Administrative Review | A.R.S. § 33-1805 & § 32-2199 | LC2017-000307
Terravita Country Club refused member William M. Brown’s records request, claiming the records related to criminal charges brought against him by the City of Scottsdale. Judge Patricia Ann Starr held that third-party litigation does not excuse an association from statutory disclosure duties under A.R.S. § 33-1805.
Last updated September 17, 2026. Case: Terravita Country Club, Inc. v. William M. Brown and Arizona Department of Real Estate, Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2017-000307 (minute entries use LC2017-000307-001 DT); related Arizona Department of Real Estate No. HO 17-16/005 / Office of Administrative Hearings No. 17F-H1716005-REL; Hon. Patricia Ann Starr.
Scope note: This page covers Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2017-000307, an administrative appeal under the post-Gelb statutory framework (A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.) in which Terravita Country Club, Inc. challenged an Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) order. Superior Court Judge Patricia Ann Starr affirmed the ADRE decision, holding that an association cannot withhold records under A.R.S. § 33-1805 based on pending criminal litigation against a member when the association is not a party to that prosecution. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The takeaway
The Superior Court affirmed the ADRE Final Order, holding that substantial evidence supported the finding that Terravita violated A.R.S. § 33-1805. An association cannot refuse member inspection requests on the basis of pending criminal proceedings to which the association is not a named party.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Terravita Country Club, Inc. (Plaintiff/Appellant)
Country club and community entity in Scottsdale that appealed the ADRE records disclosure order. - Anjali J. Patel (Counsel)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
Counsel of record representing Terravita Country Club, Inc.
Respondent Side
- William M. Brown (Defendant/Appellee)
Member and property owner who prevailed before ADRE and Superior Court under A.R.S. § 33-1805; appeared self-represented (pro per). - Arizona Department of Real Estate (Agency/Appellee)
State administrative department that adopted the ALJ decision as its Final Order on July 24, 2017. - Lynette Evans (Counsel)
Arizona Attorney General's Office
Assistant Attorney General appearing on behalf of the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
Neutral Parties
- Velva Moses-Thompson (Administrative Law Judge)
Office of Administrative Hearings
ALJ who conducted the evidentiary hearing (No. 17F-H1716005-REL) and ruled Terravita violated A.R.S. § 33-1805. - Hon. Patricia Ann Starr (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court
Superior Court judge who denied the stay of records disclosure and affirmed the ADRE order on the merits.
What happened
On February 6, 2017, William M. Brown requested records from Terravita Country Club under A.R.S. § 33-1805. Terravita refused eight days later, claiming the documents involved pending criminal litigation against Brown.
Brown filed a petition with ADRE. On July 10, 2017, ALJ Velva Moses-Thompson issued a decision ruling that because Terravita was not a party to the criminal case, its refusal violated A.R.S. § 33-1805. The ALJ ordered document production within 10 days and a $500 fee refund.
ADRE adopted the ruling as a Final Order on July 24, 2017, and denied Terravita’s request for rehearing.
Terravita filed a Notice of Appeal in Maricopa County Superior Court on August 23, 2017 (LC2017-000307) and moved for an emergency stay.
On December 13, 2017, Judge Patricia Ann Starr denied Terravita’s motion to stay the records disclosure, holding that Terravita failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and could not stall statutory disclosures.
On May 21, 2018, Judge Starr issued a final Record Appeal Ruling affirming the ADRE order in its entirety and directing Terravita to comply and pay Brown’s costs.
Video overview: HOA record requests and the limits of litigation privilege
A plain-English breakdown of why pending third-party criminal proceedings do not excuse an HOA from member records disclosures under A.R.S. § 33-1805.
Procedural timeline
William M. Brown submits written records request to Terravita Country Club pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1805.
Terravita sends email refusing disclosure, alleging records relate to pending Scottsdale criminal litigation.
Brown files Petition for Hearing with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (HO 17-16/005).
Office of Administrative Hearings conducts evidentiary hearing before ALJ Velva Moses-Thompson.
ALJ Moses-Thompson issues decision finding Terravita violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 and ordering compliance.
ADRE Commissioner Judy Lowe accepts decision and issues Final Order.
Terravita files Notice of Appeal for Judicial Review in Maricopa County Superior Court (LC2017-000307).
Judge Patricia Ann Starr denies Terravita's renewed motion to stay records disclosure.
Judge Starr issues Record Appeal Ruling affirming the ADRE Final Order and entering judgment for Brown.
Complete source-document index
This index contains 10 PDFs from the reviewed public source packet. Byte-identical copies are listed once. Files are ordered by the date and sequence in the public filename, and party filings or research materials are labeled separately from court rulings.
Administrative Review Orders
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Order Denying Initial Motion For Stay
Type: Court order/minute entry
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
Order Allowing Alternative Service
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Order Setting Status Conference Renewed Stay
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Status Conference Minute Entry Temporary Stay
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Status Conference Continuation Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Ruling Denying Stay Of Records Disclosure
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Order Granting Extension For Answering Brief
Type: Court order/minute entry
Responding party's first substantive response to the complaint or petition.
Order Submitting Matter For Decision On Record
Type: Decision or judgment
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Record Appeal Ruling Affirming ADRE
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
FAQ
What led to the administrative appeal in LC2017-000307?
Homeowner William M. Brown submitted a formal records request to Terravita Country Club, Inc. under A.R.S. § 33-1805. Terravita refused to produce the records, claiming they were protected because Brown was facing pending criminal prosecution initiated by the City of Scottsdale. Brown petitioned the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE), and an Administrative Law Judge ruled Terravita violated the statute. Terravita appealed that order to Superior Court.
Can an HOA refuse a records request because a member faces criminal litigation?
No. Superior Court Judge Patricia Ann Starr affirmed the ALJ’s finding that because Terravita was not a party to the criminal case brought by the City of Scottsdale, it could not claim the records were shielded by litigation exemptions. Under A.R.S. § 33-1805, pending third-party proceedings do not relieve an association of its mandatory 10-business-day disclosure timeline.
Did the court stay the disclosure order during the appeal?
No. While Judge Starr granted a temporary stay as to the $500 filing fee reimbursement, she explicitly denied Terravita’s motion to stay production of the records on December 13, 2017. The court ruled that Terravita failed to show irreparable harm, while staying production would directly prejudice the member entitled to inspect the association’s books.
What is the standard of review applied to ADRE administrative appeals?
Under A.R.S. § 12-910(E), the Superior Court must affirm an administrative decision unless the action is unsupported by substantial evidence, contrary to law, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion. The court does not conduct a trial de novo or substitute its own factual judgment for that of the administrative agency.
How does this case connect to the broader Terravita litigation saga?
This case represents the post-Gelb administrative era (ADRE under A.R.S. § 32-2199). It parallels Brown’s earlier DFBLS administrative battle (LC2012-000699 / 1 CA-CV 14-0455) and the extensive civil litigation between Terravita and Brown (CV2016-017770 and CV2017-055475), documenting a decade of disputes over governance transparency.
Case Dossier
This dossier combines the case metadata, linked court sources, and the explanatory sections below. It distinguishes court rulings from party filings, allegations, and requested relief.
Case Summary
| Case ID / citation | Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2017-000307 |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Superior Court |
| Decision / key date | May 21, 2018 |
| Judge / panel | Hon. Patricia Ann Starr |
| Parties | Terravita Country Club, Inc. (Appellant) v. William M. Brown and Arizona Department of Real Estate (Appellees) |
| Governing law |
|
| Topics | Meetings & RecordsProcedureDisclosure |
| Outcome / holding | The Superior Court affirmed the ADRE Final Order, holding that substantial evidence supported the finding that Terravita violated A.R.S. § 33-1805. An association cannot refuse member inspection requests on the basis of pending criminal proceedings to which the association is not a named party. |
| Primary public source | View hosted source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Reviewed source package | 10 PDFs |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 9 roadmap entries |
| Video overview | Terravita Country Club v. Brown: HOA Records and ADRE Oversight |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 5 questions |
| Featured download links | 3 download links |
Key Issues & Findings
On February 6, 2017, member William M. Brown requested association records from Terravita Country Club, Inc. pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1805. Eight days later, Terravita refused the request, claiming the records were protected because they pertained to pending criminal proceedings brought against Brown by the City of Scottsdale. Brown filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE No. HO 17-16/005). Following a hearing before Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson (OAH No. 17F-H1716005-REL), the tribunal found that Terravita was not a party to the Scottsdale criminal prosecution and had violated § 33-1805 by failing to provide records within 10 business days. ADRE Commissioner Judy Lowe accepted the decision, ordered Terravita to produce the records within 10 days, and ordered Terravita to reimburse Brown's $500 filing fee. Terravita appealed to Maricopa County Superior Court (LC2017-000307). Judge Patricia Ann Starr denied Terravita's attempt to stay the document disclosure and, on May 21, 2018, affirmed the ADRE order in full, confirming that third-party litigation does not exempt an association from statutory record disclosures.
Under A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), all books, records, and financial statements of a planned community association must be made reasonably available for examination by any member within 10 business days of a written request. While subsection (B) exempts certain privileged categories—such as records pertaining to pending litigation between the association and a member—Judge Starr found that the criminal charges cited by Terravita were brought by the City of Scottsdale, not Terravita.
Because Terravita was not a party to the criminal action, it could not invoke the litigation exemption. Furthermore, the court held that Terravita waived several appellate arguments by failing to adequately develop them in its briefs, citing Cullum v. Cullum. Applying the deferential standard of review under A.R.S. § 12-910(E) (Siler v. Arizona Dept. of Real Estate), Judge Starr concluded that the administrative decision was supported by substantial evidence and was neither contrary to law, arbitrary and capricious, nor an abuse of discretion.
Earlier in the appeal, Judge Starr applied the stay standard under A.R.S. § 12-911 and denied Terravita's motion to stay production of the records, finding no irreparable harm to the association while recognizing the ongoing harm to the member deprived of statutory transparency.
This ruling establishes a crucial check on association gatekeeping. Associations frequently attempt to withhold financial and administrative records by pointing to collateral disputes or outside law-enforcement complaints. This decision clarifies that only litigation where the association itself is a party can justify withholding documents, and that members' statutory inspection rights under A.R.S. § 33-1805 are strictly enforced by Arizona courts.