A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6) Bylaws, Article IV, Sections 1 and 2 A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
Outcome Summary
Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party on Petition Issues 1 and 3, establishing violations of A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6) and A.R.S. § 33-1805(A). Respondent was deemed the prevailing party on Issue 2. Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner $1,000.00 of the filing fee and directed to comply with the violated statutes going forward. No Civil Penalty was imposed.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the violation related to the appointed board positions (Issue 2) by a preponderance of the evidence.
Key Issues & Findings
The ballot for the annual election of Board members did not have the proper resident identifiers, lot number or physical address; and the process for write-in candidates was not provided or outlined.
The ballots utilized by Respondent did not contain the address of the person voting, violating the requirement that completed ballots shall contain the name, address, and signature of the person voting.
Orders: Respondent is directed to comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6) going forward.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6)
Bylaws, Article III, Section 3
At the Annual Meeting the Board President announced 2 new Board positions, but did not follow the electoral process for filling the 2 positions, instead appointed 2 residents to the new positions.
Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated its Bylaws regarding the appointment of two board positions (RV Lot Manager and Architectural Review Manager), as the Board was within its limits to increase membership and fill vacancies until the next election.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
Bylaws, Article IV, Section 1
Bylaws, Article IV, Section 2
The Board Secretary refused to comply to Petitioner's request, per ARS 33-1805(A), of supplying copies of HOA records, either electronically or by purchase of hard copies.
Petitioner requested copies in writing and offered to pay, but Respondent refused to provide copies, contrary to the statutory obligation that the association must provide copies of requested records upon request for purchase within ten business days.
Orders: Respondent is directed to comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) going forward.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
Bylaws, Article VII, Section 3
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Election, Ballot Requirements, HOA Records Request, Board Appointments, Filing Fee Refund
Must HOA election ballots include the voter's address?
Short Answer
Yes, unless the community documents explicitly permit secret ballots.
Detailed Answer
According to Arizona law, completed ballots must contain the name, address, and signature of the voter. The only exception is if community documents allow for secret ballots, in which case this information must be on the envelope.
Alj Quote
The ballots utilized by Respondent did not contain the address of the person voting. Therefore, Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6).
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6)
Topic Tags
Elections
Ballots
Voting
Question
Can an HOA refuse to provide copies of records and force me to view them in person instead?
Short Answer
No. If a member requests to purchase copies, the HOA must provide them.
Detailed Answer
While an HOA can make records available for viewing, if a homeowner explicitly requests to purchase copies, the HOA is statutorily obligated to provide those copies within ten business days. Simply offering a viewing does not satisfy a request for copies.
Alj Quote
Respondent refused to provide copies of the requested documents and would only allow Petitioner to view the documents, contrary to its statutory obligation. … Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
Topic Tags
Records Request
Transparency
HOA Obligations
Question
Can the HOA Board appoint people to fill vacancies or new positions without holding an election?
Short Answer
Yes, if the bylaws permit the Board to fill vacancies until the next election.
Detailed Answer
If the community bylaws allow the Board to increase its membership within certain limits and fill vacancies, the Board can appoint members to these positions. These appointees generally serve until the next scheduled election.
Alj Quote
The credible evidence of record established that Respondent appropriately appointed these positions and that the positions will appear on the ballot of the next election.
Legal Basis
Bylaws Article IV, Section 1
Topic Tags
Board Vacancies
Appointments
Bylaws
Question
Who has the burden of proof in a hearing against an HOA?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) must prove the violation.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner filing the petition is responsible for providing sufficient evidence to prove that the HOA violated statutes or community documents. The standard is a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning it is more likely than not that the violation occurred.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated applicable statutes, CC&Rs, and/or Bylaws by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
Topic Tags
Legal Standards
Burden of Proof
Hearing Procedures
Question
How much can an HOA charge for copies of records?
Short Answer
The HOA may charge a fee of no more than 15 cents per page.
Detailed Answer
Arizona statute limits the fee an association can charge for making copies of records requested by a member to a maximum of 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
Records Request
Fees
HOA Obligations
Question
If I win my case, will the HOA have to pay a civil penalty?
Short Answer
Not necessarily; civil penalties are discretionary.
Detailed Answer
Even if the HOA is found to have violated the law, the Administrative Law Judge is not required to impose a civil penalty. In this case, despite finding violations regarding ballots and records, the judge decided no penalty was appropriate.
Alj Quote
No Civil Penalty is found to be appropriate in this matter.
Legal Basis
Discretionary
Topic Tags
Penalties
Enforcement
Civil Penalty
Question
Can I get my filing fee reimbursed if the ALJ rules in my favor?
Short Answer
Yes, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.
Detailed Answer
If the homeowner prevails on the issues presented in the petition, the Administrative Law Judge has the authority to order the Respondent (HOA) to pay the filing fee back to the Petitioner.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner the filing fee of $1,000.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.
Legal Basis
Administrative Order
Topic Tags
Remedies
Filing Fees
Reimbursement
Case
Docket No
23F-H027-REL
Case Title
Kimberly Martinez v. Pineglen Owner's Association
Decision Date
2023-03-09
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Must HOA election ballots include the voter's address?
Short Answer
Yes, unless the community documents explicitly permit secret ballots.
Detailed Answer
According to Arizona law, completed ballots must contain the name, address, and signature of the voter. The only exception is if community documents allow for secret ballots, in which case this information must be on the envelope.
Alj Quote
The ballots utilized by Respondent did not contain the address of the person voting. Therefore, Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6).
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(6)
Topic Tags
Elections
Ballots
Voting
Question
Can an HOA refuse to provide copies of records and force me to view them in person instead?
Short Answer
No. If a member requests to purchase copies, the HOA must provide them.
Detailed Answer
While an HOA can make records available for viewing, if a homeowner explicitly requests to purchase copies, the HOA is statutorily obligated to provide those copies within ten business days. Simply offering a viewing does not satisfy a request for copies.
Alj Quote
Respondent refused to provide copies of the requested documents and would only allow Petitioner to view the documents, contrary to its statutory obligation. … Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)
Topic Tags
Records Request
Transparency
HOA Obligations
Question
Can the HOA Board appoint people to fill vacancies or new positions without holding an election?
Short Answer
Yes, if the bylaws permit the Board to fill vacancies until the next election.
Detailed Answer
If the community bylaws allow the Board to increase its membership within certain limits and fill vacancies, the Board can appoint members to these positions. These appointees generally serve until the next scheduled election.
Alj Quote
The credible evidence of record established that Respondent appropriately appointed these positions and that the positions will appear on the ballot of the next election.
Legal Basis
Bylaws Article IV, Section 1
Topic Tags
Board Vacancies
Appointments
Bylaws
Question
Who has the burden of proof in a hearing against an HOA?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) must prove the violation.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner filing the petition is responsible for providing sufficient evidence to prove that the HOA violated statutes or community documents. The standard is a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning it is more likely than not that the violation occurred.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated applicable statutes, CC&Rs, and/or Bylaws by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
Topic Tags
Legal Standards
Burden of Proof
Hearing Procedures
Question
How much can an HOA charge for copies of records?
Short Answer
The HOA may charge a fee of no more than 15 cents per page.
Detailed Answer
Arizona statute limits the fee an association can charge for making copies of records requested by a member to a maximum of 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
Records Request
Fees
HOA Obligations
Question
If I win my case, will the HOA have to pay a civil penalty?
Short Answer
Not necessarily; civil penalties are discretionary.
Detailed Answer
Even if the HOA is found to have violated the law, the Administrative Law Judge is not required to impose a civil penalty. In this case, despite finding violations regarding ballots and records, the judge decided no penalty was appropriate.
Alj Quote
No Civil Penalty is found to be appropriate in this matter.
Legal Basis
Discretionary
Topic Tags
Penalties
Enforcement
Civil Penalty
Question
Can I get my filing fee reimbursed if the ALJ rules in my favor?
Short Answer
Yes, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.
Detailed Answer
If the homeowner prevails on the issues presented in the petition, the Administrative Law Judge has the authority to order the Respondent (HOA) to pay the filing fee back to the Petitioner.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner the filing fee of $1,000.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.
Legal Basis
Administrative Order
Topic Tags
Remedies
Filing Fees
Reimbursement
Case
Docket No
23F-H027-REL
Case Title
Kimberly Martinez v. Pineglen Owner's Association
Decision Date
2023-03-09
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Kimberly Martinez(petitioner) Appeared on her own behalf
Christine McCabe(assistant/observer) Friend assisting Petitioner due to hearing deficit
Respondent Side
Susan Goeldner(HOA secretary/board member/representative) Pineglen Owner's Association Testified and acted as primary representative for Respondent
Warren Doty(HOA VP/board member/representative/witness) Pineglen Owner's Association Testified on Complaint Number 1
Tim Mahoney(HOA treasurer/board member/witness) Pineglen Owner's Association Observed proceedings; testified briefly on Complaint Number 3
Mark McElvain(former HOA president/observer) Pineglen Owner's Association Observed proceedings
Fred Bates(former board member/observer) Pineglen Owner's Association Observed proceedings
Addie Bassoon(HOA president) Pineglen Owner's Association Did not attend hearing due to personal issues; referenced in testimony/documents
Neutral Parties
Sondra J. Vanella(ALJ) OAH
Louis Dettorre(Commissioner) ADRE Recipient of initial correspondence/minute entries
Susan Nicolson(Commissioner) ADRE Recipient of final decision copies
AHansen(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of correspondence/decision copies (listed by email attn)
vnunez(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of correspondence/decision copies (listed by email attn)
djones(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of correspondence/decision copies (listed by email attn)
labril(ADRE staff) ADRE Recipient of correspondence/decision copies (listed by email attn)
The ALJ granted Petitions 1 and 4 in part, finding the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to provide records where a Board Member was acting in official capacity (survey requests and City communications), even if the management company did not possess them. Petitions 2 (recordings) and 3 (roster) were denied in their entirety. No civil penalties were assessed due to the tumultuous relationship of the parties. The Tribunal ordered that the Association shall not reimburse the Petitioner's filing fees.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove recording violations or entitlement to the roster given privacy concerns. Filing fees were not reimbursed despite partial success.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to provide records (April 2021, Nov 2021, Feb 2022 requests)
Petitioner alleged the HOA failed to provide various records including survey bids and cleanup volunteer responses. The ALJ found the Association was required to provide the survey request records as the Secretary/Treasurer was acting in his capacity as a Board Member, regardless of whether the management company possessed them.
Orders: Petition 1 granted in relevant parts regarding survey requests; remaining portions denied.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_win
Meeting recording violations
Petitioner alleged the HOA forbade video/audio recording and provided altered recordings. The ALJ found the Petitioner did not sustain his burden of proof regarding this violation.
Orders: Petition 2 denied in its entirety.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Failure to provide membership roster
Petitioner requested a membership roster. The ALJ denied this petition in its entirety, noting evidence that the Association stopped disseminating rosters due to complaints about Petitioner's unsolicited emails.
Orders: Petition 3 denied in its entirety.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Failure to provide records (Oct 2021-Mar 2022 requests)
Petitioner requested various records including emails regarding a Netflix filming event. The ALJ found the Association violated the statute by failing to provide Board Member communications regarding the event, as the member was acting in his capacity as a Board Member.
Orders: Petition 4 granted in relevant parts regarding Board Member communications; remaining portions denied.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_win
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 1000763.pdf
Uploaded 2025-12-26T14:45:55 (52.4 KB)
22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 1002291.pdf
Uploaded 2025-12-26T14:45:55 (55.0 KB)
22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 1035796.pdf
Uploaded 2025-12-26T14:45:56 (295.5 KB)
22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 980693.pdf
Uploaded 2025-12-26T14:45:56 (54.2 KB)
22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 981784.pdf
Uploaded 2025-12-26T14:45:56 (50.4 KB)
22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 982383.pdf
Uploaded 2025-12-26T14:45:57 (55.5 KB)
22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 987368.pdf
Uploaded 2025-12-26T14:45:57 (61.6 KB)
22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 987371.pdf
Uploaded 2025-12-26T14:45:57 (8.5 KB)
22F-H2222050-REL Decision – 998623.pdf
Uploaded 2025-12-26T14:45:58 (45.7 KB)
Briefing Doc – 22F-H2222050-REL
Briefing Document: Legal Proceedings and Testimony Regarding Desert Ranch HOA vs. Tom Bars
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the testimony and legal findings from the consolidated matters of Case Nos. 22 FH222050 REL and 22 SH22254 REL, presided over by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark. The proceedings center on a dispute between homeowner Tom Bars (Petitioner) and the Desert Ranch Homeowners’ Association (Respondent), managed by Associated Asset Management (AAM).
The core of the dispute involves allegations that the HOA and AAM violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §§ 33-1804 and 33-1805 by failing to provide complete records, prohibiting homeowners from recording meetings, and producing edited or incomplete audio/video recordings. The testimony of Lori Loch-Lee, Vice President of Client Services at AAM, highlights a significant transition from a self-managed association to professional management, which coincided with the adoption of more restrictive data privacy and recording policies.
Critical Takeaways:
• Recording Irregularities: Multiple board meeting recordings were found to be incomplete or contained abrupt cuts. AAM staff attributed these to technical errors or personal oversight (forgetting to start the recorder) rather than intentional editing.
• Access to Records: While the ALJ found that the majority of records requests were fulfilled, specific violations were identified regarding the failure to provide survey proposals and certain board communications.
• Privacy vs. Precedent: A significant conflict exists regarding homeowner rosters. Historically, the HOA provided unredacted rosters; however, under current management, AAM maintains that email addresses and phone numbers are private information and has withheld them from the Petitioner.
• Homeowner Recording Restrictions: The HOA implemented a policy and board resolution asserting its own recording as the “official” version and used Zoom settings to block homeowners from recording meetings directly to their devices.
——————————————————————————–
Witness Profile: Lori Loch-Lee
Lori Loch-Lee serves as the Vice President of Client Services for Associated Asset Management (AAM). She has been employed in this capacity for over nine years and has acted as the community manager for Desert Ranch HOA since approximately April 1, 2018.
Key Responsibilities:
• Financial management and accounting coordination with CPAs.
• Production of financial statements.
• Record-keeping for the association (though she clarifies that AAM is primarily a financial management company for this specific client).
• Attending board meetings and recording them via Zoom.
——————————————————————————–
Analysis of Record-Keeping and Transparency Disputes
1. Incomplete and “Edited” Meeting Recordings
A primary point of contention is the integrity of meeting recordings provided to the Petitioner.
• April 27, 2021 Meeting: The recording provided was 36 minutes and 48 seconds long, whereas the meeting itself lasted approximately one hour and six minutes. Loch-Lee testified that she “forgot to start the recording at the very beginning” and denied any intentional editing.
• September 2020 Meeting: This meeting involved an incident where the Petitioner was removed from a board member’s home. Testimony and video evidence showed an “abrupt cut” in the recording at 17 minutes and 20 seconds and another at 30 minutes and 24 seconds.
• Witness Defense: Loch-Lee repeatedly stated, “I do not edit anything. I’m lucky I turned it on and turn it off. I don’t know how to edit.” She attributed cuts to the Zoom platform or the suspension of meetings when disruptions occurred.
2. Policies on Homeowner Recording
The Petitioner alleged that the HOA violated statutory rights by prohibiting homeowners from making their own recordings.
• Technological Prohibitions: Evidence (Exhibit P243) showed a Zoom notification stating: “This meeting is not allowed to be recorded to your device. Please stop recording to continue the meeting.” Loch-Lee claimed she had never seen this message from her end.
• Board Resolutions: The board adopted a resolution stating that the HOA’s recording is the “official” version. Loch-Lee interpreted this as a means to prevent “intimidating” behavior by homeowners who would bring equipment and “cameras on their hats” to the business office, causing distress to staff.
• Consistency of Enforcement: While Loch-Lee stated she could not stop a homeowner from recording on their own side of a phone line, the HOA maintained a policy (Exhibit P71) that “no audio or visual equipment can be used by individual members of the association.”
3. Homeowner Roster and Data Privacy
The dispute over the membership roster highlights a shift in HOA policy following the hiring of AAM.
• Historical Context: Prior to 2018, the association (then self-managed) voluntarily provided unredacted rosters, including emails and phone numbers, to all homeowners.
• Current Stance: Loch-Lee testified that she treats emails and phone numbers as “private and personal and confidential.” She stated, “I have not been providing homeowner rosters to homeowners when they ask for it because it’s not a directory.”
• The “Opt-In” vs. “Opt-Out” Conflict: The Petitioner argued the association historically used an “opt-out” provision for sharing info. Loch-Lee contended that AAM uses an “opt-in” system through their mobile app, where homeowners must choose to share contact information.
• Justification for Restriction: The HOA alleged that the Petitioner used previous rosters to “blast” unsolicited emails to members, leading the board to stop disseminating the information in 2018.
——————————————————————————–
4. Bids and Financial Records
The Petitioner sought copies of various bids, particularly for street work and common area surveys.
• Retention Policy: Loch-Lee testified that she only retains bids if they are “contracted.” If the board procures a bid but does not accept it, she claims she does not keep it in the official files.
• Holbrook Asphalt Bid: Despite claims of not having certain bids, a proposal for $10,738.60 from Holbrook Asphalt was identified with Loch-Lee’s name in the “attention” line. She stated she had “no idea” why she was listed and denied destroying any documents.
——————————————————————————–
Legal Findings (ALJ Order – Case No. HO22-22050/22054)
The ALJ’s final order, issued February 21, 2023, summarized the findings based on the evidence and testimony provided during the January 2023 hearings.
Statutory Requirements (A.R.S. Title 33)
Statute
Requirement
§ 33-1804(A)
Meetings must be open to all members; any person may tape record or use a video camera subject to reasonable board rules.
§ 33-1805(A)
All financial and other records shall be made reasonably available for examination within 10 business days.
§ 33-1805(B)
Certain records may be withheld (e.g., attorney-client privilege, pending litigation, personal/health/financial info of individual members).
Summary of Rulings
• Records Compliance: The ALJ found that the “overwhelming majority” of the Petitioner’s records requests were complied with fully and timely.
• Specific Violations: The Respondent failed to timely and completely fulfill requests regarding:
◦ Survey proposals (April 27, 2021).
◦ Specific board communications involving Brian Schoeffler (December 07, 2021).
• Recordings: The ALJ noted that the beginning of the April 27 meeting was missing and that the September 2020 recording was stopped twice, but did not find sufficient evidence of “purposeful” or “flagrant” editing.
• Outcome: The ALJ ordered the Respondent to provide the missing survey proposals and communications. However, the request to levy civil penalties against the HOA was denied, and the Respondent was not required to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fees.
——————————————————————————–
Key Quotes from Testimony
On Recording Errors: “I provided the recording that I had and I forgot to start it at the very beginning. I believe this is the meeting that it happened in… I simply forgot.” — Lori Loch-Lee
On Historical Transparency: “That was then… I don’t know of any specific change, sir. What I do know is when I started managing, there’s never been any conversation about homeowner rosters.” — Lori Loch-Lee, responding to evidence that rosters were previously public.
On Data Privacy: “I’ve never sent a I don’t recall ever sending a redacted one. I have sent recently a roster with just the names on it, but homeowner addresses and email s are considered private information. I’ve always been trained that way.” — Lori Loch-Lee
On Recording Prohibitions: “I will remind you that no tape recording nor visual recording can or will be done in this business office… [the Petitioner’s family] were being very intimidating and causing a ruckus. So that’s when we stopped it.” — Lori Loch-Lee
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Tom Barrs(Petitioner) Homeowner
Jonathan A. Dessaules(Legal Counsel for Petitioner) Dessaules Law Group
Respondent Side
Desert Ranch Homeowners Association(Respondent) HOA
B. Austin Baillio(Legal Counsel for Respondent) Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.
CC&R’s Article XI, Sections 1, 2, and 3; Summit View Community Plat Notes
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, ruling that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish that the walls were built on the common area. Since HOA maintenance responsibility primarily attached to the common area, and the location of the walls relative to the lots remained unproven, the HOA was not found in violation of its maintenance obligations.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the walls were located in a common area. No survey evidence was presented to determine whether the walls were on the individual lots (Owner responsibility) or the common area (HOA responsibility).
Key Issues & Findings
HOA failure to maintain perimeter walls and improper charging of homeowners for repairs.
Petitioner alleged that the HOA (SVHA) violated CC&R Article XI, Sections 1, 2, and 3, and the Community Plat Notes by failing to maintain the subdivision perimeter walls and charging homeowners for repairs, arguing the walls abutted and were part of the Common Area (NAOS), making maintenance the HOA's responsibility.
Orders: Petitioner’s petition is denied.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
Cited:
A.R.S. § 32-2199
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
CC&R Article XI, Section 1
CC&R Article XI, Section 2
CC&R Article XI, Section 3
Summit View Community Plat Notes
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA, Maintenance, Perimeter Walls, CC&R, Common Area, Burden of Proof, NAOS, Lot Line Dispute
Who has the burden of proof when a homeowner files a petition against their HOA?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing regarding HOA disputes, the person filing the petition is responsible for proving that the HOA committed the alleged violations. The HOA does not have to disprove the allegations initially; the homeowner must first provide sufficient evidence to support their claim.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1)
Topic Tags
legal standards
burden of proof
procedural requirements
Question
What level of evidence is required to win a dispute against an HOA?
Short Answer
A 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning the claim is more likely true than not.
Detailed Answer
The standard is not 'beyond a reasonable doubt' like in criminal cases. Instead, the homeowner must show that their version of the facts is more probable than the HOA's version. It relies on the convincing force of the evidence rather than just the number of witnesses.
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
evidence
hearings
Question
If a wall touches an HOA common area, does the HOA automatically have to maintain it?
Short Answer
No. The location of the wall's foundation (on the lot vs. common area) determines responsibility.
Detailed Answer
Simply abutting a common area does not make a structure part of the common area. Unless the homeowner can prove the structure was actually built *on* the common area land, the HOA may not be responsible for its maintenance.
Alj Quote
There was no persuasive evidence presented that simply because on the other side of the wall there was a common area, does not prove that the wall was actually built on the common area.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact / Conclusions of Law
Topic Tags
maintenance
common areas
boundaries
Question
Is a professional survey necessary to prove a boundary or maintenance dispute?
Short Answer
Yes, often. Without a survey, it is difficult to prove exactly where a structure lies.
Detailed Answer
If there is a dispute about whether a wall or structure is on private property or common area, failing to provide a professional survey can result in losing the case. The judge generally cannot assume a location without specific evidence.
Alj Quote
However, again, no evidence was presented to determine exactly where the wall was built. Perhaps if this evidence was presented there may be a different result.
Legal Basis
Conclusions of Law
Topic Tags
evidence
surveys
property lines
Question
Does the alignment of walls affect who is responsible for them?
Short Answer
Yes. If walls are not uniformly aligned, it suggests they follow individual lot lines rather than a subdivision perimeter.
Detailed Answer
In this decision, the judge noted that because the walls were not in a straight, uniform line across lots (likely due to varying lot sizes), it supported the conclusion that the walls were built on individual lots rather than being a single common area perimeter wall.
Alj Quote
Further, the tribunal notes that the walls were not uniformly even across the individual lots. This was presumably because each lot is a different size, which also would lead to the conclusion that each wall was built on each individual lot.
Legal Basis
Conclusions of Law
Topic Tags
maintenance
construction
HOA obligations
Question
Can I rely solely on Plat Notes to prove HOA maintenance responsibility?
Short Answer
Not necessarily, especially if physical evidence contradicts the interpretation that a structure is a 'perimeter wall'.
Detailed Answer
Even if a Plat Note says the HOA maintains 'subdivision perimeter walls,' the homeowner must still prove that the specific wall in question fits that definition and location. If the evidence suggests the wall is on a private lot, the general note may not apply.
Alj Quote
Petitioner testified that she believed that based upon the 'Notes' section on the plat map, this created an obligation on the SVHA… [However] Petitioner has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the walls in questions are in a common area.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact / Conclusions of Law
Topic Tags
cc&rs
plat maps
interpretation
Case
Docket No
23F-H017-REL
Case Title
Carolyn Wefsenmoe vs Summit View Homeowner's Association
Decision Date
2023-03-08
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Who has the burden of proof when a homeowner files a petition against their HOA?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing regarding HOA disputes, the person filing the petition is responsible for proving that the HOA committed the alleged violations. The HOA does not have to disprove the allegations initially; the homeowner must first provide sufficient evidence to support their claim.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1)
Topic Tags
legal standards
burden of proof
procedural requirements
Question
What level of evidence is required to win a dispute against an HOA?
Short Answer
A 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning the claim is more likely true than not.
Detailed Answer
The standard is not 'beyond a reasonable doubt' like in criminal cases. Instead, the homeowner must show that their version of the facts is more probable than the HOA's version. It relies on the convincing force of the evidence rather than just the number of witnesses.
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
evidence
hearings
Question
If a wall touches an HOA common area, does the HOA automatically have to maintain it?
Short Answer
No. The location of the wall's foundation (on the lot vs. common area) determines responsibility.
Detailed Answer
Simply abutting a common area does not make a structure part of the common area. Unless the homeowner can prove the structure was actually built *on* the common area land, the HOA may not be responsible for its maintenance.
Alj Quote
There was no persuasive evidence presented that simply because on the other side of the wall there was a common area, does not prove that the wall was actually built on the common area.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact / Conclusions of Law
Topic Tags
maintenance
common areas
boundaries
Question
Is a professional survey necessary to prove a boundary or maintenance dispute?
Short Answer
Yes, often. Without a survey, it is difficult to prove exactly where a structure lies.
Detailed Answer
If there is a dispute about whether a wall or structure is on private property or common area, failing to provide a professional survey can result in losing the case. The judge generally cannot assume a location without specific evidence.
Alj Quote
However, again, no evidence was presented to determine exactly where the wall was built. Perhaps if this evidence was presented there may be a different result.
Legal Basis
Conclusions of Law
Topic Tags
evidence
surveys
property lines
Question
Does the alignment of walls affect who is responsible for them?
Short Answer
Yes. If walls are not uniformly aligned, it suggests they follow individual lot lines rather than a subdivision perimeter.
Detailed Answer
In this decision, the judge noted that because the walls were not in a straight, uniform line across lots (likely due to varying lot sizes), it supported the conclusion that the walls were built on individual lots rather than being a single common area perimeter wall.
Alj Quote
Further, the tribunal notes that the walls were not uniformly even across the individual lots. This was presumably because each lot is a different size, which also would lead to the conclusion that each wall was built on each individual lot.
Legal Basis
Conclusions of Law
Topic Tags
maintenance
construction
HOA obligations
Question
Can I rely solely on Plat Notes to prove HOA maintenance responsibility?
Short Answer
Not necessarily, especially if physical evidence contradicts the interpretation that a structure is a 'perimeter wall'.
Detailed Answer
Even if a Plat Note says the HOA maintains 'subdivision perimeter walls,' the homeowner must still prove that the specific wall in question fits that definition and location. If the evidence suggests the wall is on a private lot, the general note may not apply.
Alj Quote
Petitioner testified that she believed that based upon the 'Notes' section on the plat map, this created an obligation on the SVHA… [However] Petitioner has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the walls in questions are in a common area.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact / Conclusions of Law
Topic Tags
cc&rs
plat maps
interpretation
Case
Docket No
23F-H017-REL
Case Title
Carolyn Wefsenmoe vs Summit View Homeowner's Association
Decision Date
2023-03-08
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Carolyn Wefsenmoe(petitioner) Appeared via Google Meet on her own behalf
Respondent Side
Chad M. Gallacher(HOA attorney) Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.
Bick Smith(witness/board president) Summit View Homeowner's Association Also referred to as Vic Smith; testified for Respondent
Henry(board member) Summit View Homeowner's Association Discussed erosion issues; toured walls with Bick Smith
Denise(board member) Summit View Homeowner's Association Participated in special board meeting
Larry Burns(property manager/GM) Summit View Homeowner's Association General Manager who wrote community painting update; participated in board meeting
Neutral Parties
Adam D. Stone(ALJ) OAH
Louis Dettorre(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Transmitted minute entry to
James Knupp(Acting Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Transmitted order to
Susan Nicolson(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate Transmitted ALJ decision to
AHansen(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Email recipient for transmitted documents
vnunez(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Email recipient for transmitted documents
djones(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Email recipient for transmitted documents
labril(ADRE Staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Email recipient for transmitted documents
c. serrano(OAH Staff) OAH Signed minute entries for transmission
Helen Purcell(county recorder) Maricopa County Recorded Amended CC&R Declaration in 2004
Maria Rosana Pira(notary public) Maricopa County Notarized Amended CC&R and Bylaws in 2004
Other Participants
Elelliana(unknown) Correspondent in objected-to email exhibit
Beth Mulcahy(attorney) Mulcahy Law Firm, P.C. Firm filed the Amended CC&R Declaration in 2004
LizzieG(customer service rep) Brown Community Management Customer service contact listed on billing document
The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, finding Petitioner failed to prove the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242 regarding due process requirements for violation enforcement, as the Petitioner did not follow the required certified mail procedure to trigger those rights.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242. Petitioner did not follow the statutory requirement of sending a response via certified mail (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(B)).
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged failure to follow due process concerning violation enforcement
Petitioner alleged the Association failed to follow due process when enforcing community documents regarding damage to a semi-common element (carport) before her purchase, leading to a violation notice and subsequent enforcement.
Orders: Petition denied. Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner's filing fee as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A).
Can the Administrative Law Judge decide if I am actually responsible for the damage cited in a violation?
Short Answer
No. The ALJ's jurisdiction is limited to determining if the HOA followed the correct statutory process (due process), not determining the underlying facts of responsibility or 'guilt' regarding the damage.
Detailed Answer
The Tribunal does not have the authority to decide the merits of the violation itself (e.g., who caused the damage). Its role is strictly to determine if the Association violated the specific statutes governing the enforcement process (such as notice and hearing requirements).
Alj Quote
The record is clear that Petitioner was under the erroneous belief that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine who, if anyone, was responsible for causing the damage to Unit 16’s carport and was therefore liable for the repairs required. In all actuality, the crux of the matter for hearing is whether Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242
Topic Tags
jurisdiction
scope of hearing
violation responsibility
Question
Is it required to send my violation dispute response by certified mail?
Short Answer
Yes. Failing to send a response by certified mail may fail to 'trigger' the specific statutory due process protections afforded by state law.
Detailed Answer
The statute explicitly states that a unit owner 'may' provide a written response by certified mail within 21 days. The decision clarifies that failing to follow this specific requirement (e.g., sending an email instead) means the owner has not met the statutory requirements necessary to trigger protected due process rights under that specific statute.
Alj Quote
The record reflects that Petitioner did not follow the statutory requirements of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242 necessary to 'trigger' any protected due process rights.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(B)
Topic Tags
certified mail
procedural requirements
contesting violations
Question
What constitutes 'due process' for an HOA violation?
Short Answer
Due process generally consists of being given notice of the violation and an opportunity to be heard by the Board before any penalties are levied.
Detailed Answer
Even if a homeowner misses a technical step (like certified mail), the ALJ may find the HOA acted correctly if the HOA still provided the homeowner with clear notice of their rights/options and allowed them a hearing before the Board prior to issuing fines.
Alj Quote
Respondent nonetheless apprised her of her rights and options, and afforded her an opportunity to be heard before the Board prior to levying penalties/fines over the violation at issue.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242
Topic Tags
due process
notice
board hearing
Question
Who is responsible for repairing 'Limited Common Elements' like a designated carport?
Short Answer
Typically the Unit Owner. The specific maintenance obligations are defined in the community's Declaration.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the Declaration stated that while the Association maintains Common Elements, Limited Common Elements allocated to a specific unit are the responsibility of that Unit Owner to maintain, repair, and replace.
Alj Quote
[E]ach Owner shall be responsible for the maintenance, repair and replacement of the Limited Common Elements allocated to [their] unit.
Legal Basis
Declaration Article 5.2
Topic Tags
maintenance
limited common elements
carport
Question
Am I financially liable for damage caused by my tenants?
Short Answer
Yes. Owners are generally liable for damages to common elements resulting from the negligence or misconduct of their lessees.
Detailed Answer
The governing documents in this case explicitly stated that the owner is liable for damage to common elements resulting from the negligence or willful misconduct of the owner's lessees, occupants, or invitees.
Alj Quote
Each Owner shall be liable to the Association for any damage to the Common Elements which results from the negligence or willful misconduct of the Owner or of the Owner’s Lessees, Occupants or Invitees.
Legal Basis
Declaration Article 5.3
Topic Tags
tenant liability
rental property
damages
Question
Who has the burden of proof in an administrative hearing against the HOA?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner must prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' (meaning it is more probable than not) that the Association violated the relevant statute.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Topic Tags
burden of proof
evidence
legal standard
Question
Can I get my filing fee reimbursed if my petition is denied?
Short Answer
No. If the petition is denied, the ALJ acts under statute to order that the filing fee is not reimbursed.
Detailed Answer
The decision specifically orders that pursuant to state statute, the Respondent (HOA) is not required to reimburse the filing fee when the Petitioner does not prevail.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
Topic Tags
filing fees
costs
reimbursement
Case
Docket No
23F-H021-REL
Case Title
Victoria J Whitaker vs. Villas at Sunland Condominium Association
Decision Date
2023-02-22
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Can the Administrative Law Judge decide if I am actually responsible for the damage cited in a violation?
Short Answer
No. The ALJ's jurisdiction is limited to determining if the HOA followed the correct statutory process (due process), not determining the underlying facts of responsibility or 'guilt' regarding the damage.
Detailed Answer
The Tribunal does not have the authority to decide the merits of the violation itself (e.g., who caused the damage). Its role is strictly to determine if the Association violated the specific statutes governing the enforcement process (such as notice and hearing requirements).
Alj Quote
The record is clear that Petitioner was under the erroneous belief that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine who, if anyone, was responsible for causing the damage to Unit 16’s carport and was therefore liable for the repairs required. In all actuality, the crux of the matter for hearing is whether Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242
Topic Tags
jurisdiction
scope of hearing
violation responsibility
Question
Is it required to send my violation dispute response by certified mail?
Short Answer
Yes. Failing to send a response by certified mail may fail to 'trigger' the specific statutory due process protections afforded by state law.
Detailed Answer
The statute explicitly states that a unit owner 'may' provide a written response by certified mail within 21 days. The decision clarifies that failing to follow this specific requirement (e.g., sending an email instead) means the owner has not met the statutory requirements necessary to trigger protected due process rights under that specific statute.
Alj Quote
The record reflects that Petitioner did not follow the statutory requirements of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242 necessary to 'trigger' any protected due process rights.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(B)
Topic Tags
certified mail
procedural requirements
contesting violations
Question
What constitutes 'due process' for an HOA violation?
Short Answer
Due process generally consists of being given notice of the violation and an opportunity to be heard by the Board before any penalties are levied.
Detailed Answer
Even if a homeowner misses a technical step (like certified mail), the ALJ may find the HOA acted correctly if the HOA still provided the homeowner with clear notice of their rights/options and allowed them a hearing before the Board prior to issuing fines.
Alj Quote
Respondent nonetheless apprised her of her rights and options, and afforded her an opportunity to be heard before the Board prior to levying penalties/fines over the violation at issue.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242
Topic Tags
due process
notice
board hearing
Question
Who is responsible for repairing 'Limited Common Elements' like a designated carport?
Short Answer
Typically the Unit Owner. The specific maintenance obligations are defined in the community's Declaration.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the Declaration stated that while the Association maintains Common Elements, Limited Common Elements allocated to a specific unit are the responsibility of that Unit Owner to maintain, repair, and replace.
Alj Quote
[E]ach Owner shall be responsible for the maintenance, repair and replacement of the Limited Common Elements allocated to [their] unit.
Legal Basis
Declaration Article 5.2
Topic Tags
maintenance
limited common elements
carport
Question
Am I financially liable for damage caused by my tenants?
Short Answer
Yes. Owners are generally liable for damages to common elements resulting from the negligence or misconduct of their lessees.
Detailed Answer
The governing documents in this case explicitly stated that the owner is liable for damage to common elements resulting from the negligence or willful misconduct of the owner's lessees, occupants, or invitees.
Alj Quote
Each Owner shall be liable to the Association for any damage to the Common Elements which results from the negligence or willful misconduct of the Owner or of the Owner’s Lessees, Occupants or Invitees.
Legal Basis
Declaration Article 5.3
Topic Tags
tenant liability
rental property
damages
Question
Who has the burden of proof in an administrative hearing against the HOA?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner must prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' (meaning it is more probable than not) that the Association violated the relevant statute.
Alj Quote
In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Topic Tags
burden of proof
evidence
legal standard
Question
Can I get my filing fee reimbursed if my petition is denied?
Short Answer
No. If the petition is denied, the ALJ acts under statute to order that the filing fee is not reimbursed.
Detailed Answer
The decision specifically orders that pursuant to state statute, the Respondent (HOA) is not required to reimburse the filing fee when the Petitioner does not prevail.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee as required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01.
Legal Basis
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
Topic Tags
filing fees
costs
reimbursement
Case
Docket No
23F-H021-REL
Case Title
Victoria J Whitaker vs. Villas at Sunland Condominium Association
Decision Date
2023-02-22
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Victoria Whitaker(petitioner) Appeared on her own behalf without counsel
Kimball Whitaker(observer) Observed hearing; potential witness for petitioner
Realtor(realtor) Petitioner's realtor (name not provided)
CC&Rs Section 4.3 Storage, Section 4.17 Motor Vehicles, Community Guidelines 2007
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the North Canyon Ranch Owners Association violated its governing documents regarding the storage of a truck camper.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner's 'truck camper' falls within the scope of prohibited items, specifically as 'other similar equipment' under the CC&Rs and rules, making her argument one of semantics.
Key Issues & Findings
Whether the HOA violated its governing documents by issuing a fine for parking a mounted truck camper, based on the Petitioner's claimed 'legal loophole'.
Petitioner claimed a 'legal loophole' existed because the governing documents prohibited 'unmounted pickup camper units' or 'detached campers,' but not her currently mounted/attached truck camper. The ALJ found the truck camper was unequivocally prohibited as 'other similar equipment' under the CC&Rs and Rules, dismissing the petition.
Orders: Petition dismissed. No action is required of Respondent in this matter.
This legal transcript and subsequent judicial decision detail a dispute between homeowner Shawna Townsend and the North Canyon Ranch Owners Association regarding a fine for storing a truck camper in public view. Townsend argued that her equipment fell into a legal loophole because the association’s rules specifically prohibited “unmounted” or “detached” campers, while hers remained attached to her vehicle. In contrast, the Homeowners Association maintained that the camper violated multiple regulations prohibiting the storage of recreational type vehicles and similar equipment in driveways. During the administrative hearing, testimony was provided regarding the enforcement consistency of the community’s governing documents and the specific definitions of recreational vehicles under Arizona law. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the association, determining that the truck camper was clearly prohibited as “similar equipment” regardless of its attachment status. The petition was dismissed, confirming that the association acted within its authority when issuing the violation notices and fines.
What are the core legal arguments regarding the truck camper loophole?
How did the Administrative Law Judge rule on the association’s enforcement?
How do North Canyon Ranch guidelines define recreational vehicles and storage?
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 2:12 PM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Blog Post – 23F-H018-REL
Select all sources
1027023.aac
1031834.pdf
No emoji found
Loading
23F-H018-REL
2 sources
This legal transcript and subsequent judicial decision detail a dispute between homeowner Shawna Townsend and the North Canyon Ranch Owners Association regarding a fine for storing a truck camper in public view. Townsend argued that her equipment fell into a legal loophole because the association’s rules specifically prohibited “unmounted” or “detached” campers, while hers remained attached to her vehicle. In contrast, the Homeowners Association maintained that the camper violated multiple regulations prohibiting the storage of recreational type vehicles and similar equipment in driveways. During the administrative hearing, testimony was provided regarding the enforcement consistency of the community’s governing documents and the specific definitions of recreational vehicles under Arizona law. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the association, determining that the truck camper was clearly prohibited as “similar equipment” regardless of its attachment status. The petition was dismissed, confirming that the association acted within its authority when issuing the violation notices and fines.
What are the core legal arguments regarding the truck camper loophole?
How did the Administrative Law Judge rule on the association’s enforcement?
How do North Canyon Ranch guidelines define recreational vehicles and storage?
Thursday, February 12
Save to note
Today • 2:12 PM
Video Overview
Mind Map
Reports
Flashcards
Quiz
Infographic
Slide Deck
Data Table
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Shawna Townsend(petitioner) Appeared on her own behalf; also referred to as Shauna Townsen or Miss Townsen
Michael Townsen(co-owner) Co-owner and recipient of violation notices with Petitioner
Respondent Side
Haidyn DiLorenzo(HOA attorney) Represented Respondent North Canyon Ranch Owners Association
Justin DeLuca(HOA attorney) Represented Respondent North Canyon Ranch Owners Association
Josey Perkins(community manager/witness) North Canyon Ranch Owners Association Community Manager for the association, testified as a witness (also referred to as Joy Perkins)
Riner(board member) North Canyon Ranch Owners Association Board of Directors Made motion to deny petitioner's appeal
Robera Holler(board member) North Canyon Ranch Owners Association Board of Directors Seconded motion to deny petitioner's appeal
Petra Paul(Executive VP of Management Services) Management Services Vice President of management services, communicated with Petitioner about the appeal
Beth Mulcahy(HOA attorney) Mulcahy Law Firm, PC Listed as contact for transmission of the decision
Neutral Parties
Sondra J. Vanella(ALJ) OAH Administrative Law Judge (also referred to as Sandra Vanella)
James Knupp(Acting Commissioner, ADRE) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of the decision
The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party after establishing that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1812 by improperly combining two separate expenditure proposals (roadway preservation and gate replacement) into a single vote on a ballot, failing to provide an opportunity to vote on each action separately. Respondent was ordered to refund the $500.00 filing fee and pay a $500.00 civil penalty.
Key Issues & Findings
Combining two separate proposed actions into a single vote action on a ballot.
The Respondent HOA combined two separate proposed expenditures ($30,000 total for roadway asset preservation and common area gate replacement) into one vote on a ballot sent to homeowners, violating statutory requirements that each proposed action must be voted upon separately.
Orders: Respondent must abide by A.R.S. § 33-1812; Respondent must refund the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee; Respondent must pay a $500.00 civil penalty to the Department of Real Estate.
Can my HOA combine multiple capital improvement projects into a single 'Yes' or 'No' vote?
Short Answer
No. The HOA must allow homeowners to vote for or against each proposed action separately.
Detailed Answer
Even if the projects are related or presented in the same letter, the ballot itself must provide an opportunity to vote on each specific expenditure or project individually. Combining them into one vote violates Arizona statutes.
Alj Quote
Thus, the tribunal finds the ballot improper because it did not contain the opportunity to vote on each separate proposal.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(1)-(2)
Topic Tags
voting
ballots
assessments
Question
If the HOA conducts a vote by mail or email rather than at a live meeting, do they still have to list voting items separately?
Short Answer
Yes. The requirement to list each proposed action separately applies to absentee ballots and written ballots used without a meeting.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ rejected the argument that voting requirements only apply to in-person meetings. Statutes governing both planned communities and nonprofit corporations require that written ballots set forth each proposed action.
Alj Quote
According to that statute, the ballots still must set for each action and provide an opportunity to vote for or against each action. … Therefore, this ballot runs afoul of A.R.S. § 33-1812.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1812; A.R.S. § 10-3708
Topic Tags
absentee ballots
voting
mail-in voting
Question
Can the Administrative Law Judge force the HOA to undo a project (like a road repair) if the vote was illegal?
Short Answer
Generally, no. The ALJ lacks the statutory authority to order projects rescinded once completed.
Detailed Answer
While the ALJ can determine that a violation occurred and levy penalties, they cannot order the association to 'un-do' the physical work or rescind the project.
Alj Quote
The Administrative Law Judge does not have the authority under the A.R.S. § 32-2199.02 to order the projects rescinded…
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
Topic Tags
remedies
powers of ALJ
construction
Question
What is the standard of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA in an administrative hearing?
Short Answer
Preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) must prove that their contention is 'more probably true than not.'
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
Topic Tags
legal standards
burden of proof
evidence
Question
Can the HOA claim that their specific bylaws or CC&Rs override state laws regarding ballot formats?
Short Answer
No. The relevant state statute explicitly overrides community documents regarding absentee ballot requirements.
Detailed Answer
The statute begins with 'Notwithstanding any provision in the community documents,' meaning the state law requirements for ballots take precedence over the HOA's internal rules.
Alj Quote
A.R.S. § 33-1812 provides… 'Notwithstanding any provision in the community documents… any action taken… shall comply with all of the following…'
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)
Topic Tags
governing documents
statutory interpretation
supremacy of law
Question
If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?
Short Answer
Yes. The ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the homeowner for the filing fee.
Detailed Answer
In this decision, the HOA was ordered to pay the $500 filing fee directly to the Petitioner.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.
Legal Basis
Order of the ALJ
Topic Tags
remedies
fees
penalties
Question
Does a majority vote of the homeowners cure a defective ballot?
Short Answer
No. Even if the vast majority of homeowners approved the spending, the ballot can still be ruled a violation.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ noted that although most homeowners approved the proposal, the violation still stood because allowing such ballots would leave 'virtually no remedy' for future procedural violations.
Alj Quote
In this case, although the vast majority of homeowners approved the proposals, the Administrative Law Judge is concerned that this type of ballot could be used in the future, leaving virtually no remedy.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1812
Topic Tags
voting results
procedural violations
compliance
Case
Docket No
23F-H020-REL
Case Title
Daniel Mayer vs Scottsdale North Homeowners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2023-02-17
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
Can my HOA combine multiple capital improvement projects into a single 'Yes' or 'No' vote?
Short Answer
No. The HOA must allow homeowners to vote for or against each proposed action separately.
Detailed Answer
Even if the projects are related or presented in the same letter, the ballot itself must provide an opportunity to vote on each specific expenditure or project individually. Combining them into one vote violates Arizona statutes.
Alj Quote
Thus, the tribunal finds the ballot improper because it did not contain the opportunity to vote on each separate proposal.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(1)-(2)
Topic Tags
voting
ballots
assessments
Question
If the HOA conducts a vote by mail or email rather than at a live meeting, do they still have to list voting items separately?
Short Answer
Yes. The requirement to list each proposed action separately applies to absentee ballots and written ballots used without a meeting.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ rejected the argument that voting requirements only apply to in-person meetings. Statutes governing both planned communities and nonprofit corporations require that written ballots set forth each proposed action.
Alj Quote
According to that statute, the ballots still must set for each action and provide an opportunity to vote for or against each action. … Therefore, this ballot runs afoul of A.R.S. § 33-1812.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1812; A.R.S. § 10-3708
Topic Tags
absentee ballots
voting
mail-in voting
Question
Can the Administrative Law Judge force the HOA to undo a project (like a road repair) if the vote was illegal?
Short Answer
Generally, no. The ALJ lacks the statutory authority to order projects rescinded once completed.
Detailed Answer
While the ALJ can determine that a violation occurred and levy penalties, they cannot order the association to 'un-do' the physical work or rescind the project.
Alj Quote
The Administrative Law Judge does not have the authority under the A.R.S. § 32-2199.02 to order the projects rescinded…
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
Topic Tags
remedies
powers of ALJ
construction
Question
What is the standard of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA in an administrative hearing?
Short Answer
Preponderance of the evidence.
Detailed Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) must prove that their contention is 'more probably true than not.'
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
Topic Tags
legal standards
burden of proof
evidence
Question
Can the HOA claim that their specific bylaws or CC&Rs override state laws regarding ballot formats?
Short Answer
No. The relevant state statute explicitly overrides community documents regarding absentee ballot requirements.
Detailed Answer
The statute begins with 'Notwithstanding any provision in the community documents,' meaning the state law requirements for ballots take precedence over the HOA's internal rules.
Alj Quote
A.R.S. § 33-1812 provides… 'Notwithstanding any provision in the community documents… any action taken… shall comply with all of the following…'
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)
Topic Tags
governing documents
statutory interpretation
supremacy of law
Question
If I win my case against the HOA, can I get my filing fee back?
Short Answer
Yes. The ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the homeowner for the filing fee.
Detailed Answer
In this decision, the HOA was ordered to pay the $500 filing fee directly to the Petitioner.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of this Order.
Legal Basis
Order of the ALJ
Topic Tags
remedies
fees
penalties
Question
Does a majority vote of the homeowners cure a defective ballot?
Short Answer
No. Even if the vast majority of homeowners approved the spending, the ballot can still be ruled a violation.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ noted that although most homeowners approved the proposal, the violation still stood because allowing such ballots would leave 'virtually no remedy' for future procedural violations.
Alj Quote
In this case, although the vast majority of homeowners approved the proposals, the Administrative Law Judge is concerned that this type of ballot could be used in the future, leaving virtually no remedy.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1812
Topic Tags
voting results
procedural violations
compliance
Case
Docket No
23F-H020-REL
Case Title
Daniel Mayer vs Scottsdale North Homeowners Association, Inc.
Decision Date
2023-02-17
Alj Name
Adam D. Stone
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Daniel Mayer(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf
Mr. D'Angelo(witness) Petitioner's husband
Respondent Side
Sandy Chambers(board president) Scottsdale North Homeowners Association, Inc. Appeared on behalf of Respondent; also referred to as 'Andrew Chambers' and 'Miss Chambers' in the transcript
Neutral Parties
Adam D. Stone(ALJ) OAH
Miranda(OAH staff) OAH Front desk staff mentioned by ALJ
James Knupp(commissioner) ADRE Acting Commissioner listed on initial transmittal
Susan Nicolson(commissioner) ADRE
AHansen(ADRE staff) ADRE Transmittal recipient
vnunez(ADRE staff) ADRE Transmittal recipient
labril(ADRE staff) ADRE Transmittal recipient
djones(ADRE staff) ADRE Transmittal recipient
Other Participants
jzipprich(property manager) Desert Management Email contact for Respondent HOA
Articles of Incorporation Article 8, Covenants, Limitations & Restrictions Article 19 Sec. A, Covenants, Limitations & Restrictions Article 19 Sec. B
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Respondent HOA's Articles of Incorporation had been previously amended to be perpetual (1994, 1999) and that the CLRs automatically renew for an additional 25 years without requiring a homeowner vote, provided no modifications or changes are made.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that Respondent violated the Articles of Incorporation or the CLRs, as the evidence showed the corporation's existence was perpetual and the CLRs' automatic renewal was permissible without a vote.
Key Issues & Findings
Expiration of HOA Charter and unlawful extension of CLRs by Board resolution without member vote
Petitioner alleged the HOA's charter and CLRs expired after 50 years (2022) and that the Board unlawfully extended the CLRs for 25 years via a resolution (Resolution/Memorandum of September 27, 2022) without the required vote of the co-owners. The ALJ found that the Articles of Incorporation were perpetually extended by amendments in 1994 and 1999, and the CLRs automatically renewed without a vote because no modifications were made.
Orders: Petitioner’s Petition is dismissed.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
Articles of Incorporation (1972)
Articles of Amendment (1994)
Articles of Amendment (1999)
CLRs Unit One (1972)
Resolution 092722 (Sept 27, 2022)
Analytics Highlights
Topics: HOA Charter Expiration, CLRs Renewal, Perpetual Existence, Amendment Vote, HOA Board Authority, Arizona Real Estate Statute
If the CC&Rs (or CLRs) include an automatic renewal clause, does the HOA board require a homeowner vote to extend them?
Short Answer
No. If the documents allow for automatic renewal and no other changes are made, a vote is not required because renewal is not considered a modification.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that if the governing documents provide for automatic renewal for specific periods (e.g., 25 years), the simple act of renewing does not constitute a 'change' or 'modification' that would trigger a voting requirement. A vote is generally only required if the text of the documents is actually being altered.
Alj Quote
Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that any changes or modifications were made to the CLRs, and the Administrative Law Judge concludes that the automatic renewal of the CLRs does not constitute a modification/change that required a vote of the homeowners.
Legal Basis
Conclusion of Law 4
Topic Tags
CC&R Renewal
Voting Rights
Governing Documents
Question
Who bears the burden of proof when a homeowner files a petition against their HOA?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof to establish the violation.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing, the person filing the complaint must prove their case. The HOA does not initially have to prove they are innocent; the homeowner must prove the HOA committed the violation.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
Conclusion of Law 2; A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
Topic Tags
Legal Procedure
Burden of Proof
Question
What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean in an HOA dispute?
Short Answer
It means the claim is 'more probably true than not.'
Detailed Answer
The standard is not 'beyond a reasonable doubt' (like in criminal court). Instead, it is based on the greater weight of the evidence, which must be sufficient to incline a fair mind to one side rather than the other.
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
Conclusion of Law 3
Topic Tags
Legal Standards
Evidence
Question
Can an HOA amend its Articles of Incorporation to exist perpetually if they originally had an expiration date?
Short Answer
Yes, an HOA can amend its Articles to extend its duration to be perpetual.
Detailed Answer
The decision upheld the validity of previous amendments where the HOA changed its corporate duration from a fixed term (e.g., 25 years) to 'perpetual.'
Alj Quote
Respondent amended its Articles of Incorporation, Section VIII, on November 18, 1994, and again on January 15, 1999, which extended the duration of the Articles of Incorporation perpetually.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact 10-12; Conclusion of Law 4
Topic Tags
Corporate Charter
Amendments
Articles of Incorporation
Question
Where can an Arizona homeowner file a dispute regarding violations of community documents?
Short Answer
A petition can be filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE).
Detailed Answer
Arizona law allows homeowners or associations to file a petition with the Department regarding violations of the documents or statutes regulating planned communities. These are then heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Alj Quote
Arizona statute permits an owner or a planned community organization to file a petition with the Department for a hearing concerning violations of planned community documents or violations of statutes that regulate planned communities.
Legal Basis
Conclusion of Law 1; A.R.S. § 32-2199
Topic Tags
Dispute Resolution
ADRE
Jurisdiction
Question
Does a lack of knowledge about old amendments invalidate them?
Short Answer
No. Even if a current homeowner was unaware of amendments filed decades ago, they are still binding if properly recorded.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the petitioner was unaware of amendments from 1994 and 1999 until the hearing, but the ALJ still relied on those documents to determine that the corporation had not expired.
Alj Quote
Petitioner was not aware of the 1994 and 1999 amendments to the Articles of Incorporation until hearing… The credible and probative evidence of record established that Respondent amended its Articles of Incorporation… which extended the duration of the Articles of Incorporation perpetually.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact 13; Conclusion of Law 4
Topic Tags
Record Keeping
Constructive Notice
Amendments
Case
Docket No
23F-H019-REL
Case Title
Pamela McKinney v. Valle Vista Property Owners Association
Decision Date
2023-01-31
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
If the CC&Rs (or CLRs) include an automatic renewal clause, does the HOA board require a homeowner vote to extend them?
Short Answer
No. If the documents allow for automatic renewal and no other changes are made, a vote is not required because renewal is not considered a modification.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that if the governing documents provide for automatic renewal for specific periods (e.g., 25 years), the simple act of renewing does not constitute a 'change' or 'modification' that would trigger a voting requirement. A vote is generally only required if the text of the documents is actually being altered.
Alj Quote
Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that any changes or modifications were made to the CLRs, and the Administrative Law Judge concludes that the automatic renewal of the CLRs does not constitute a modification/change that required a vote of the homeowners.
Legal Basis
Conclusion of Law 4
Topic Tags
CC&R Renewal
Voting Rights
Governing Documents
Question
Who bears the burden of proof when a homeowner files a petition against their HOA?
Short Answer
The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof to establish the violation.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing, the person filing the complaint must prove their case. The HOA does not initially have to prove they are innocent; the homeowner must prove the HOA committed the violation.
Alj Quote
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Basis
Conclusion of Law 2; A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
Topic Tags
Legal Procedure
Burden of Proof
Question
What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean in an HOA dispute?
Short Answer
It means the claim is 'more probably true than not.'
Detailed Answer
The standard is not 'beyond a reasonable doubt' (like in criminal court). Instead, it is based on the greater weight of the evidence, which must be sufficient to incline a fair mind to one side rather than the other.
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
Conclusion of Law 3
Topic Tags
Legal Standards
Evidence
Question
Can an HOA amend its Articles of Incorporation to exist perpetually if they originally had an expiration date?
Short Answer
Yes, an HOA can amend its Articles to extend its duration to be perpetual.
Detailed Answer
The decision upheld the validity of previous amendments where the HOA changed its corporate duration from a fixed term (e.g., 25 years) to 'perpetual.'
Alj Quote
Respondent amended its Articles of Incorporation, Section VIII, on November 18, 1994, and again on January 15, 1999, which extended the duration of the Articles of Incorporation perpetually.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact 10-12; Conclusion of Law 4
Topic Tags
Corporate Charter
Amendments
Articles of Incorporation
Question
Where can an Arizona homeowner file a dispute regarding violations of community documents?
Short Answer
A petition can be filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE).
Detailed Answer
Arizona law allows homeowners or associations to file a petition with the Department regarding violations of the documents or statutes regulating planned communities. These are then heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Alj Quote
Arizona statute permits an owner or a planned community organization to file a petition with the Department for a hearing concerning violations of planned community documents or violations of statutes that regulate planned communities.
Legal Basis
Conclusion of Law 1; A.R.S. § 32-2199
Topic Tags
Dispute Resolution
ADRE
Jurisdiction
Question
Does a lack of knowledge about old amendments invalidate them?
Short Answer
No. Even if a current homeowner was unaware of amendments filed decades ago, they are still binding if properly recorded.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the petitioner was unaware of amendments from 1994 and 1999 until the hearing, but the ALJ still relied on those documents to determine that the corporation had not expired.
Alj Quote
Petitioner was not aware of the 1994 and 1999 amendments to the Articles of Incorporation until hearing… The credible and probative evidence of record established that Respondent amended its Articles of Incorporation… which extended the duration of the Articles of Incorporation perpetually.
Legal Basis
Findings of Fact 13; Conclusion of Law 4
Topic Tags
Record Keeping
Constructive Notice
Amendments
Case
Docket No
23F-H019-REL
Case Title
Pamela McKinney v. Valle Vista Property Owners Association
Decision Date
2023-01-31
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Pamela McKinney(petitioner) Appeared on her own behalf
Respondent Side
Alan A. Meda(HOA attorney) Burch & Cracchiolo Represented Respondent Valle Vista Property Owners Association
Sharon Grossi(board member) Valle Vista Property Owners Association President of the Board; testified as a witness for Respondent
Rebecca Bankov(property manager) Valle Vista Property Owners Association Also referred to as Rebecca fan
Amy Wood(board member) Valle Vista Property Owners Association Secretary on the board
Thomas Noble(board member) Valle Vista Property Owners Association Former President of the Board (mentioned in communication)
Stan Andrews(board member) Valle Vista Property Owners Association Mentioned by Petitioner as a board member
Ray Rose(board member) Valle Vista Property Owners Association Recently resigned from the board
Neutral Parties
Sondra J. Vanella(ALJ) OAH Administrative Law Judge
Jean Newman(CPA) Independent auditor who prepared financial report
Other Participants
Dennis Hope(Fire Chief) Northern Arizona Fire District External party cited in board communications regarding water shutoff threats
Petitioner's entire petition was denied because the Department of Real Estate/OAH lacked statutory jurisdiction over the Association. The Association was found not to meet the statutory definitions of a condominium association or a planned community association because it does not own common areas or real property.
Why this result: OAH determined it lacked jurisdiction pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq., because the Respondent Association is neither a condominium association nor a planned community association (ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 33-1202(10) and 33-1802(4)).
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged use of Association funds for maintenance on private property.
Petitioner alleged that the Association used HOA funds for maintenance on private property in violation of Section 12.B of the CC&Rs.
Orders: Petition denied due to lack of OAH jurisdiction.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
Cited:
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1202(10)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)
Declaration Section 12.B
Alleged failure to provide requested financial documents and meeting minutes.
Petitioner requested monthly bank statements and financial reports for 2022, and financial books for 2021, which Respondent allegedly failed to provide in violation of ARS § 33-1805.
Orders: Petition denied due to lack of OAH jurisdiction.
If my HOA doesn't own any common areas or real property, can I still file a dispute with the Department of Real Estate?
Short Answer
No. If the association does not own real property, it may not meet the statutory definition of a 'planned community,' meaning the Department lacks jurisdiction to hear the dispute.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that because the Association did not own any real property or common areas, it did not qualify as a 'planned community' under Arizona statutes. Consequently, the Department of Real Estate had no authority to enforce the Planned Communities Act against it.
Alj Quote
The record also reflects that the Association is also not a planned community association because it does not own any real property. As a result, neither the Condominium Act nor the Planned Communities Act governs the Association and neither Act can be enforced against it.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1802(4); A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
Topic Tags
jurisdiction
common areas
planned community definition
Question
What evidence do I need to provide if I claim the HOA is spending money on maintenance in violation of the CC&Rs?
Short Answer
You must provide specific details such as the exact amounts spent, who performed the work, the specific locations (lots), and the dates/duration of the work.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ noted that the homeowner failed to support his claim because he could not provide specific facts regarding the alleged improper expenditures. General testimony without specific data (amounts, dates, locations) is insufficient.
Alj Quote
Petitioner, however, could not identify the amount Respondent allegedly spent on said landscaping, by whom the maintenance was performed, on which lots the maintenance was performed, or when and for what duration the alleged maintenance took place.
Legal Basis
Burden of Proof
Topic Tags
evidence
maintenance
misuse of funds
Question
Is a verbal request enough to prove the HOA failed to provide financial documents?
Short Answer
Likely not. To succeed in a hearing, you must be able to prove the specific date of the request and the identity of the person to whom the request was made.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ found the homeowner's testimony insufficient because he claimed to have made verbal requests but could not recall when they happened or who he asked.
Alj Quote
Petitioner testified that he verbally requested 'financials' and 'meeting minutes' from Respondent, but could not provide the date(s) of the request(s) and/or name the person(s) to whom the request(s) were made.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
records request
evidence
financials
Question
Are the CC&Rs considered a binding contract?
Short Answer
Yes. When a homeowner buys a property within the development, they agree to be bound by the terms of the Declaration, forming an enforceable contract.
Detailed Answer
The decision affirms that the Declaration acts as a contract between the Association and the property owner upon purchase.
Alj Quote
Thus, the Declaration forms an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner.
Legal Basis
Contract Law
Topic Tags
CC&Rs
contract
enforceability
Question
What is the legal definition of a 'condominium' in Arizona regarding HOA disputes?
Short Answer
Real estate is only a condominium if the unit owners are vested with undivided interests in the common elements.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ clarified that if owners do not have undivided interests in common elements, the development is not a condominium under the law.
Alj Quote
Real estate is not a condominium unless the undivided interests in the common elements are vested in the unit owners.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1202(10)
Topic Tags
condominium definition
common elements
Question
Can the HOA be excused from providing financial records if a former board member failed to hand them over?
Short Answer
Potentially yes. The ALJ noted testimony that the HOA could not provide certain records because the Petitioner (a former Treasurer) had failed to return them after leaving the board.
Detailed Answer
While the case was decided on jurisdiction, the decision recorded the HOA's defense that the 2022 financial statement was incomplete because the former Treasurer (the Petitioner) did not remit the necessary documentation.
Alj Quote
Ms. Wickenheiser testified that Respondent was unable to comply with Petitioner’s request for the Association’s 2022 financial statement… in large part, because Petitioner had served as the Association’s Treasurer for that fiscal year and had failed to remit the Association’s financial documentation
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
records
board member duties
treasurer
Case
Docket No
23F-H007-REL
Case Title
Donald F. Molley v. Verde Meadows Crest Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2023-01-20
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Questions
Question
If my HOA doesn't own any common areas or real property, can I still file a dispute with the Department of Real Estate?
Short Answer
No. If the association does not own real property, it may not meet the statutory definition of a 'planned community,' meaning the Department lacks jurisdiction to hear the dispute.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ determined that because the Association did not own any real property or common areas, it did not qualify as a 'planned community' under Arizona statutes. Consequently, the Department of Real Estate had no authority to enforce the Planned Communities Act against it.
Alj Quote
The record also reflects that the Association is also not a planned community association because it does not own any real property. As a result, neither the Condominium Act nor the Planned Communities Act governs the Association and neither Act can be enforced against it.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1802(4); A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
Topic Tags
jurisdiction
common areas
planned community definition
Question
What evidence do I need to provide if I claim the HOA is spending money on maintenance in violation of the CC&Rs?
Short Answer
You must provide specific details such as the exact amounts spent, who performed the work, the specific locations (lots), and the dates/duration of the work.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ noted that the homeowner failed to support his claim because he could not provide specific facts regarding the alleged improper expenditures. General testimony without specific data (amounts, dates, locations) is insufficient.
Alj Quote
Petitioner, however, could not identify the amount Respondent allegedly spent on said landscaping, by whom the maintenance was performed, on which lots the maintenance was performed, or when and for what duration the alleged maintenance took place.
Legal Basis
Burden of Proof
Topic Tags
evidence
maintenance
misuse of funds
Question
Is a verbal request enough to prove the HOA failed to provide financial documents?
Short Answer
Likely not. To succeed in a hearing, you must be able to prove the specific date of the request and the identity of the person to whom the request was made.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ found the homeowner's testimony insufficient because he claimed to have made verbal requests but could not recall when they happened or who he asked.
Alj Quote
Petitioner testified that he verbally requested 'financials' and 'meeting minutes' from Respondent, but could not provide the date(s) of the request(s) and/or name the person(s) to whom the request(s) were made.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
records request
evidence
financials
Question
Are the CC&Rs considered a binding contract?
Short Answer
Yes. When a homeowner buys a property within the development, they agree to be bound by the terms of the Declaration, forming an enforceable contract.
Detailed Answer
The decision affirms that the Declaration acts as a contract between the Association and the property owner upon purchase.
Alj Quote
Thus, the Declaration forms an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner.
Legal Basis
Contract Law
Topic Tags
CC&Rs
contract
enforceability
Question
What is the legal definition of a 'condominium' in Arizona regarding HOA disputes?
Short Answer
Real estate is only a condominium if the unit owners are vested with undivided interests in the common elements.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ clarified that if owners do not have undivided interests in common elements, the development is not a condominium under the law.
Alj Quote
Real estate is not a condominium unless the undivided interests in the common elements are vested in the unit owners.
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1202(10)
Topic Tags
condominium definition
common elements
Question
Can the HOA be excused from providing financial records if a former board member failed to hand them over?
Short Answer
Potentially yes. The ALJ noted testimony that the HOA could not provide certain records because the Petitioner (a former Treasurer) had failed to return them after leaving the board.
Detailed Answer
While the case was decided on jurisdiction, the decision recorded the HOA's defense that the 2022 financial statement was incomplete because the former Treasurer (the Petitioner) did not remit the necessary documentation.
Alj Quote
Ms. Wickenheiser testified that Respondent was unable to comply with Petitioner’s request for the Association’s 2022 financial statement… in large part, because Petitioner had served as the Association’s Treasurer for that fiscal year and had failed to remit the Association’s financial documentation
Legal Basis
A.R.S. § 33-1805
Topic Tags
records
board member duties
treasurer
Case
Docket No
23F-H007-REL
Case Title
Donald F. Molley v. Verde Meadows Crest Homeowners Association
Decision Date
2023-01-20
Alj Name
Jenna Clark
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
Donald F. Molley(petitioner) Appeared on his own behalf; also referred to as Donald Molley or Mr. Molly; previously served as Association board member and treasurer
Respondent Side
Kari Wickenheiser(board president) Verde Meadows Crest Homeowners Association Testified on behalf of Respondent; also referred to as Miss Wizer/Wenheiser
Sean K. Moynihan(HOA attorney) Smith & Wamsley, PLLC Counsel for Respondent
Sue Antonio(board member) Verde Meadows Crest Homeowners Association Former President, Treasurer, and Secretary of the HOA, mentioned in testimony
Neutral Parties
Jenna Clark(ALJ) Office of Administrative Hearings
Louis Dettorre(Commissioner) Arizona Department of Real Estate
c. serrano(OAH staff) Office of Administrative Hearings Transmitted documents
Miranda Alvarez(legal secretary) Office of Administrative Hearings Transmitted documents
AHansen(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of transmittal
vnunez(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of transmittal
djones(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of transmittal
labril(ADRE staff) Arizona Department of Real Estate Recipient of transmittal