 Ariz. 486, 488, 803 P.2d 897, 899 (1991)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
22F-H2222046-REL Decision – 971256.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:58 (46.4 KB)
22F-H2222046-REL Decision – 983785.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:48:03 (114.6 KB)
Questions
Question
Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the law during a hearing?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, it is up to the homeowner filing the complaint to prove that the Association violated the statute. The HOA does not initially have to prove its innocence; the homeowner must present evidence that carries more weight.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805.
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal procedure
Question
What level of evidence is required to win a dispute against an HOA?
Short Answer
A preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner must provide evidence that is more convincing than the evidence offered by the HOA. It must show that the alleged violation is 'more probable than not' to have occurred.
Alj Quote
A preponderance of the evidence is '[e]vidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.'
Legal Basis
Black's Law Dictionary (cited in decision)
Topic Tags
evidence
legal standard
Question
Does a homeowner have the right to browse through every single document the HOA possesses?
Short Answer
No, the right to inspect records is not absolute or 'at will'.
Detailed Answer
While statutes require records to be reasonably available, this does not grant homeowners the right to peruse every document at will. The ALJ noted that certain documents may properly be withheld.
Alj Quote
Nothing in the statute however, grants a condominium unit owner the right to peruse all of the association’s documents at will as some documents may properly be withheld.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
records request
privacy
limitations
Question
If I request records, does the HOA have to mail them to me, or can they require me to view them in person?
Short Answer
The HOA complies by making records available for examination, often by appointment.
Detailed Answer
The HOA meets its statutory obligation if it makes records reasonably available for examination. In this case, offering an appointment for the homeowner to visit the office and review the documents was considered sufficient compliance, even if the homeowner refused to attend.
Alj Quote
Further, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that Petitioner was always granted an opportunity to make an appointment to review the other records and she failed to do so.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
records request
compliance
in-person review
Question
How quickly must the HOA respond to a request to examine records?
Short Answer
Within ten business days.
Detailed Answer
Under Arizona law, an association has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination of records or to provide copies if purchased.
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
Can the HOA charge me a fee for looking at the records?
Short Answer
No fee is allowed for the review process itself.
Detailed Answer
The association is prohibited from charging a member for making material available for review. However, they may charge a fee specifically for making copies.
Alj Quote
The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
Topic Tags
fees
records access
Question
What is the maximum amount an HOA can charge for copies of records?
Short Answer
Fifteen cents per page.
Detailed Answer
If a homeowner requests to purchase copies of the records, the association is limited by statute to charging no more than fifteen cents per page.
Alj Quote
An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
Topic Tags
fees
copies
Question
Can I dispute an HOA violation if I simply refuse to cooperate with their attempts to provide records?
Short Answer
Likely not; failure to utilize offered opportunities undermines the claim.
Detailed Answer
If the HOA offers opportunities to review records (such as setting an appointment) and the homeowner fails to do so, the homeowner may fail to prove that they were denied access.
Alj Quote
Petitioner failed to establish that she was denied access to the financial records. … Petitioner was always granted an opportunity to make an appointment to review the other records and she failed to do so.
Legal Basis
Determined by ALJ Findings
Topic Tags
dispute resolution
homeowner responsibility
Case
Docket No
22F-H2222046-REL
Case Title
Katherine Belinsky vs Del Cerro Condos
Decision Date
2022-07-14
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the law during a hearing?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, it is up to the homeowner filing the complaint to prove that the Association violated the statute. The HOA does not initially have to prove its innocence; the homeowner must present evidence that carries more weight.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805.
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal procedure
Question
What level of evidence is required to win a dispute against an HOA?
Short Answer
A preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner must provide evidence that is more convincing than the evidence offered by the HOA. It must show that the alleged violation is 'more probable than not' to have occurred.
Alj Quote
A preponderance of the evidence is '[e]vidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.'
Legal Basis
Black's Law Dictionary (cited in decision)
Topic Tags
evidence
legal standard
Question
Does a homeowner have the right to browse through every single document the HOA possesses?
Short Answer
No, the right to inspect records is not absolute or 'at will'.
Detailed Answer
While statutes require records to be reasonably available, this does not grant homeowners the right to peruse every document at will. The ALJ noted that certain documents may properly be withheld.
Alj Quote
Nothing in the statute however, grants a condominium unit owner the right to peruse all of the association’s documents at will as some documents may properly be withheld.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
records request
privacy
limitations
Question
If I request records, does the HOA have to mail them to me, or can they require me to view them in person?
Short Answer
The HOA complies by making records available for examination, often by appointment.
Detailed Answer
The HOA meets its statutory obligation if it makes records reasonably available for examination. In this case, offering an appointment for the homeowner to visit the office and review the documents was considered sufficient compliance, even if the homeowner refused to attend.
Alj Quote
Further, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that Petitioner was always granted an opportunity to make an appointment to review the other records and she failed to do so.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
records request
compliance
in-person review
Question
How quickly must the HOA respond to a request to examine records?
Short Answer
Within ten business days.
Detailed Answer
Under Arizona law, an association has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination of records or to provide copies if purchased.
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
Can the HOA charge me a fee for looking at the records?
Short Answer
No fee is allowed for the review process itself.
Detailed Answer
The association is prohibited from charging a member for making material available for review. However, they may charge a fee specifically for making copies.
Alj Quote
The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
Topic Tags
fees
records access
Question
What is the maximum amount an HOA can charge for copies of records?
Short Answer
Fifteen cents per page.
Detailed Answer
If a homeowner requests to purchase copies of the records, the association is limited by statute to charging no more than fifteen cents per page.
Alj Quote
An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
Topic Tags
fees
copies
Question
Can I dispute an HOA violation if I simply refuse to cooperate with their attempts to provide records?
Short Answer
Likely not; failure to utilize offered opportunities undermines the claim.
Detailed Answer
If the HOA offers opportunities to review records (such as setting an appointment) and the homeowner fails to do so, the homeowner may fail to prove that they were denied access.
Alj Quote
Petitioner failed to establish that she was denied access to the financial records. … Petitioner was always granted an opportunity to make an appointment to review the other records and she failed to do so.
Legal Basis
Determined by ALJ Findings
Topic Tags
dispute resolution
homeowner responsibility
Case
Docket No
22F-H2222046-REL
Case Title
Katherine Belinsky vs Del Cerro Condos
Decision Date
2022-07-14
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Katherine Belinsky(petitioner) Also referred to as Catherine Valinski, Bolinsky, or Katya/Katcha; unit owner.
Respondent Side
Alessandra Wisniewski(VP) Del Cerro Condos Board Also referred to as Alexandra; testified on behalf of Respondent.
Amanda Butcher(President) Del Cerro Condos Board Testified on behalf of Respondent.
Eddie B(property manager) PMI Lake Havasu President of PMI Lake Havasu; also referred to as Eddie Being.
Lisa Modler(property manager assistant) PMI Lake Havasu Also referred to as Lisa Miam; secretary assistance for PMI.
Brady Bowen(property manager) PMI Lake Havasu Business partner of Eddie B.
Fiser(maintenance supervisor) PMI Lake Havasu No first name provided.
Kathy Ein(property manager) Community Financials Manager for new management company.
Moses(board member) Del Cerro Condos Board Former Treasurer/Secretary on the board.
Neutral Parties
Adam D. Stone(ALJ) OAH
Louis Dettorre(Commissioner) ADRE
Miranda Alvarez(legal secretary) OAH Transmitted Decision electronically.
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
Eric Needles(former property manager) London Dairy Former property management/statutory agent.
Elizabeth(statutory agent) Former statutory agent; last name not provided.
Betty Sergeant(former property manager) Petitioner took her to court.
Todd Sullivan(association manager) Viking New Association New association manager effective June 1st.
c. serrano(unknown) Transmittal initial on Del Cerro Condo contact document.
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that the term 'main Dwelling Unit' in CC&Rs Article 7.7 must be calculated using only the livable square footage (2,853 sq ft), excluding attached garages and porches, resulting in a maximum allowable accessory structure size of 1,141.2 sq ft. Since the proposed structure was 1,441 sq ft, the HOA's denial was upheld.
Why this result: The ALJ determined that the calculation of the relevant square footage of a main Dwelling Unit under CC&Rs 7.7 excludes any non-livable portion of a building, structure, or improvement (attached or otherwise), meaning the Petitioner's proposed structure exceeded the calculated maximum limit.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether the Association violated CC&Rs Article 7.7 by incorrectly applying the method for determining the allowable square footage of an accessory structure.
Petitioner alleged the HOA/ARC incorrectly calculated the maximum allowable square footage for his proposed 1,441 sq ft detached garage, arguing that the 'main Dwelling Unit' calculation under CC&Rs 7.7 should include the attached garage and porches. The HOA maintained that the 'main Dwelling Unit' only consists of the livable portions of the home (2,853 sq ft), resulting in a maximum allowable accessory structure of 1,141.2 square feet.
Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied. The ALJ concluded that the 'main Dwelling Unit' under CC&Rs 7.7 excludes non-livable portions of the building (attached garage, porch, patio).
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
CC&Rs Article 7.7
CC&Rs Article 7.6
CC&Rs Article I, Section 15
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA dispute, accessory structure, dwelling unit definition, CC&Rs interpretation, square footage calculation
22F-H2222040-REL Decision – Notice of Hearing .pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:46:52 (1792.3 KB)
22F-H2222040-REL Decision – Response to Petition – 4.22.22.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:46:56 (127.2 KB)
Briefing Doc – 22F-H2222040-REL
Briefing Document: Schmidt v. Catalina Ridge Community Association, Inc.
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the key facts, arguments, and legal proceedings in the dispute between homeowner Steven Schmidt (Petitioner) and the Catalina Ridge Community Association, Inc. (Respondent), case number 22F-H2222040-REL. The central conflict revolves around the interpretation of the term “Dwelling Unit” within the Association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the purpose of calculating the maximum allowable size of an accessory structure.
The Petitioner contended that “Dwelling Unit” encompasses the total square footage of his home, including livable space, attached garage, and covered porches, which would permit his proposed 1,441-square-foot detached garage. The Respondent argued that the CC&Rs define “Dwelling Unit” as only the livable square footage, explicitly excluding garages and porches from the calculation, making the proposed structure too large.
Following an evidentiary hearing on June 23, 2022, Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark issued a decision on July 13, 2022, denying the petition. The ruling sided with the Respondent, concluding that a holistic reading of the CC&Rs, particularly its definition section, establishes that a “Dwelling Unit” is distinct from garages and patios. The decision affirmed the Association’s methodology, rendering the Petitioner’s project non-compliant with the community’s governing documents.
Case Overview
Parties Involved
Name / Entity
Representation
Petitioner
Steven Schmidt
Appeared on his own behalf
Respondent
Catalina Ridge Community Association, Inc.
Michael S. Shupe, Esq., Goldschmidt Shupe, PLLC
Case Details
Detail
Case Numbers
ADRE: HO22-22/040 OAH: 22F-H2222040-REL
Presiding Judge
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark
Hearing Location
Office of Administrative Hearings, Phoenix, Arizona
Hearing Date
June 23, 2022
Final Decision Date
July 13, 2022
Timeline of Key Events
• May 15, 2019: Petitioner submits his initial Architectural Review Committee (ARC) application for a detached garage.
• July 25, 2019: The Association issues its first denial letter, stating, “The Committee believes that the square footage of a home does not include garage area or patio.”
• January 10, 2020: Following a request for reconsideration, the Association issues a second denial letter.
• February 7, 2020: After Petitioner attends an ARC meeting to appeal, the Association issues a third and final denial letter.
• March 21, 2022: The Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) receives the Petitioner’s formal petition.
• April 22, 2022: Respondent, through counsel, files a response denying all complaint items and requesting a hearing.
• June 8, 2022: A telephonic pre-hearing conference is held to clarify issues and set deadlines.
• June 23, 2022: An evidentiary hearing is conducted before ALJ Jenna Clark.
• July 13, 2022: The ALJ issues a final decision and order denying the Petitioner’s petition.
The Central Dispute: Interpretation of “Dwelling Unit”
The core of the dispute is a question of contract interpretation regarding the CC&Rs. The parties agreed that the facts were not in dispute, only the legal meaning of key terms used to calculate the maximum size of an accessory structure.
Governing Documents and Key Clauses
The disagreement centered on the following provisions from the Association’s CC&Rs and Design Guidelines:
• CC&Rs Article VII, Section 7.7 (Accessory Structures): “Accessory structures shall include, but are not limited to, detached garages and guest homes… Accessory structures shall be limited to 5% of the lot area or forty percent (40%) of the main Dwelling Unit, whichever is less.”
• CC&Rs Article VII, Section 7.6 (Minimum Dwelling Unit Size): “Any Dwelling unit erected, permitted or maintained on any Lot shall have a minimum livable square footage, excluding garage, porches or guest house, and patios, of two thousand five hundred (2500) square feet.”
• Design Guidelines Section 3.2.2 (Building Size): “The minimum livable square footage of any Dwelling Unit on a Lot shall be 2,500 square feet. This minimum requirement shall be exclusive of garages, porches, Guest Houses, and patios.”
• CC&Rs Article I, Section 1.15 (Definition of “Dwelling Unit”): “‘Dwelling Unit’ means any building or portion of a building situated upon a Lot designed and intended for use and occupancy as a Residence by a Single Family.”
• CC&Rs Article I, Section 1.29 (Definition of “Residence”): “‘Residence’ means any subdivided Lot shown on the Plat, together with the residential Dwelling Unit, garage, patio and other Improvements thereon…”
Competing Square Footage Calculations
The two parties applied these clauses to the Petitioner’s property dimensions, resulting in conflicting maximums for the proposed 1,441 sq. ft. garage.
Calculation Metric
Petitioner’s Interpretation (Total Structure)
Respondent’s Interpretation (Livable Space Only)
Livable Square Footage
2,820 sq. ft.
2,820 sq. ft.
Covered Front Porch
289 sq. ft.
0 sq. ft. (excluded)
Covered Rear Porch
327 sq. ft.
0 sq. ft. (excluded)
Attached Garage
1,002 sq. ft.
0 sq. ft. (excluded)
Total “Dwelling Unit” Base
4,438 sq. ft.
2,820 sq. ft.
Max Accessory Structure (40%)
1,775 sq. ft.
1,128 sq. ft.
Compliance of Proposed Garage
Compliant (1,441 < 1,775)
Non-Compliant (1,441 > 1,128)
Petitioner’s Position (Steven Schmidt)
The Petitioner’s case was built on a direct, plain-language reading of the rules governing accessory structures, asserting his interpretation was that of a reasonable homeowner.
• Core Argument: The term “Dwelling Unit” in Section 7.7, which governs accessory structures, refers to the entire physical structure of the main home. He argued, “Somehow the ARC has wrongly concluded that the entire area of a dwelling unit is… only the livable square footage. This is simply not correct.”
• Supporting Points:
◦ The provision establishing a minimum of 2,500 sq. ft. (Section 7.6) explicitly excludes garages and porches, but its purpose is only to ensure a minimum standard of living space, not to define the total size of the dwelling for all other purposes.
◦ He contended that Section 7.7, the most relevant clause, “does not say 40% of the livable square footage, but rather 40% of the dwelling unit.”
◦ He pointed to other CC&R sections regarding architectural design (7.5), solar panels (7.10), and antennas (7.40) to argue that for those rules to be logical, “Dwelling Unit” must include the garage and porches, as they are part of the building’s exterior.
◦ During his closing argument, he stated, “The clear intent of the CCNR is to treat a dwelling unit as an entire structure, including the garage and porches.”
• Requested Relief: Petitioner requested an order directing the Association “to correctly apply section 7.7 of the H&Rs by including the square footage of the entire dwelling unit in the computation of the allowable size of an accessory structure.” He did not request a civil penalty.
Respondent’s Position (Catalina Ridge Community Association, Inc.)
The Respondent’s position relied on principles of contract law, arguing that the CC&Rs must be interpreted as a whole, with special attention given to the explicit definitions provided within the document.
• Core Argument: The CC&Rs’ own definitions create a clear distinction between the “Dwelling Unit” (the livable portion) and other improvements like “garage” and “patio.” The ARC’s denial was a correct application of these defined terms.
• Supporting Points:
◦ Counsel Michael Shupe argued that Section 1.29, by listing “residential Dwelling Unit, garage, patio” as separate items, unambiguously proves they are not the same thing. He stated, “there is no ambiguity that dwelling unit is listed separately from garages, patios, and other improvements thereon.”
◦ He emphasized that legal principles require that “the entire contract be looked at and that the court takes steps to ensure that the contract can be read as a whole as to render no provision meaningless or contrary.”
◦ The Respondent argued this interpretation ensures community continuity and prevents situations where accessory structures could be disproportionately large compared to the actual living area of a home.
• Requested Relief: The Association requested that the court uphold the ARC’s decision.
The hearing focused entirely on the legal arguments, as the underlying facts were agreed upon in advance.
• Stipulated Evidence: The parties submitted 17 stipulated facts (one of which was later struck due to a date discrepancy) and 9 stipulated exhibits, which streamlined the hearing.
• Demonstrative Evidence: The Petitioner appeared in person and utilized two easels displaying large-format plans of his home to illustrate his square footage calculations. The ALJ noted these were demonstrative aids and not formally admitted into the evidentiary record.
• Evidentiary Rulings:
◦ The Petitioner requested that his marked-up floor plan (Petitioner’s Exhibit A) be admitted as evidence. The Respondent objected on the grounds that its labeling of a “total dwelling unit” figure constituted a legal conclusion, which is the central issue of the case. The ALJ sustained the objection.
◦ The Respondent’s Pre-Hearing Memorandum was admitted into the record without objection from the Petitioner.
Final Decision and Order (July 13, 2022)
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision provided a definitive legal interpretation of the disputed terms, finding in favor of the Respondent.
• Outcome: “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition is denied.”
• Legal Rationale:
◦ The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to carry his burden of proving a violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
◦ The decision states: “It is clear from the record that a ‘Dwelling Unit’ can only consist of a portion of a building that is distinct from other structures and improvements like garages and patios.”
◦ It further clarifies: “Hence, the calculation of the relevant square footage of a main Dwelling Unit under CC&Rs 7.7 excludes any non-livable portion of a building, structure, or improvement (attached or otherwise).”
◦ The order affirmed the Association’s calculation, noting that the maximum allowable square footage for an accessory structure on the Petitioner’s property is capped at 1,141.2 square feet, making the proposed 1,441-square-foot garage non-compliant.
• Binding Nature: The order is binding on the parties unless a request for rehearing is filed with the Commissioner of the ADRE within 30 days of the order’s service.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Steven Schmidt(petitioner)
Respondent Side
Michael Shupe(HOA attorney) Goldschmidt Shupe, PLLC
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Louis Dettorre(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Daniel Y. Jones(Division Manager) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Abby Hansen(HOA Coordinator) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Miranda Alvarez(Legal Secretary) Office of Administrative Hearings
c. serrano(administrative staff) Transmitted documents
Douglas A. Ducey(Governor) Arizona
vnunez(administrative staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Listed on electronic transmission
labril(administrative staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Listed on electronic transmission
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition after finding that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof to show that the Fulton Ranch Homeowners Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2) concerning an emergency board meeting. The evidence established that no such meeting took place, and the statute does not require the Board to hold one.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish the violation by a preponderance of the evidence, as he conceded he did not know if an emergency meeting was held and could not provide legal authority showing that one was required.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation regarding an emergency meeting of the board members.
Petitioner alleged that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2) concerning the procedures for an emergency board meeting, specifically regarding a message sent out by the HOA's managing agent. The case proceeded on this single issue after Petitioner failed to pay the required additional filing fees for four total issues claimed.
Orders: The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, concluding that the Respondent HOA did not hold an emergency board meeting and was not required by A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2) to hold one.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: emergency meeting, board of directors, failure to pay filing fee, burden of proof, dismissal, A.R.S. 33-1804
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 964714.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:36 (48.2 KB)
22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 964973.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:39 (18.9 KB)
22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 965150.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:42 (44.4 KB)
22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 965339.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:46 (40.0 KB)
22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 967084.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:50 (55.7 KB)
22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 967089.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:54 (45.1 KB)
22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 967102.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:44:59 (7.1 KB)
22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 973304.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:45:02 (47.0 KB)
22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 977404.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:45:06 (50.3 KB)
22F-H2222031-REL Decision – 982867.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:45:09 (106.4 KB)
Questions
Question
Is my HOA board legally required to hold an emergency meeting for urgent matters?
Short Answer
No, the statute allows for emergency meetings but does not mandate them.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that while state law permits a board to call an emergency meeting for issues that cannot wait 48 hours, the homeowner failed to prove there is any legal requirement forcing the board to hold one. The board has the discretion to call such meetings but is not obligated to do so.
Alj Quote
Mr. Ehle failed to provide any legal authority in his petition or at hearing to support his contention that the Board was required to hold an emergency board meeting.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)
Topic Tags
emergency meetings
board obligations
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, the homeowner filing the complaint must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning they must show it is more likely than not that the violation occurred.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated the Act or Respondent’s CC&Rs by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standards
Question
Can I be penalized if I don't pay the full filing fees for all my complaints?
Short Answer
Yes, the tribunal will limit the hearing to only the issues covered by the paid fees.
Detailed Answer
If a homeowner alleges multiple violations but only pays the filing fee for one, the tribunal may dismiss the unpaid claims and order the homeowner to choose a single issue to proceed with at the hearing.
Alj Quote
The tribunal ordered Petitioner to pay an additional $1,500 for the four issues claimed. However, Petitioner failed to do so… IT IS ORDERED that the single issue to be addressed at hearing is an alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)…
Legal Basis
Procedural Order
Topic Tags
filing fees
procedure
Question
Can I punish my HOA for failing to produce minutes for a meeting they claim never happened?
Short Answer
No, if no meeting was held, there are no minutes to produce.
Detailed Answer
You cannot successfully claim a procedural violation (like missing minutes) for a meeting that did not take place. If the evidence shows no meeting occurred, the claim will be dismissed.
Alj Quote
The weight of the evidence shows that Fulton Ranch did not hold an emergency board meeting… Therefore, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Mr. Ehle has failed to establish that Fulton Ranch violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2) and the petition should be dismissed.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)
Topic Tags
meeting minutes
evidence
Question
What qualifies as an 'emergency' for an HOA board meeting?
Short Answer
Matters that cannot be delayed for the standard 48-hour notice period.
Detailed Answer
State law defines an emergency meeting as one called to discuss business or take action that is too urgent to wait for the standard 48 hours required for notice of a regular meeting.
Alj Quote
An emergency meeting of the board of directors may be called to discuss business or take action that cannot be delayed for the forty-eight hours required for notice.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)
Topic Tags
emergency meetings
definitions
Question
Can I attend my HOA dispute hearing virtually?
Short Answer
Yes, hearings can be conducted via video conferencing or telephone.
Detailed Answer
The Office of Administrative Hearings allows parties to appear either in person or virtually (e.g., via Google Meet) for the proceedings.
Alj Quote
Either party may appear virtually or in person for the hearing.
Legal Basis
Procedural Order
Topic Tags
hearings
procedure
Question
What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean?
Short Answer
It means the evidence shows the claim is more probably true than not.
Detailed Answer
This is the standard of proof used in these hearings. It is not about the number of witnesses, but the convincing force of the evidence that inclines an impartial mind to one side.
Alj Quote
“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”
Legal Basis
Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence
Topic Tags
legal definitions
evidence
Case
Docket No
22F-H2222031-REL
Case Title
Gregory Ehle v. Fulton Ranch Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2022-07-11
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Is my HOA board legally required to hold an emergency meeting for urgent matters?
Short Answer
No, the statute allows for emergency meetings but does not mandate them.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that while state law permits a board to call an emergency meeting for issues that cannot wait 48 hours, the homeowner failed to prove there is any legal requirement forcing the board to hold one. The board has the discretion to call such meetings but is not obligated to do so.
Alj Quote
Mr. Ehle failed to provide any legal authority in his petition or at hearing to support his contention that the Board was required to hold an emergency board meeting.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)
Topic Tags
emergency meetings
board obligations
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, the homeowner filing the complaint must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning they must show it is more likely than not that the violation occurred.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated the Act or Respondent’s CC&Rs by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standards
Question
Can I be penalized if I don't pay the full filing fees for all my complaints?
Short Answer
Yes, the tribunal will limit the hearing to only the issues covered by the paid fees.
Detailed Answer
If a homeowner alleges multiple violations but only pays the filing fee for one, the tribunal may dismiss the unpaid claims and order the homeowner to choose a single issue to proceed with at the hearing.
Alj Quote
The tribunal ordered Petitioner to pay an additional $1,500 for the four issues claimed. However, Petitioner failed to do so… IT IS ORDERED that the single issue to be addressed at hearing is an alleged violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)…
Legal Basis
Procedural Order
Topic Tags
filing fees
procedure
Question
Can I punish my HOA for failing to produce minutes for a meeting they claim never happened?
Short Answer
No, if no meeting was held, there are no minutes to produce.
Detailed Answer
You cannot successfully claim a procedural violation (like missing minutes) for a meeting that did not take place. If the evidence shows no meeting occurred, the claim will be dismissed.
Alj Quote
The weight of the evidence shows that Fulton Ranch did not hold an emergency board meeting… Therefore, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Mr. Ehle has failed to establish that Fulton Ranch violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2) and the petition should be dismissed.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)
Topic Tags
meeting minutes
evidence
Question
What qualifies as an 'emergency' for an HOA board meeting?
Short Answer
Matters that cannot be delayed for the standard 48-hour notice period.
Detailed Answer
State law defines an emergency meeting as one called to discuss business or take action that is too urgent to wait for the standard 48 hours required for notice of a regular meeting.
Alj Quote
An emergency meeting of the board of directors may be called to discuss business or take action that cannot be delayed for the forty-eight hours required for notice.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1804(E)(2)
Topic Tags
emergency meetings
definitions
Question
Can I attend my HOA dispute hearing virtually?
Short Answer
Yes, hearings can be conducted via video conferencing or telephone.
Detailed Answer
The Office of Administrative Hearings allows parties to appear either in person or virtually (e.g., via Google Meet) for the proceedings.
Alj Quote
Either party may appear virtually or in person for the hearing.
Legal Basis
Procedural Order
Topic Tags
hearings
procedure
Question
What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean?
Short Answer
It means the evidence shows the claim is more probably true than not.
Detailed Answer
This is the standard of proof used in these hearings. It is not about the number of witnesses, but the convincing force of the evidence that inclines an impartial mind to one side.
Alj Quote
“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”
Legal Basis
Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence
Topic Tags
legal definitions
evidence
Case
Docket No
22F-H2222031-REL
Case Title
Gregory Ehle v. Fulton Ranch Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2022-07-11
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Gregory Ehle(petitioner) Appeared on behalf of himself.
Respondent Side
Emily H. Mann(HOA attorney) Phillips, Maceyko & Battock, PLLC Appeared on behalf of Respondent Fulton Ranch Homeowners Association.
Kevin Hardy(witness) CCMC Division Vice President for Fulton Ranch's Community Manager (CCMC).
Neutral Parties
Velva Moses-Thompson(ALJ) OAH
Louis Dettorre(Commissioner) ADRE
Miranda Alvarez(legal secretary) OAH Handled document transmission.
c. serrano(staff) OAH Handled document transmission.
A. Hansen(staff) ADRE Listed as contact for ADRE.
v. nunez(staff) ADRE Listed as contact for ADRE.
d. jones(staff) ADRE Listed as contact for ADRE.
l. abril(staff) ADRE Listed as contact for ADRE.
Other Participants
Natasha Bell(community manager) CCMC Former CCMC employee who served as the association's community manager in 2020.
The petition was denied because the Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258, as she had not made a proper written request for the documents since 2019, as required by the statute.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to make a request for records in writing as required by A.R.S. § 33-1258.
Key Issues & Findings
Access to Association Financial and Other Records
Petitioner alleged the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 by denying her access and copies of various financial records dating back to 2016. The HOA argued they provided financial summaries and offered in-person review, noting Petitioner failed to make a proper written request.
Orders: Petition denied. Respondent is directed to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1258 going forward upon a proper written request from Petitioner.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1258
A.R.S. § 33-1248
A.A.C. R2-19-119
A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
Analytics Highlights
Topics: Financial Records, Written Request Requirement, HOA Governance, Condominium Act
Additional Citations:
A.R.S. § 33-1258
A.R.S. § 33-1248
A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
22F-H2222033-REL Decision – 967350.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:45:19 (46.5 KB)
22F-H2222033-REL Decision – 982397.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:45:21 (99.3 KB)
Questions
Question
Must I submit my request for HOA financial records in writing?
Short Answer
Yes, the statute explicitly requires that requests for examination of records be made in writing.
Detailed Answer
The Administrative Law Judge ruled against the homeowner partly because she failed to provide evidence of a written request. The decision emphasizes that the governing statute requires requests for examination to be in writing to be valid and enforceable.
Alj Quote
A.R.S. § 33-1258 requires that association documents, with certain identified exceptions, 'shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member…in writing'.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)
Topic Tags
records request
procedural requirements
Question
Do I have the right to look through all HOA documents whenever I want?
Short Answer
No, homeowners do not have an unlimited right to peruse all association documents at will.
Detailed Answer
While the law requires records to be reasonably available, it does not grant an unfettered right to browse all documents. Specific procedures must be followed, and certain documents may be withheld.
Alj Quote
Nothing in the statute however, grants a condominium unit owner the right to peruse all of the association’s documents at will as some documents may properly be withheld.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1258
Topic Tags
homeowner rights
limitations
Question
What happens if I cannot prove I sent a written request for records?
Short Answer
Your petition may be denied for failing to meet the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the homeowner claimed she was denied access, but the judge found she failed to establish a denial because the preponderance of the evidence showed she had not made the required written request.
Alj Quote
Further, the preponderance of the evidence showed that she has failed to make any such request in writing as the statute requires. … Therefore, at this time, Petitioner failed to establish that she was denied access to the financial records.
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
burden of proof
evidence
Question
Can the HOA charge me for copies of records?
Short Answer
Yes, the HOA is allowed to charge a fee for copies.
Detailed Answer
The statute permits the association to charge a fee per page for making copies of requested records, provided the request is for the purchase of copies.
Alj Quote
An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)
Topic Tags
fees
copies
Question
Is the HOA allowed to withhold certain records from me?
Short Answer
Yes, specific categories of records, such as personal or privileged information, may be withheld.
Detailed Answer
The decision outlines statutory exceptions where books and records can be withheld, including privileged attorney communications, pending litigation, and personal financial or health records of individual members or employees.
Alj Quote
Books and records kept by or on behalf of the association and the board may be withheld from disclosure to the extent that the portion withheld relates to any of the following: … Personal, health or financial records of an individual member of the association…
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)
Topic Tags
privacy
exemptions
Question
How long does the HOA have to fulfill my request for records?
Short Answer
The HOA has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies.
Detailed Answer
The statute mandates a ten-business-day timeframe for the association to comply with a written request for either examining records or purchasing copies.
Alj Quote
The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination. … On request for purchase of copies … the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)
Topic Tags
timelines
deadlines
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, it is the petitioner's responsibility to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated the specific statute.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258.
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standards
Case
Docket No
22F-H2222033-REL
Case Title
Roberta J Stevenson-McDermott vs. Four Palms Homeowners
Decision Date
2022-07-08
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Must I submit my request for HOA financial records in writing?
Short Answer
Yes, the statute explicitly requires that requests for examination of records be made in writing.
Detailed Answer
The Administrative Law Judge ruled against the homeowner partly because she failed to provide evidence of a written request. The decision emphasizes that the governing statute requires requests for examination to be in writing to be valid and enforceable.
Alj Quote
A.R.S. § 33-1258 requires that association documents, with certain identified exceptions, 'shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member…in writing'.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)
Topic Tags
records request
procedural requirements
Question
Do I have the right to look through all HOA documents whenever I want?
Short Answer
No, homeowners do not have an unlimited right to peruse all association documents at will.
Detailed Answer
While the law requires records to be reasonably available, it does not grant an unfettered right to browse all documents. Specific procedures must be followed, and certain documents may be withheld.
Alj Quote
Nothing in the statute however, grants a condominium unit owner the right to peruse all of the association’s documents at will as some documents may properly be withheld.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1258
Topic Tags
homeowner rights
limitations
Question
What happens if I cannot prove I sent a written request for records?
Short Answer
Your petition may be denied for failing to meet the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the homeowner claimed she was denied access, but the judge found she failed to establish a denial because the preponderance of the evidence showed she had not made the required written request.
Alj Quote
Further, the preponderance of the evidence showed that she has failed to make any such request in writing as the statute requires. … Therefore, at this time, Petitioner failed to establish that she was denied access to the financial records.
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
burden of proof
evidence
Question
Can the HOA charge me for copies of records?
Short Answer
Yes, the HOA is allowed to charge a fee for copies.
Detailed Answer
The statute permits the association to charge a fee per page for making copies of requested records, provided the request is for the purchase of copies.
Alj Quote
An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than fifteen cents per page.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)
Topic Tags
fees
copies
Question
Is the HOA allowed to withhold certain records from me?
Short Answer
Yes, specific categories of records, such as personal or privileged information, may be withheld.
Detailed Answer
The decision outlines statutory exceptions where books and records can be withheld, including privileged attorney communications, pending litigation, and personal financial or health records of individual members or employees.
Alj Quote
Books and records kept by or on behalf of the association and the board may be withheld from disclosure to the extent that the portion withheld relates to any of the following: … Personal, health or financial records of an individual member of the association…
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1258(B)
Topic Tags
privacy
exemptions
Question
How long does the HOA have to fulfill my request for records?
Short Answer
The HOA has ten business days to fulfill a request for examination or to provide copies.
Detailed Answer
The statute mandates a ten-business-day timeframe for the association to comply with a written request for either examining records or purchasing copies.
Alj Quote
The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination. … On request for purchase of copies … the association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested records.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1258(A)
Topic Tags
timelines
deadlines
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, it is the petitioner's responsibility to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated the specific statute.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1258.
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standards
Case
Docket No
22F-H2222033-REL
Case Title
Roberta J Stevenson-McDermott vs. Four Palms Homeowners
Decision Date
2022-07-08
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Roberta J Stevenson-McDermott(petitioner)
Sean Embry(owner/witness) Provided letter of support (not admitted as evidence)
Lenor Embry(owner/witness) Provided letter of support (not admitted as evidence)
Philip Smith(owner/witness) Provided letter of support (not admitted as evidence)
c. serrano(clerical staff) Transmitted document for Petitioner
Respondent Side
Araceli Rodriguez(HOA attorney) Yuma Law Firm (inferred) Represented Four Palms Homeowners Association
Faye Burson(board member) Four Palms Homeowners HOA Vice President and witness (also listed as FA Buren)
Mario Salinas(board member) Four Palms Homeowners HOA Treasurer and witness (also listed as Mario Selenus)
Gilbert Sto(board member) Four Palms Homeowners HOA President
Lesie Blessing(board member) Four Palms Homeowners HOA Vice President (2016 board) and Secretary (current board)
Gail Hall(board member) Four Palms Homeowners HOA Fifth member
Linia Ohn(former board member) Four Palms Homeowners HOA Received payments in 2018 (also listed as Lenia own)
Scott Hoser(former board member) Four Palms Homeowners HOA Fifth member (2016 board)
Neutral Parties
Adam D. Stone(ALJ) OAH
Louis Dettorre(ADRE Commissioner) ADRE
Miranda Alvarez(Legal Secretary) ADRE Transmitted decision
Other Participants
Lisa Bon(former board member/owner) Secretary (2016 board); provided letter of support to Petitioner
The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the petition filed by Stephen and Elizabeth Tosh against the Cimmarron Superstition HOA be dismissed, as the Petitioners failed to appear at the hearing set on their behalf and thus failed to meet the required burden of proof.
Why this result: Petitioners failed to appear at the hearing on June 24, 2022, and consequently did not present evidence to satisfy the burden of proof required under A.A.C. R2-19-119.
Key Issues & Findings
Petition Dismissal for Failure to Appear
Petition was dismissed because Petitioners failed to appear at the scheduled hearing and therefore presented no evidence to meet their burden of proof.
Orders: The petition is dismissed.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
A.A.C. R2-19-119
A.R.S. §32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
Analytics Highlights
Topics: dismissal, failure to appear, burden of proof
Additional Citations:
A.A.C. R2-19-119
A.R.S. §32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
22F-H2222035-REL Decision – 968715.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:45:27 (33.0 KB)
22F-H2222035-REL Decision – 969556.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:45:30 (48.5 KB)
22F-H2222035-REL Decision – 979812.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:45:33 (72.2 KB)
22F-H2222035-REL Decision – 989050.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:45:36 (39.3 KB)
Questions
Question
Who is responsible for proving the claims in an HOA dispute hearing?
Short Answer
The petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the burden of proof lies with the party bringing the action (the Petitioners). If they fail to present evidence to support their petition, they cannot prevail.
Alj Quote
The burden of proof in this matter is on Petitioners. See A.A.C. R2-19-119.
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standards
Question
What happens if I fail to attend my scheduled administrative hearing?
Short Answer
The petition will likely be dismissed because you failed to meet the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
Attendance is mandatory to present evidence. If a petitioner fails to appear, they offer no evidence to support their claims. Consequently, the ALJ will find that they failed to meet the burden of proof and will order the petition dismissed.
Alj Quote
By failing to appear at the hearing, Petitioners failed to meet the required burden of proof. Therefore, the petition should be dismissed.
Legal Basis
Failure to Prosecute / Default
Topic Tags
attendance
procedural requirements
dismissal
Question
Is there a grace period if I am late to my hearing?
Short Answer
The judge may allow a short grace period (e.g., 15 minutes), but if you do not appear or contact the office by then, the hearing proceeds without you.
Detailed Answer
In this specific instance, the hearing was scheduled for 9:00 AM, but the judge noted on the record that the hearing did not start until approximately 9:15 AM to allow for a grace period. Since no one appeared or contacted the office to request a delay, the dismissal proceeded.
Alj Quote
Although the hearing did not start until approximately 9:15 a.m., no one appeared on behalf of Petitioners through an attorney, or contact the OAH to request that the start of the hearing be further delayed.
Legal Basis
Procedural Discretion
Topic Tags
attendance
procedural requirements
Question
What is the deadline for requesting a rehearing after a decision is issued?
Short Answer
You must file a request for rehearing with the Commissioner within 30 days of service of the order.
Detailed Answer
If a party disagrees with the ALJ's decision, they have a strict 30-day window from the date of service of the order to file a request for a rehearing with the Real Estate Commissioner.
Alj Quote
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.09, a request for rehearing in this matter must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of this Order upon the parties.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
Topic Tags
appeals
rehearing
deadlines
Question
Can I file an appeal or new documents directly with the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) after the case is closed?
Short Answer
No, once the OAH has issued its decision, it generally cannot take further action or consider new documents.
Detailed Answer
Once the ALJ issues the final order or dismissal, the OAH loses jurisdiction to act further on the matter. Subsequent filings, such as notices of appeal or new evidence, will not be considered by the OAH.
Alj Quote
The documents will not be considered because no further action can be taken on the matter by the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Legal Basis
Jurisdiction
Topic Tags
appeals
jurisdiction
procedural requirements
Question
Is the Administrative Law Judge's order automatically binding?
Short Answer
Yes, the order is binding on all parties unless a rehearing is officially granted.
Detailed Answer
The decision issued by the ALJ carries the weight of law and binds the parties involved immediately, subject only to the granting of a specific motion for rehearing.
Alj Quote
Pursuant to A.R.S. §32-2199.02(B), this Order is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is granted pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2199.04.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
Topic Tags
legal standards
enforcement
Case
Docket No
22F-H2222035-REL
Case Title
Stephen and Elizabeth Tosh v. Cimmarron Superstition HOA
Decision Date
2022-06-24
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Who is responsible for proving the claims in an HOA dispute hearing?
Short Answer
The petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the burden of proof lies with the party bringing the action (the Petitioners). If they fail to present evidence to support their petition, they cannot prevail.
Alj Quote
The burden of proof in this matter is on Petitioners. See A.A.C. R2-19-119.
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
burden of proof
legal standards
Question
What happens if I fail to attend my scheduled administrative hearing?
Short Answer
The petition will likely be dismissed because you failed to meet the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
Attendance is mandatory to present evidence. If a petitioner fails to appear, they offer no evidence to support their claims. Consequently, the ALJ will find that they failed to meet the burden of proof and will order the petition dismissed.
Alj Quote
By failing to appear at the hearing, Petitioners failed to meet the required burden of proof. Therefore, the petition should be dismissed.
Legal Basis
Failure to Prosecute / Default
Topic Tags
attendance
procedural requirements
dismissal
Question
Is there a grace period if I am late to my hearing?
Short Answer
The judge may allow a short grace period (e.g., 15 minutes), but if you do not appear or contact the office by then, the hearing proceeds without you.
Detailed Answer
In this specific instance, the hearing was scheduled for 9:00 AM, but the judge noted on the record that the hearing did not start until approximately 9:15 AM to allow for a grace period. Since no one appeared or contacted the office to request a delay, the dismissal proceeded.
Alj Quote
Although the hearing did not start until approximately 9:15 a.m., no one appeared on behalf of Petitioners through an attorney, or contact the OAH to request that the start of the hearing be further delayed.
Legal Basis
Procedural Discretion
Topic Tags
attendance
procedural requirements
Question
What is the deadline for requesting a rehearing after a decision is issued?
Short Answer
You must file a request for rehearing with the Commissioner within 30 days of service of the order.
Detailed Answer
If a party disagrees with the ALJ's decision, they have a strict 30-day window from the date of service of the order to file a request for a rehearing with the Real Estate Commissioner.
Alj Quote
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.09, a request for rehearing in this matter must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of this Order upon the parties.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
Topic Tags
appeals
rehearing
deadlines
Question
Can I file an appeal or new documents directly with the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) after the case is closed?
Short Answer
No, once the OAH has issued its decision, it generally cannot take further action or consider new documents.
Detailed Answer
Once the ALJ issues the final order or dismissal, the OAH loses jurisdiction to act further on the matter. Subsequent filings, such as notices of appeal or new evidence, will not be considered by the OAH.
Alj Quote
The documents will not be considered because no further action can be taken on the matter by the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Legal Basis
Jurisdiction
Topic Tags
appeals
jurisdiction
procedural requirements
Question
Is the Administrative Law Judge's order automatically binding?
Short Answer
Yes, the order is binding on all parties unless a rehearing is officially granted.
Detailed Answer
The decision issued by the ALJ carries the weight of law and binds the parties involved immediately, subject only to the granting of a specific motion for rehearing.
Alj Quote
Pursuant to A.R.S. §32-2199.02(B), this Order is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is granted pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2199.04.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
Topic Tags
legal standards
enforcement
Case
Docket No
22F-H2222035-REL
Case Title
Stephen and Elizabeth Tosh v. Cimmarron Superstition HOA
Decision Date
2022-06-24
Alj Name
Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Stephen Tosh(petitioner)
Elizabeth Tosh(petitioner)
Respondent Side
Christopher Hanlon(HOA attorney) Childers Hanlon & Hudson, PLC
Neutral Parties
Velva Moses-Thompson(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Louis Dettorre(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
AHansen(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of Transmissions
vnunez(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of Transmissions
djones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of Transmissions
labril(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of Transmissions
c. serrano(staff) Transmitted documents
Miranda Alvarez(legal secretary) Transmitted Decision
Petitioner's petition was granted in part based on the violation of CC&Rs Article 10.9 (failure to provide specific steps to cure violations), resulting in a $500.00 payment to Petitioner. The petition was denied in part regarding alleged violations of CC&Rs Article 4.5, 10.1, and 10.10, as Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof on those issues.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof for the allegations concerning CC&Rs Article 4.5 (as it applies solely to construction activities), Article 10.1 (as subsequent letters stemmed from the same issues), and Article 10.10 (as Petitioner failed to allege or establish a violation of a specific law, ordinance or regulation).
Key Issues & Findings
The Association violated Article 10 Section 9 of the CC&Rs by failing to provide specific steps necessary to cure the violation with each violation notice that was sent as required under the CC&Rs
The Association violated Article 10.9 by issuing vague, overbroad, and nondescript violation warning letters that failed to provide the requisite specific steps Petitioner needed to take to satisfactorily remedy the alleged violation(s), such as covering exposed irrigation lines, removing a specific plant, or filling in holes.
Orders: Respondent is ORDERED to pay $500.00 to Petitioner, a pro rata portion of his filing fee, directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this ORDER.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
CC&Rs Article 10.9
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA enforcement, notice specificity, arbitrary and capricious, CC&R violation, landscaping, weeds
Additional Citations:
CC&Rs Article 4 Section 5
CC&Rs Article 10 Section 1
CC&Rs Article 10 Section 9
CC&Rs Article 10 Section 10
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 946305.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:42:41 (47.7 KB)
22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 950368.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:42:45 (46.3 KB)
22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 957992.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:42:50 (54.5 KB)
22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 958039.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:42:55 (7.8 KB)
22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 960467.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:43:00 (49.7 KB)
22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 977411.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:43:03 (229.1 KB)
Briefing Doc – 22F-H2221022-REL
Briefing Document: Chadwick v. Entrada Mountainside Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the proceedings and outcome of the administrative case Wesley T Chadwick v. Entrada Mountainside Homeowners Association (No. 22F-H2221022-REL). The dispute centered on a series of six violation notices and associated fines issued by the Association to the Petitioner regarding the landscaping of his front yard between January and June 2021.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately ruled in partial favor of the Petitioner, finding that the Association violated its own governing documents. The core of the decision rested on the finding that the Association’s violation notices were “vague, overbroad, and nondescript,” failing to provide the specific steps necessary for the homeowner to cure the alleged violations as required by the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Critically, the ALJ also determined that the Association cited an inapplicable article of the CC&Rs (pertaining to construction activities) in all of its notices, when a different article (concerning landscaping maintenance) should have been used.
As a result, the Petitioner’s petition was granted in part, and the Association was ordered to pay the Petitioner $500.00, representing a pro rata portion of his filing fee. While the petition’s claims of improper fine progression and violations of state law were denied, the central finding regarding the insufficiency of the notices effectively invalidated the basis for the Association’s enforcement action.
Case Overview
Case Name
Wesley T Chadwick, Petitioner, vs. Entrada Mountainside Homeowners Association, Respondent
The conflict unfolded over approximately six months, followed by a period of appeals and the formal administrative hearing.
Jan 25, 2021
Petitioner receives 1st Notice citing Article 4.5 for weeds. Directive is “PLEASE REMOVE WEEDS.”
Feb 09, 2021
Petitioner receives 2nd Notice, identical to the first, with an added $50.00 fine.
Feb 10, 2021
Petitioner hires contractors to remove dead cacti (350)andweeds(100).
Feb 25, 2021
Petitioner receives 3rd Notice, identical to the first two, with an added $100.00 fine.
Mar 18, 2021
Petitioner and the Association’s property management company (OPM) reach an agreement via email: the $100 fine is waived in exchange for payment of the $50 fine, provided no new weed violations occur within 90 days.
Mar 23, 2021
Petitioner receives 4th Notice (dated March 15), which now includes the directive “fix rock area” and a $100.00 fine.
Mar 30, 2021
Petitioner receives 5th Notice, identical to the fourth, with another $100.00 fine.
Apr 05, 2021
In an email exchange, OPM manager Danielle Miglio provides a photo with circled areas of concern, identifying exposed irrigation lines, holes, weeds, and an overgrown plant for the first time with specificity.
May 2021
Petitioner submits a formal request to the Board of Directors to review the case and waive fines.
June 2021
Petitioner is informed his request was denied by the Board.
June 16, 2021
Petitioner receives 6th Notice, which reverts to “PLEASE REMOVE WEEDS” and adds a $100.00 fine.
June 22, 2021
OPM informs Petitioner the Board would not waive fees until the violation is closed, but could remove $75 after three months of compliance.
Sep 23, 2021
Petitioner appears at a Board meeting to appeal; his request is again denied.
Oct 14, 2021
Petitioner files his formal petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
May 25, 2022
An all-day evidentiary hearing is held at the Office of Administrative Hearings.
June 14, 2022
The Administrative Law Judge issues a final decision.
Core Allegations and Arguments
The hearing addressed four specific issues raised in the Petitioner’s petition, which formed the basis of the legal arguments.
Petitioner’s Position (Wesley T Chadwick)
1. Violation of CC&R Article 10.9 (Lack of Specificity): The violation notices were fundamentally deficient because they failed to provide “specific steps which must be taken… to cure the violation.” Directives like “PLEASE REMOVE WEEDS” and “fix rock area” were overly broad. The entire front yard consists of rock, making “fix rock area” ambiguous. The Association only provided clarity with a circled photograph after issuing multiple notices and fines.
2. Violation of CC&R Article 4.5 (Exceeding Authority): The Association exceeded its authority by issuing violations for issues not explicitly covered by the language it quoted in the notices, such as exposed irrigation lines or a specific plant which was not a weed. The notices selectively quoted the portion of Article 4.5 related to weeds and debris, omitting the broader “unsightly” language, which misled the Petitioner as to the nature of the violation.
3. Violation of CC&R Article 10.1 (Improper Fine Progression): The introduction of a new issue, “fix rock area,” in the fourth notice constituted a new violation. As such, it should have been preceded by a warning notice, not an immediate $100 fine as part of a continuing violation.
4. Violation of CC&R Article 10.10 (Arbitrary and Capricious Enforcement): The Association enforced its rules selectively and arbitrarily. This was evidenced during the hearing when the Board’s Vice President, Cynthia Ecker, admitted under oath that her own property had exposed irrigation lines visible from the yard, yet she had never received a violation notice.
Respondent’s Position (Entrada Mountainside HOA)
1. Broad Discretionary Authority: CC&R Article 4.5 grants the Association’s Architectural Committee the “exclusive right to determine the existence of any nuisance” and provides wide discretion to enforce against any condition deemed “unsanitary, unsightly, offensive, or detrimental.”
2. Continuing Nature of the Violation: The entire series of violations stemmed from a single, ongoing issue of poor landscape maintenance. The Petitioner created the “debris”—the hole and exposed irrigation lines—by failing to complete the remediation after removing the cacti. This was a continuation of the original violation, not a new one, and thus did not require a new warning notice.
3. Petitioner’s Responsibility: The Petitioner failed to use his right to appeal the initial notices and only engaged with the Association after three notices had been issued. He admitted to not having reviewed the Association’s official landscape guidelines. The onus was on him to seek clarification if he found the notices unclear.
4. Good Faith Efforts to Comply: The Association manager went “above and beyond” by sending a detailed photo with circled areas, a measure not typically taken. The Association also demonstrated a willingness to work with the Petitioner on fines by waiving the initial $100 fine and later offering a potential $75 reduction.
Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale
The ALJ’s decision focused on the procedural adequacy and legal foundation of the Association’s violation notices.
Final Ruling
The petition was GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.
• Granted: The claim that the Association violated CC&R Article 10.9 by failing to provide specific notice was upheld.
• Denied: The claims that the Association violated CC&R Articles 4.5, 10.1, and 10.10 were not sustained.
Key Findings and Rationale
1. Violation of CC&R Article 10.9 (Notice of Violation): This was the central finding in the Petitioner’s favor. The ALJ concluded the Association failed its contractual obligation to provide adequate notice.
◦ Direct Quote from Decision: “Here, what the Association did was essentially tell Petitioner to ‘fix this’ without telling him exactly what needed fixing and affording him a reasonable opportunity to comply.”
◦ The directives “PLEASE REMOVE WEEDS” and “fix rock area” were deemed insufficient to inform a person of ordinary prudence of the specific actions required, such as covering irrigation lines or removing a particular plant.
◦ The fact that the Association later had to provide a photograph with “circled with specific areas of concern after issuing multiple warning letters” was cited as evidence that the initial notices were inadequate.
2. Misapplication of CC&R Article 4.5 (Nuisances): In a critical finding, the ALJ determined that the Association had cited the wrong governing article in all six of its notices.
◦ The decision states: “It is clear from the record that CC&Rs Article 4.5 is inapplicable as the regulation pertains solely to construction activities… CC&Rs Article 4.4 [Maintenance of Landscaping] should have been used by Respondent.”
◦ This finding invalidated the legal basis for every notice issued to the Petitioner.
3. Ruling on Other Allegations:
◦ Article 10.1 (Enforcement): The ALJ found no violation, concluding that notices 2-6 all “stemmed from the same issue(s)” raised in the first letter and were not new violations requiring a separate warning.
◦ Article 10.10 (Laws, Ordinances and Regulations): The ALJ found no violation because the “Petitioner failed to allege that Respondent violated a specific law, ordinance or regulation.” This indicates the claim of arbitrary enforcement was not sustained on a technical basis, despite the testimony from the Board’s Vice President.
Final Order
Based on the finding that the Association violated CC&R Article 10.9:
• IT IS ORDERED that Respondent pay $500.00 to Petitioner; a pro rata portion of his filing fee, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of the ORDER.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Wesley T Chadwick(petitioner)
Respondent Side
Nick Eicher(HOA attorney) Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP Counsel for Respondent
Petitioner's petition was granted in part based on the violation of CC&Rs Article 10.9 (failure to provide specific steps to cure violations), resulting in a $500.00 payment to Petitioner. The petition was denied in part regarding alleged violations of CC&Rs Article 4.5, 10.1, and 10.10, as Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof on those issues.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof for the allegations concerning CC&Rs Article 4.5 (as it applies solely to construction activities), Article 10.1 (as subsequent letters stemmed from the same issues), and Article 10.10 (as Petitioner failed to allege or establish a violation of a specific law, ordinance or regulation).
Key Issues & Findings
The Association violated Article 10 Section 9 of the CC&Rs by failing to provide specific steps necessary to cure the violation with each violation notice that was sent as required under the CC&Rs
The Association violated Article 10.9 by issuing vague, overbroad, and nondescript violation warning letters that failed to provide the requisite specific steps Petitioner needed to take to satisfactorily remedy the alleged violation(s), such as covering exposed irrigation lines, removing a specific plant, or filling in holes.
Orders: Respondent is ORDERED to pay $500.00 to Petitioner, a pro rata portion of his filing fee, directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this ORDER.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
CC&Rs Article 10.9
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA enforcement, notice specificity, arbitrary and capricious, CC&R violation, landscaping, weeds
Additional Citations:
CC&Rs Article 4 Section 5
CC&Rs Article 10 Section 1
CC&Rs Article 10 Section 9
CC&Rs Article 10 Section 10
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 946305.pdf
Uploaded 2025-12-12T02:34:57 (47.7 KB)
22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 950368.pdf
Uploaded 2025-12-12T02:34:57 (46.3 KB)
22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 957992.pdf
Uploaded 2025-12-12T02:34:57 (54.5 KB)
22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 958039.pdf
Uploaded 2025-12-12T02:34:57 (7.8 KB)
22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 960467.pdf
Uploaded 2025-12-12T02:34:58 (49.7 KB)
22F-H2221022-REL Decision – 977411.pdf
Uploaded 2025-12-12T02:34:58 (229.1 KB)
Briefing Doc – 22F-H2221022-REL
Briefing Document: Chadwick v. Entrada Mountainside Homeowners Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the proceedings and outcome of the administrative case Wesley T Chadwick v. Entrada Mountainside Homeowners Association (No. 22F-H2221022-REL). The dispute centered on a series of six violation notices and associated fines issued by the Association to the Petitioner regarding the landscaping of his front yard between January and June 2021.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately ruled in partial favor of the Petitioner, finding that the Association violated its own governing documents. The core of the decision rested on the finding that the Association’s violation notices were “vague, overbroad, and nondescript,” failing to provide the specific steps necessary for the homeowner to cure the alleged violations as required by the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Critically, the ALJ also determined that the Association cited an inapplicable article of the CC&Rs (pertaining to construction activities) in all of its notices, when a different article (concerning landscaping maintenance) should have been used.
As a result, the Petitioner’s petition was granted in part, and the Association was ordered to pay the Petitioner $500.00, representing a pro rata portion of his filing fee. While the petition’s claims of improper fine progression and violations of state law were denied, the central finding regarding the insufficiency of the notices effectively invalidated the basis for the Association’s enforcement action.
Case Overview
Case Name
Wesley T Chadwick, Petitioner, vs. Entrada Mountainside Homeowners Association, Respondent
The conflict unfolded over approximately six months, followed by a period of appeals and the formal administrative hearing.
Jan 25, 2021
Petitioner receives 1st Notice citing Article 4.5 for weeds. Directive is “PLEASE REMOVE WEEDS.”
Feb 09, 2021
Petitioner receives 2nd Notice, identical to the first, with an added $50.00 fine.
Feb 10, 2021
Petitioner hires contractors to remove dead cacti (350)andweeds(100).
Feb 25, 2021
Petitioner receives 3rd Notice, identical to the first two, with an added $100.00 fine.
Mar 18, 2021
Petitioner and the Association’s property management company (OPM) reach an agreement via email: the $100 fine is waived in exchange for payment of the $50 fine, provided no new weed violations occur within 90 days.
Mar 23, 2021
Petitioner receives 4th Notice (dated March 15), which now includes the directive “fix rock area” and a $100.00 fine.
Mar 30, 2021
Petitioner receives 5th Notice, identical to the fourth, with another $100.00 fine.
Apr 05, 2021
In an email exchange, OPM manager Danielle Miglio provides a photo with circled areas of concern, identifying exposed irrigation lines, holes, weeds, and an overgrown plant for the first time with specificity.
May 2021
Petitioner submits a formal request to the Board of Directors to review the case and waive fines.
June 2021
Petitioner is informed his request was denied by the Board.
June 16, 2021
Petitioner receives 6th Notice, which reverts to “PLEASE REMOVE WEEDS” and adds a $100.00 fine.
June 22, 2021
OPM informs Petitioner the Board would not waive fees until the violation is closed, but could remove $75 after three months of compliance.
Sep 23, 2021
Petitioner appears at a Board meeting to appeal; his request is again denied.
Oct 14, 2021
Petitioner files his formal petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
May 25, 2022
An all-day evidentiary hearing is held at the Office of Administrative Hearings.
June 14, 2022
The Administrative Law Judge issues a final decision.
Core Allegations and Arguments
The hearing addressed four specific issues raised in the Petitioner’s petition, which formed the basis of the legal arguments.
Petitioner’s Position (Wesley T Chadwick)
1. Violation of CC&R Article 10.9 (Lack of Specificity): The violation notices were fundamentally deficient because they failed to provide “specific steps which must be taken… to cure the violation.” Directives like “PLEASE REMOVE WEEDS” and “fix rock area” were overly broad. The entire front yard consists of rock, making “fix rock area” ambiguous. The Association only provided clarity with a circled photograph after issuing multiple notices and fines.
2. Violation of CC&R Article 4.5 (Exceeding Authority): The Association exceeded its authority by issuing violations for issues not explicitly covered by the language it quoted in the notices, such as exposed irrigation lines or a specific plant which was not a weed. The notices selectively quoted the portion of Article 4.5 related to weeds and debris, omitting the broader “unsightly” language, which misled the Petitioner as to the nature of the violation.
3. Violation of CC&R Article 10.1 (Improper Fine Progression): The introduction of a new issue, “fix rock area,” in the fourth notice constituted a new violation. As such, it should have been preceded by a warning notice, not an immediate $100 fine as part of a continuing violation.
4. Violation of CC&R Article 10.10 (Arbitrary and Capricious Enforcement): The Association enforced its rules selectively and arbitrarily. This was evidenced during the hearing when the Board’s Vice President, Cynthia Ecker, admitted under oath that her own property had exposed irrigation lines visible from the yard, yet she had never received a violation notice.
Respondent’s Position (Entrada Mountainside HOA)
1. Broad Discretionary Authority: CC&R Article 4.5 grants the Association’s Architectural Committee the “exclusive right to determine the existence of any nuisance” and provides wide discretion to enforce against any condition deemed “unsanitary, unsightly, offensive, or detrimental.”
2. Continuing Nature of the Violation: The entire series of violations stemmed from a single, ongoing issue of poor landscape maintenance. The Petitioner created the “debris”—the hole and exposed irrigation lines—by failing to complete the remediation after removing the cacti. This was a continuation of the original violation, not a new one, and thus did not require a new warning notice.
3. Petitioner’s Responsibility: The Petitioner failed to use his right to appeal the initial notices and only engaged with the Association after three notices had been issued. He admitted to not having reviewed the Association’s official landscape guidelines. The onus was on him to seek clarification if he found the notices unclear.
4. Good Faith Efforts to Comply: The Association manager went “above and beyond” by sending a detailed photo with circled areas, a measure not typically taken. The Association also demonstrated a willingness to work with the Petitioner on fines by waiving the initial $100 fine and later offering a potential $75 reduction.
Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale
The ALJ’s decision focused on the procedural adequacy and legal foundation of the Association’s violation notices.
Final Ruling
The petition was GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.
• Granted: The claim that the Association violated CC&R Article 10.9 by failing to provide specific notice was upheld.
• Denied: The claims that the Association violated CC&R Articles 4.5, 10.1, and 10.10 were not sustained.
Key Findings and Rationale
1. Violation of CC&R Article 10.9 (Notice of Violation): This was the central finding in the Petitioner’s favor. The ALJ concluded the Association failed its contractual obligation to provide adequate notice.
◦ Direct Quote from Decision: “Here, what the Association did was essentially tell Petitioner to ‘fix this’ without telling him exactly what needed fixing and affording him a reasonable opportunity to comply.”
◦ The directives “PLEASE REMOVE WEEDS” and “fix rock area” were deemed insufficient to inform a person of ordinary prudence of the specific actions required, such as covering irrigation lines or removing a particular plant.
◦ The fact that the Association later had to provide a photograph with “circled with specific areas of concern after issuing multiple warning letters” was cited as evidence that the initial notices were inadequate.
2. Misapplication of CC&R Article 4.5 (Nuisances): In a critical finding, the ALJ determined that the Association had cited the wrong governing article in all six of its notices.
◦ The decision states: “It is clear from the record that CC&Rs Article 4.5 is inapplicable as the regulation pertains solely to construction activities… CC&Rs Article 4.4 [Maintenance of Landscaping] should have been used by Respondent.”
◦ This finding invalidated the legal basis for every notice issued to the Petitioner.
3. Ruling on Other Allegations:
◦ Article 10.1 (Enforcement): The ALJ found no violation, concluding that notices 2-6 all “stemmed from the same issue(s)” raised in the first letter and were not new violations requiring a separate warning.
◦ Article 10.10 (Laws, Ordinances and Regulations): The ALJ found no violation because the “Petitioner failed to allege that Respondent violated a specific law, ordinance or regulation.” This indicates the claim of arbitrary enforcement was not sustained on a technical basis, despite the testimony from the Board’s Vice President.
Final Order
Based on the finding that the Association violated CC&R Article 10.9:
• IT IS ORDERED that Respondent pay $500.00 to Petitioner; a pro rata portion of his filing fee, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of the ORDER.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Wesley T Chadwick(petitioner)
Respondent Side
Nick Eicher(HOA attorney) Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP Counsel for Respondent
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that Petitioner failed to prove a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1256 because the specific issue raised—a complaint about a recorded lien—was moot, as the lien had been released, and no current enforcement action regarding the disputed legal fees was pending.
Why this result: The ALJ determined that absent a recorded lien or pending enforcement action, the Office of Administrative Hearings lacked jurisdiction to address the reasonableness or accuracy of the disputed legal fees under the specific statute cited (A.R.S. § 33-1256).
Key Issues & Findings
Requesting to Waive/or Adjust Unreasonable Collection Fees.
Petitioner sought to waive or adjust unreasonable collection fees and attorney fees ($2,351.40 or $3,500.00) charged by the HOA related to a lien placed on their unit, which was later released because it was allegedly based on incorrect amounts.
Briefing Document: Dispute Between Asmaa Kadhum and Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the key facts and legal proceedings concerning a dispute between homeowner Asmaa Kadhum (Petitioner) and the Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association (Respondent). The central conflict is the Petitioner’s refusal to pay approximately $3,500 in legal fees that the Respondent incurred during collection efforts for past-due assessments.
The dispute escalated when the Respondent, on June 15, 2020, filed a lien for $2,199.00 against the Petitioner’s property. The Petitioner contested the lien’s validity, citing numerous accounting errors. Subsequently, the Respondent’s own legal counsel advised releasing the lien on November 13, 2020, acknowledging it contained “invalid late fee charges” and was released to protect the association from a “potential false lien claim.”
Despite the release of the lien, the Respondent continued to demand payment for the legal fees. The Petitioner filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) on January 12, 2022, alleging a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1256 and arguing the collection fees were unreasonable.
Following a hearing and a rehearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ultimately ruled in favor of the Respondent. The decision was based on a critical jurisdictional issue: because there was no active lien on the property at the time the petition was filed or heard, there was no existing violation of the cited statute for the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) to adjudicate. The ALJ concluded that the OAH lacks the authority to issue a declaratory judgment on the reasonableness of the fees in the absence of a pending enforcement action by the association. The underlying liability for the legal fees remains an unresolved issue between the parties.
Parties Involved
Name/Entity
Key Representative(s)
Petitioner
Asmaa Kadhum
Asmaa Kadhum, Mazin Ahmed Al-Salih
Respondent
Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association
Jerry Latschar (Vice President), Cammy Bowring
Chronology of Key Events
Prior to May 1, 2019
Petitioner accrued unpaid assessments and fees totaling $1,375.00 under previous management (AAMG).
April 21, 2020
Respondent sent a notice to Petitioner demanding payment of $1,435.00 in past-due assessments and fees within 30 days.
April 30, 2020
Petitioner responded via email, stating it was “not a good timing for collections” due to the pandemic and requested late fees be removed.
June 15, 2020
Respondent recorded a Notice of Lien on Petitioner’s unit for an amount of $2,199.00.
August 7, 2020
Respondent’s attorney sent a notice stating the total amount due, including legal fees, was now $2,504.00.
September 10, 2020
Petitioner notified Respondent that the lien amount was incorrect and constituted an “improper lien.”
November 13, 2020
Respondent recorded a Release of Lien against the Petitioner’s unit.
December 10, 2020
Respondent’s attorney explained in a letter that the lien was released because it “included late fee charges that were found to be invalid.”
Post-Release
Respondent maintained that Petitioner still owed approximately $3,500.00 in legal fees from the collection process.
December 2021
An account ledger showed a balance of $2,685.40.
January 12, 2022
Petitioner filed a petition with the ADRE (Case No. HO22-22/028) alleging a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1256.
April 4, 2022
An administrative hearing was held before ALJ Tammy L. Eigenheer.
October 11, 2022
Following a rehearing, the ALJ issued a final decision, finding no violation of the cited statute and dismissing the petition.
October 27, 2022
Petitioner filed a miscellaneous motion, which the OAH did not consider, stating it could take no further action on the matter.
Analysis of the Core Dispute
The Disputed Legal Fees
The primary point of contention is the legal fees assessed to the Petitioner’s account for the collection of past-due assessments.
• Respondent’s Claim: The Respondent asserts that legal fees of approximately $3,500.00 are owed. However, during testimony, Respondent’s representative, Mr. Latschar, was “uncertain where the $3,500.00 total originated.”
• Conflicting Evidence: The amount claimed is inconsistent with other documents. Invoices from counsel submitted after the initial hearing showed total charges of only 661.50∗∗attributabletothePetitioner′smatterbetweenAugustandNovember2020.AledgerfromDecember2021showedatotaloutstandingbalanceof∗∗2,685.40, which included legal fees.
The Improper Lien
A foundational element of the Petitioner’s argument is the improper nature of the lien filed by the Respondent.
• Filing and Release: A lien for $2,199.00 was recorded on June 15, 2020, and officially released on November 13, 2020.
• Reason for Release: The Respondent’s attorney stated the release was necessary to “protect [Respondent] and our firm from a potential false lien claim” because the original notice “included late fee charges that were found to be invalid.” The Respondent’s response to the petition also states, “the lawyer was forced to release the lien” because of “errors” related to posting late fees.
• Varying Amounts: The Petitioner highlighted the inconsistent amounts demanded throughout the process:
◦ $1,435.00 in the April 2020 notice.
◦ $2,199.00 in the June 2020 lien filing.
◦ $2,504.00 in the August 2020 attorney notice.
Petitioner’s Position and Arguments
The Petitioner contends they should not be held responsible for legal fees stemming from the Respondent’s flawed collection process.
• Fees are Unreasonable: The core argument is that charging legal fees for an “invalid” lien based on “false statements and invoices” is unreasonable and unacceptable.
• Lack of Cooperation: The Petitioner claims to have made multiple attempts to discuss the matter and arrange payments, sending meeting requests in December 2021 that were allegedly ignored or cancelled.
• Principle of Fairness: The Petitioner argued, “if someone files a claim then realized that his filing process was based on wrong documents, and then dropped the claim himself, should the other party be responsible for the legal fees for that.”
Respondent’s Position and Arguments
The Respondent maintains that the legal fees are a legitimate debt resulting from the Petitioner’s failure to pay assessments.
• Legal Action was Necessary: The Respondent initiated legal action because the Petitioner had not paid assessments for “nearly a year” and had stated they would not make back payments until late fees were waived.
• Lien Release vs. Debt: The Respondent argues that the release of the lien “doesn’t release the balance owing, just the lien at the county.” The legal fees incurred to collect the past assessments remain due.
• Petitioner Contributed to Costs: The Respondent claims the Petitioner “proceeded to force the attorney to review the ledger, which caused further legal fees to be charged.”
Administrative Hearing and Legal Rulings
Case Details and Petition
• OAH Docket: 22F-H2222028-REL
• ADRE Case: HO22-22/028
• Alleged Violation: A.R.S. § 33-1256, which governs the placement of liens for assessments and requires that they be for “reasonable collection fees and for reasonable attorney fee.”
• Relief Sought: An order to “Waive / or Adjust Unreasonable Collection Fees.”
Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Conclusions
Across both the initial hearing and the rehearing, the ALJ’s decision was consistent and based on a narrow interpretation of the OAH’s jurisdiction under the cited statute.
• Primary Finding: The Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1256.
• Jurisdictional Limitation: The ALJ repeatedly emphasized that her authority was limited to evaluating existing liens. Since the lien was released in November 2020, well before the petition was filed in January 2022, there was no active lien to assess for reasonableness.
• Corrective Action: The ALJ stated that by releasing the improper lien, the Respondent had “fixed” the past error, removing it from the OAH’s purview.
• No Declaratory Judgment: The decision clarified that the OAH has “no jurisdiction to issue declaratory judgments.” It could not rule on whether the legal fees themselves were reasonable as a standalone issue, only whether an active lien containing those fees was compliant with statute.
• No Enforcement Action: The decision noted that at the time of the hearing, the Respondent was not pursuing any enforcement action (such as filing a new lien or foreclosure) to collect the disputed fees. The fees existed only as “a number on a ledger.”
Salient Quotes
• Petitioner:“Why why we have to pay for for them mistakes? That’s totally issue.”
• Petitioner:“$3,377 legal fee for placing lean is not reasonable or acceptable.”
• Respondent:“they caused us to obtain legal counsel by not paying their bills for almost a year… It doesn’t release the balance owing, just the lien at the county.”
• Respondent’s Attorney (via letter):“…because the original Notice of Lien ‘included late fee charges that were found to be invalid . . . a Release of Lien was recorded in order to protect [Respondent] and our firm from a potential false lien claim.'”
• Administrative Law Judge:“There is no lean on your property. I can’t say the lean is wrong because there is no lean at this point.”
• Administrative Law Judge:“I can’t I can’t say that what they did in the past was wrong because they have fixed it by releasing the lean.”
• Administrative Law Judge (Decision):“the exact amount of legal fees attributable to Petitioner is not relevant in this matter as there were no pending enforcement actions. This is not to say Petitioner may not be entitled to raise this question in a separate venue.”
Study Guide – 22F-H2222028-REL
Study Guide: Case No. 22F-H2222028-REL
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Based on the provided source materials, answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences.
1. Identify the Petitioner and the Respondent in this case and describe the nature of their dispute.
2. What specific Arizona Revised Statute did the Petitioner allege the Respondent violated, and what was the core of this allegation?
3. On what date did the Respondent file a Notice of Lien against the Petitioner’s property, what was the amount, and why was this lien later released?
4. According to the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), why did the Office of Administrative Hearings lack the jurisdiction to rule on the reasonableness of the legal fees sought by the Respondent?
5. How did the Petitioner respond to the Respondent’s April 21, 2020 notice of past-due assessments?
6. What action did the Respondent’s law firm state it was prohibited from taking until May 21, 2020, and what was the legal basis for this restriction?
7. After the initial hearing, what was the total amount of legal fees supported by the four invoices submitted by Mr. Latschar for the period between August 1 and November 30, 2020?
8. The Petitioner sought to sell their property and requested a statement from the Respondent showing a zero balance. What was the central point of contention preventing this?
9. In December 2021, the Petitioner attempted to schedule a meeting with the board to dispute a fee. What was the outcome of these requests?
10. What was the final outcome of the case as stated in the Administrative Law Judge’s decision on October 11, 2022?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The Petitioner is Asmaa Kadhum, a condominium owner. The Respondent is the Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association. Their dispute centers on the reasonableness of approximately $3,500 in legal fees the Association charged to Kadhum for collection efforts related to past-due assessments, particularly after the Association filed and then released an invalid lien on the property.
2. The Petitioner alleged a violation of A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 16, Section 33-1256. The core of the allegation was that the Association was charging unreasonable collection and attorney fees, which is a standard addressed by this statute when an HOA places a lien against a unit.
3. The Respondent filed a Notice of Lien for $2,199.00 on June 15, 2020. The lien was later released on November 13, 2020, because, as the Respondent’s attorney noted, the original Notice of Lien “included late fee charges that were found to be invalid,” and the release was recorded to protect the Association and the law firm from a potential false lien claim.
4. The ALJ stated that the court could not rule on the reasonableness of the fees because there was no longer a recorded lien against the property. The petition was filed under A.R.S. § 33-1256, which governs liens, and since the lien had been released, there was no active violation or enforcement action for the court to evaluate or remedy. The OAH has no jurisdiction to issue declaratory judgments on such matters in the absence of an active enforcement action.
5. In an email dated April 30, 2020, the Petitioner responded to the notice by stating it was “not a good timing for collections” due to the pandemic. The Petitioner disputed the total amount, claiming late fees should be removed, and stated they were planning to pay the whole amount “after this pandemic goes away.”
6. In a May 5, 2020 email, the law firm, Mulcahy Law Firm, P.C., stated that pursuant to state law, it could not proceed with collection efforts until 30 days had passed from the April 21 notice. This meant the file could not be turned over to their office for collection until after May 21, 2020, giving the owner time to pay or arrange a payment agreement.
7. According to the ALJ’s decision from the initial hearing, the four invoices submitted by Mr. Latschar after the hearing showed total charges of $661.50 attributable to the Petitioner’s matter between August 1, 2020, and November 30, 2020.
8. The Petitioner wanted a zero-balance statement to sell the property, arguing all assessments had been paid. The Respondent refused to provide this, contending that while the assessments were paid, there was still an outstanding balance for legal fees incurred during the collection process, which the Petitioner disputed as unreasonable and resulting from the Respondent’s own mistakes.
9. The Petitioner sent multiple meeting requests in December 2021 to dispute a fee of $3,377. The Respondent ultimately canceled the meeting with the homeowner and held one with only the board members, citing COVID-19 and the use of Zoom, even though previous meetings had been held via Zoom.
10. In the final decision dated October 11, 2022, the ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1256. This was because there was no recorded lien against the property at the time of the petition or hearings, and thus no active enforcement action for the OAH to adjudicate.
——————————————————————————–
Suggested Essay Questions
1. Trace the complete timeline of the dispute, starting from the initial delinquency prior to May 2019 through the final OAH decision in October 2022. Detail the key financial figures, legal actions, and communications from both parties at each significant stage.
2. Analyze the central legal arguments presented by both the Petitioner and the Respondent. Discuss the merits of the Petitioner’s claim regarding A.R.S. § 33-1256 and explain in detail the jurisdictional reasoning used by the Administrative Law Judge to dismiss the petition.
3. Examine the various financial discrepancies present throughout the source documents, including the differing amounts cited in notices, the lien filing, attorney letters, and account ledgers. How did these inconsistencies contribute to the escalation of the conflict and the accumulation of legal fees?
4. Discuss the role of the Respondent’s law firm, Mulcahy Law Firm, P.C., in this dispute. Based on the provided emails and legal documents, evaluate their advice to the Association and their actions regarding the lien and collection process.
5. Critically evaluate the communication and resolution attempts between the Petitioner and the Respondent’s board outside of the formal legal proceedings. What do the emails and hearing testimony reveal about their efforts to resolve the dispute directly?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings for government agencies, such as the Office of Administrative Hearings. In this case, Tammy L. Eigenheer served as the ALJ.
A.R.S. § 33-1256
The specific Arizona Revised Statute cited by the Petitioner. This statute pertains to liens for assessments in condominiums, including provisions for reasonable collection and attorney fees associated with such liens.
Assessment
A mandatory fee paid by condominium owners to the homeowners’ association (HOA) for the maintenance of common elements and other association expenses.
Declaratory Judgment
A binding judgment from a court defining the legal relationship between parties and their rights in a matter before any harm has occurred. The OAH stated it had no jurisdiction to issue such a judgment on the legal fees.
Department of Real Estate (ADRE)
The Arizona state agency responsible for licensing and regulating the real estate industry. Its functions include the Homeowners Association Dispute Resolution process.
A legal claim or hold on a property as security for a debt. In this case, the Condominium Association placed a lien on the Petitioner’s unit for unpaid assessments and fees.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
An independent Arizona state agency authorized to conduct hearings in contested matters for other state agencies, ensuring a fair and impartial process.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition initiating a legal case or administrative hearing. In this matter, the petitioner is the homeowner, Asmaa Kadhum.
Preponderance of the evidence
The standard of proof in most civil and administrative cases. It requires the party with the burden of proof (the Petitioner in this case) to show that their claim is more likely true than not.
Rehearing
A second hearing of a case to re-examine the issues and evidence. In this matter, a rehearing was granted after the initial April 4, 2022 hearing.
Release of Lien
A legal document that removes a previously recorded lien on a property. The Respondent recorded a Release of Lien on November 13, 2020, after acknowledging the original lien amount was incorrect.
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed. In this matter, the respondent is the Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association.
Blog Post – 22F-H2222028-REL
5 Shocking Lessons from a Homeowner’s Two-Year War with Her HOA
Introduction: The Notice on the Door
It’s a moment many homeowners dread: finding an official notice from the Homeowner’s Association (HOA) taped to the front door. For most, it’s a minor issue—a reminder about lawn care or trash cans. But for homeowner Asmaa Kadhum, a notice in April 2020 regarding approximately $1,400 in past-due assessments was the first step in a spiraling, multi-year legal war with her Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association.
What began as a manageable debt quickly escalated into a complex battle involving property liens, lawyers, and a dispute over thousands of dollars in legal fees. The case of Kadhum versus her HOA serves as a powerful cautionary tale, revealing several surprising and counter-intuitive truths about the high-stakes world of HOA disputes.
——————————————————————————–
1. You Can Win the Battle Over a Lien, But Still Owe the Fees
One of the central ironies of this case is how a clear victory on one front failed to end the war. After the homeowner fell behind on assessments, the HOA’s collection efforts caused the initial $1,435 dispute to snowball. On June 15, 2020, the HOA placed a lien on her property for $2,199. The homeowner disputed the lien’s accuracy, arguing that it contained errors.
Ultimately, she was proven correct. The HOA was forced to record a Release of Lien on November 13, 2020. This should have been the end of it, but here’s the twist: even with the lien gone, the HOA maintained that the homeowner was still responsible for approximately $3,500 in legal fees that had been incurred during the process of trying to collect the original debt. This reveals a crucial distinction in HOA law: getting an improper lien removed from your property title doesn’t automatically erase the associated collection costs from the HOA’s ledger. The manageable debt had now become a much larger problem.
——————————————————————————–
2. A Legal Technicality Can Get a Valid Complaint Dismissed
The homeowner, now facing a bill for thousands in legal fees related to a lien the HOA admitted was flawed, took her case to the Arizona Department of Real Estate. This move, however, highlights a critical strategic error. She filed her petition on January 12, 2022, alleging a violation of statute A.R.S. § 33-1256, which governs HOA liens and the reasonableness of the fees associated with them.
This led to a procedural “Catch-22” that doomed her case. The problem was timing. The HOA had released the improper lien on November 13, 2020—a full 14 months before the homeowner filed her petition. The case hinged on a procedural nuance that many homeowners might overlook: the statute she cited applies exclusively to active liens. Since the target of her complaint no longer existed by the time of the April 2022 hearing, the judge had no jurisdiction.
The Administrative Law Judge explained this jurisdictional trap in plain English:
and if there was a lien on your property right now, I could look at it and say whether or not the collection fees were appropriate, were reasonable. There isn’t one, so there’s nothing for me to evaluate.
The homeowner’s complaint about the fees might have had merit, but because she legally tied it to a violation that was no longer active, the court’s hands were tied. A different legal approach, perhaps focused on disputing the fees in another venue, may have been necessary.
——————————————————————————–
3. Correcting an Error Doesn’t Erase the Cost of Making It
The homeowner’s core argument was simple and relatable: why should she be forced to pay for the HOA’s mistakes? This question became even more pointed when documents revealed the HOA’s own attorney admitting the error. The attorney explained that the lien was released because it “included late fee charges that were found to be invalid” and the release was done to protect the association from a “potential false lien claim.”
During the hearing, the homeowner put the fundamental question to the judge: “Why… do we have to pay for their mistakes?”
Despite the HOA’s admission of error, the legal fees incurred during the entire collections process—including the work related to filing and defending the faulty lien—remained on her account. The situation reached a shocking climax during the hearing. When the judge reviewed the case, he noted that the HOA’s own representative, Mr. Latschar, “was uncertain where the $3,500.00 total originated.” The homeowner was being held liable for a debt that even her creditor couldn’t fully explain.
——————————————————————————–
4. A Disputed Debt Can Haunt a Property Sale
Even after the lien was officially released, the homeowner found herself in a financial vise. As she explained in the hearing, she wanted to sell her property and needed a formal statement from the HOA showing a zero balance to provide to potential buyers and title companies.
However, because the HOA’s books still showed she owed thousands in disputed legal fees, they would not provide this statement. This situation highlights the immense leverage an HOA maintains during a property conveyance. The dispute created a “phantom debt”—not an active lien recorded with the county, but a disputed balance on a ledger that can effectively halt a sale. The judge acknowledged this limbo, describing the amount as “just a number on a ledger.”
Yet, that number is a powerful barrier. Title insurance companies, which are essential for nearly all property sales, will not issue a clear policy if there is a known, unresolved financial dispute with an HOA. This gives the association the power to delay or prevent a sale, even without an active lien on the property.
——————————————————————————–
5. Small Communication Failures Lead to Big Legal Bills
This entire conflict escalated because of a pattern of communication failures that eroded trust long before lawyers were involved. Records show the friction began as early as November 2019, with the homeowner claiming disputes over incorrect receipts and the HOA’s alleged failure to waive late fees as promised.
The situation came to a head in April 2020. When the homeowner received the collection notice, she responded via email, stating it was “not a good timing for collections” due to the pandemic and that she planned to pay the full amount “after this pandemic goes away.” Instead of working toward a formal payment agreement, the HOA proceeded with legal action. The homeowner later claimed she tried to schedule meetings with the board to resolve the matter directly but “was never responded to.”
These failures in communication and negotiation were the direct catalyst for involving lawyers. That decision is what caused the debt to balloon from the original $1,435 to a prolonged, stressful, and expensive dispute over thousands in legal fees.
——————————————————————————–
Conclusion: A Pyrrhic Victory?
The ordeal of Asmaa Kadhum offers critical lessons for any homeowner in an HOA. It demonstrates that in these disputes, legal technicalities matter immensely, clear communication is non-negotiable, and winning a single battle doesn’t mean you’ve won the war. Even when a homeowner is “right” on a key point—like forcing the removal of an improper lien—they can still face significant and lasting financial consequences.
This case leaves every homeowner with a final, thought-provoking question to ponder: When facing a dispute with an HOA, how do you know when to fight for what’s right versus when to avoid a battle that might cost you more than you stand to gain?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Asmaa Kadhum(petitioner) Filed the petition and appeared on her own behalf,
Mazin Ahmed(co-owner) Referenced as part of 'Petitioner' definition; much of the correspondence was from/to him
Respondent Side
Jerry Latschar(board member) Goldcrest Patio Homes Condominium Association Vice President of the Board of Directors, appeared on behalf of Respondent
Neutral Parties
Tammy L. Eigenheer(ALJ) OAH Also referred to as Tammy Aganeer,,,
Louis Dettorre(Commissioner ADRE) Arizona Department of Real Estate
Miranda Alvarez(legal secretary) Transmitted decision
c. serrano(administrative staff) Transmitted minute entry
The petition was denied, and the case was vacated and remanded due to lack of jurisdiction. The OAH determined the Petitioner failed to meet the statutory definition of a 'planned community' required for the Department of Real Estate to have authority over the dispute.
Why this result: OAH lacked authority to hear the dispute because Petitioner failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Association met the definition of a 'planned community' under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4). Specifically, there was no evidence of real estate ownership, roadway easements, mandatory membership, or mandatory assessments.
Key Issues & Findings
OAH jurisdiction over the dispute based on whether the Petitioner is a 'planned community.'
Petitioner alleged Respondent violated setback requirements in the Declaration of Restrictions (Section 5). Respondent moved for Judgment as a Matter of Law, arguing OAH lacked jurisdiction because Petitioner failed to prove it met the statutory definition of a 'planned community' under ARS § 33-1802(4).
Orders: Petitioner’s petition was denied. Respondent’s motion for a Judgment as a Matter of Law was granted. The matter was vacated and remanded to the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE).
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-111(4)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Dispute, Jurisdiction, Planned Community Definition, Setback Violation, Judgment as a Matter of Law, Voluntary Membership
Additional Citations:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-111(4)
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-112
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
22F-H2222036-REL Decision – 958968.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:45:40 (45.8 KB)
22F-H2222036-REL Decision – 962071.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:45:43 (53.3 KB)
22F-H2222036-REL Decision – 966017.pdf
Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:45:47 (143.0 KB)
Study Guide – 22F-H2222036-REL
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “22F-H2222036-REL”, “case_title”: “Camelback Del Este Homeowners Association, Inc. vs. Green Elephant Development LLC”, “decision_date”: “2022-04-29”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Does the Arizona Department of Real Estate have jurisdiction over every type of homeowner association dispute?”, “short_answer”: “No, the Department only has jurisdiction over disputes involving a “planned community” as defined by statute.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ decision clarifies that the Department’s jurisdiction is limited to disputes between an owner and a “planned community” association. If an association does not meet the statutory definition of a planned community, the administrative court cannot hear the case.”, “alj_quote”: “This matter falls outside the Department’s jurisdiction pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102 and 32-2199 et seq., regarding a dispute between an owner and a planned community association.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102, 32-2199”, “topic_tags”: [ “jurisdiction”, “planned community definition”, “administrative authority” ] }, { “question”: “What are the specific requirements for an association to be legally considered a ‘planned community’?”, “short_answer”: “A planned community must own/operate real estate (or maintain roadways) and have a declaration mandating membership and assessments.”, “detailed_answer”: “According to Arizona statute cited in the decision, a planned community requires three elements: 1) The association owns/operates real estate or holds easements to maintain roadways; 2) The declaration explicitly states owners are mandatory members; and 3) The declaration explicitly states owners are required to pay assessments.”, “alj_quote”: “a real estate development that includes real estate owned and operated by or real estate on which an easement to maintain roadways or a covenant to maintain roadways is held by a nonprofit corporation… and in which the declaration expressly states both that the owners of separately owned lots, parcels or units are mandatory members and that the owners are required to pay assessments to the association for these purposes.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal definitions”, “planned community”, “assessments”, “mandatory membership” ] }, { “question”: “If my HOA membership is voluntary, can the HOA take me to an administrative hearing?”, “short_answer”: “No, the Office of Administrative Hearings lacks authority over voluntary associations.”, “detailed_answer”: “If the evidence shows that membership is voluntary rather than mandatory, the association does not qualify as a planned community. Consequently, the administrative law judge must dismiss the case for lack of authority.”, “alj_quote”: “Because the evidence failed to establish, at a minimum, that the Association is a planned community, OAH does not have any authority to consider a dispute between the Association and Respondent”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2), 41-1092”, “topic_tags”: [ “voluntary membership”, “jurisdiction”, “dismissal” ] }, { “question”: “Who has the burden of proof in a hearing regarding an alleged violation?”, “short_answer”: “The Petitioner (the party filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “The party bringing the action must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence. This includes proving that the tribunal has jurisdiction and that the specific violation occurred.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence first that this matter is properly before the OAH and then that Respondent violated Section 5 of the DECLARATION.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standards”, “procedure” ] }, { “question”: “Does an HOA need to provide actual measurements to prove a setback violation?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, specific evidence of the actual construction dimensions is required.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ noted that the HOA failed to provide evidence that construction had factually taken place that exceeded the specific setback requirements (e.g., 7ft side, 20ft front). Without measurements or factual proof of the construction’s location relative to property lines, the violation cannot be established.”, “alj_quote”: “[N]o evidence was submitted to establish… that any construction has factually taken place… which exceeds the DECLARATION’S 7ft side setback and 20ft front setback property requirements.”, “legal_basis”: “Preponderance of the Evidence”, “topic_tags”: [ “evidence”, “setbacks”, “violations” ] }, { “question”: “Is an HOA considered a ‘planned community’ if it does not own any common areas?”, “short_answer”: “No, the association must own real estate or hold easements for maintaining roadways.”, “detailed_answer”: “A critical component of the legal definition of a planned community is that the association must own and operate real estate or hold specific maintenance easements. Failure to prove this ownership prevents the association from being classified as a planned community under the statute.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner failed to present any evidence that it owns and operates any real estate, or that it has an easement or covenant to maintain roadways.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)”, “topic_tags”: [ “common areas”, “property ownership”, “planned community definition” ] }, { “question”: “What is the standard of proof used in these administrative hearings?”, “short_answer”: “Preponderance of the evidence.”, “detailed_answer”: “The standard is whether the contention is more probably true than not. This is described as the greater weight of the evidence or superior evidentiary weight.”, “alj_quote”: “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”, “legal_basis”: “MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal standards”, “preponderance of evidence” ] } ] }
Blog Post – 22F-H2222036-REL
{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “22F-H2222036-REL”, “case_title”: “Camelback Del Este Homeowners Association, Inc. vs. Green Elephant Development LLC”, “decision_date”: “2022-04-29”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Does the Arizona Department of Real Estate have jurisdiction over every type of homeowner association dispute?”, “short_answer”: “No, the Department only has jurisdiction over disputes involving a “planned community” as defined by statute.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ decision clarifies that the Department’s jurisdiction is limited to disputes between an owner and a “planned community” association. If an association does not meet the statutory definition of a planned community, the administrative court cannot hear the case.”, “alj_quote”: “This matter falls outside the Department’s jurisdiction pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102 and 32-2199 et seq., regarding a dispute between an owner and a planned community association.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102, 32-2199”, “topic_tags”: [ “jurisdiction”, “planned community definition”, “administrative authority” ] }, { “question”: “What are the specific requirements for an association to be legally considered a ‘planned community’?”, “short_answer”: “A planned community must own/operate real estate (or maintain roadways) and have a declaration mandating membership and assessments.”, “detailed_answer”: “According to Arizona statute cited in the decision, a planned community requires three elements: 1) The association owns/operates real estate or holds easements to maintain roadways; 2) The declaration explicitly states owners are mandatory members; and 3) The declaration explicitly states owners are required to pay assessments.”, “alj_quote”: “a real estate development that includes real estate owned and operated by or real estate on which an easement to maintain roadways or a covenant to maintain roadways is held by a nonprofit corporation… and in which the declaration expressly states both that the owners of separately owned lots, parcels or units are mandatory members and that the owners are required to pay assessments to the association for these purposes.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal definitions”, “planned community”, “assessments”, “mandatory membership” ] }, { “question”: “If my HOA membership is voluntary, can the HOA take me to an administrative hearing?”, “short_answer”: “No, the Office of Administrative Hearings lacks authority over voluntary associations.”, “detailed_answer”: “If the evidence shows that membership is voluntary rather than mandatory, the association does not qualify as a planned community. Consequently, the administrative law judge must dismiss the case for lack of authority.”, “alj_quote”: “Because the evidence failed to establish, at a minimum, that the Association is a planned community, OAH does not have any authority to consider a dispute between the Association and Respondent”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2), 41-1092”, “topic_tags”: [ “voluntary membership”, “jurisdiction”, “dismissal” ] }, { “question”: “Who has the burden of proof in a hearing regarding an alleged violation?”, “short_answer”: “The Petitioner (the party filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “The party bringing the action must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence. This includes proving that the tribunal has jurisdiction and that the specific violation occurred.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence first that this matter is properly before the OAH and then that Respondent violated Section 5 of the DECLARATION.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standards”, “procedure” ] }, { “question”: “Does an HOA need to provide actual measurements to prove a setback violation?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, specific evidence of the actual construction dimensions is required.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ noted that the HOA failed to provide evidence that construction had factually taken place that exceeded the specific setback requirements (e.g., 7ft side, 20ft front). Without measurements or factual proof of the construction’s location relative to property lines, the violation cannot be established.”, “alj_quote”: “[N]o evidence was submitted to establish… that any construction has factually taken place… which exceeds the DECLARATION’S 7ft side setback and 20ft front setback property requirements.”, “legal_basis”: “Preponderance of the Evidence”, “topic_tags”: [ “evidence”, “setbacks”, “violations” ] }, { “question”: “Is an HOA considered a ‘planned community’ if it does not own any common areas?”, “short_answer”: “No, the association must own real estate or hold easements for maintaining roadways.”, “detailed_answer”: “A critical component of the legal definition of a planned community is that the association must own and operate real estate or hold specific maintenance easements. Failure to prove this ownership prevents the association from being classified as a planned community under the statute.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner failed to present any evidence that it owns and operates any real estate, or that it has an easement or covenant to maintain roadways.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)”, “topic_tags”: [ “common areas”, “property ownership”, “planned community definition” ] }, { “question”: “What is the standard of proof used in these administrative hearings?”, “short_answer”: “Preponderance of the evidence.”, “detailed_answer”: “The standard is whether the contention is more probably true than not. This is described as the greater weight of the evidence or superior evidentiary weight.”, “alj_quote”: “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”, “legal_basis”: “MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal standards”, “preponderance of evidence” ] } ] }
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Robert Chiffelle(HOA President/Petitioner Rep/Witness) Camelback Del Este Homeowners Association, Inc. Also referred to as Bob Chappelle.
Jeremy Lyons(HOA Treasurer/Observer) Camelback Del Este Homeowners Association, Inc. Also referred to as Mr. Lions; submitted the petition on behalf of Petitioner.
Missy Lopez(Observer) Camelback Del Este Homeowners Association, Inc.
Dr. B. Paul Scott(Architectural Committee member/Observer) Camelback Del Este Homeowners Association, Inc.
Mike Goldwater(Previous HOA President) Camelback Del Este Homeowners Association, Inc.
Respondent Side
Ronald E. Huser(Respondent Attorney) Huser Law Firm
Bryant Aplass(Respondent Co-Owner/Director/Witness) Green Elephant Development LLC Co-owner and member; also referred to as Bryant Alpass/Applas; role listed as Director of Business Development.
Cody Sperber(Respondent President/Witness) Green Elephant Development LLC Also referred to as Cody Fergburgger.
Garrett Schmidt(Respondent Rep/Witness) Green Elephant Development LLC
Reggie Martinez(Witness) Green Elephant Development LLC
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Louis Dettorre(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
c. serrano(Legal Staff) Office of Administrative Hearings Transmitted Minute Entries.
Miranda Alvarez(Legal Secretary) Office of Administrative Hearings Transmitted ALJ Decision.
