Administrative Review | A.R.S. § 12-341.01 & § 33-1805 | LC2012-000699
After demanding Terravita Community Association’s legal engagement agreements and executive minutes, homeowner William M. Brown was hit with a $5,000 attorney fee award in Superior Court. Representing himself before the Court of Appeals, Brown secured a full reversal, cementing key limits on HOA fee shifting.
Last updated September 17, 2026. Case: William M. Brown v. Terravita Community Association, Inc. and Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety, Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2012-000699 (minute entries use LC2012-000699-001 DT); related Office of Administrative Hearings No. 12F-H1212014-BFS; Court of Appeals No. 1 CA-CV 14-0455; The Hon. Crane McClennen.
Scope note: This page covers Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2012-000699 and Court of Appeals No. 1 CA-CV 14-0455, an administrative appeal arising from a DFBLS records dispute. Superior Court Judge Crane McClennen initially affirmed the administrative dismissal of homeowner William M. Brown’s records petition and entered a $5,000 attorney fee judgment against him under A.R.S. § 12-341.01. Brown appealed pro se to the Arizona Court of Appeals, which issued a Memorandum Decision on July 30, 2015 reversing the fee award and declaring Brown the prevailing party, resulting in a judgment in Brown’s favor on remand. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The takeaway
Following the Arizona Court of Appeals reversal in 1 CA-CV 14-0455, the Superior Court vacated the $5,000 attorney fee judgment against homeowner William M. Brown and entered final judgment in his favor. Administrative review petitions concerning statutory record requests do not trigger fee shifting against homeowners under A.R.S. § 12-341.01.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- William M. Brown (Plaintiff/Appellant)
Homeowner who appealed the DFBLS ruling and achieved complete reversal of the $5,000 attorney fee penalty on appeal; appeared pro per.
Respondent Side
- Terravita Community Association, Inc. (Defendant/Appellee)
Master planned community association in Scottsdale that obtained the initial fee judgment which was overturned on appeal. - Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety (Agency/Appellee)
State administrative department whose certified decision was under judicial review. - Curtis S. Ekmark (Counsel)
Ekmark & Ekmark, L.L.C.
Counsel of record representing Terravita Community Association, Inc. - Mary D. Williams (Counsel)
Arizona Attorney General's Office
Assistant Attorney General appearing on behalf of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.
Neutral Parties
- Brian Brendan Tully (Administrative Law Judge)
Office of Administrative Hearings
ALJ who granted summary judgment for mootness (No. 12F-H1212014-BFS) holding records were privileged. - The Hon. Crane McClennen (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court
Superior Court judge who entered the initial fee award and subsequently entered judgment for Brown on appellate remand.
What happened
On May 25, 2012, William M. Brown requested Terravita’s legal representation contracts and executive session minutes pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1805.
The association declined to produce the documents, asserting attorney-client privilege and executive session confidentiality.
Brown filed an administrative petition with DFBLS. On October 4, 2012, ALJ Brian Brendan Tully granted summary judgment for mootness, holding Brown was not legally entitled to the records.
Brown appealed to Maricopa County Superior Court on December 24, 2012 (LC2012-000699). Judge Crane McClennen affirmed the agency decision on November 22, 2013, and on February 13, 2014 awarded Terravita $5,000 in attorneys’ fees.
Brown posted a supersedeas bond and appealed pro se to the Arizona Court of Appeals (1 CA-CV 14-0455).
On July 30, 2015, the Court of Appeals reversed the fee judgment, holding Brown was the prevailing party on appeal.
On November 24, 2015, Judge McClennen entered judgment on the mandate in favor of Brown, awarding costs and releasing his bond.
Video overview: HOA record disputes, attorney-client privilege, and appellate fee reversal
An analysis of William M. Brown’s challenge to Terravita Community Association’s record withholdings, and how his pro se appellate victory eliminated a $5,000 fee penalty.
Procedural timeline
William M. Brown submits formal records request to Terravita Community Association under A.R.S. § 33-1805.
ALJ Brian Brendan Tully grants summary judgment for mootness in favor of Terravita (12F-H1212014-BFS).
OAH Director Cliff J. Vanell certifies the ALJ decision as final administrative action.
Brown files Notice of Appeal for Judicial Review in Maricopa County Superior Court (LC2012-000699).
Judge Crane McClennen issues Record Appeal Ruling affirming the DFBLS administrative decision.
Superior Court signs Judgment awarding Terravita $5,000 in attorneys' fees against Brown.
Brown files Notice of Appeal to Arizona Court of Appeals (1 CA-CV 14-0455) and posts supersedeas bond.
Arizona Court of Appeals issues Memorandum Decision in 1 CA-CV 14-0455 reversing the $5,000 fee award.
Court of Appeals issues official Mandate transmitting reversal to Superior Court.
Judge McClennen signs final Judgment on Mandate in favor of Brown and exonerates cost bond.
Complete source-document index
This index contains 16 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 Request For Evidentiary Hearing
Type: Court order/minute entry
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
Order Granting Motion To Compel Service
Type: Court order/minute entry
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
Order Affirming Briefing Schedule
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Order Setting Oral Argument
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Order Vacating Oral Argument
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Record Appeal Ruling Affirming Dfbls
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Judgment Awarding 5000 Attorneys Fees Against Brown
Type: Decision or judgment
Decision document; read it to understand the controlling result before moving to later filings.
Order Denying Reconsideration Of Attorneys Fees
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Notice Of Appeal And Supersedeas Bond
Type: Procedural/service filing
Moves the dispute into appellate or judicial-review procedure; use it to track the next forum.
Minute Entry Re Appellate Cost Bond
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Order Re Stay And Supersedeas Bond
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Minute Entry Resolving Service Motion
Type: Court order/minute entry
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
Order Denying Order To Show Cause
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Judgment On Mandate Reversing Fees Awarding Costs To Brown
Type: Decision or judgment
Decision document; read it to understand the controlling result before moving to later filings.
Order Exonerating Cost Bond
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
FAQ
What triggered the dispute in LC2012-000699?
On May 25, 2012, homeowner William M. Brown requested copies of legal engagement letters and fee schedules between Terravita Community Association and the law firm Ekmark & Ekmark, as well as minutes from board executive sessions. When the HOA refused, Brown filed an administrative petition with DFBLS under A.R.S. § 33-1805.
Are HOA legal engagement letters and executive minutes subject to member inspection?
Under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B), contracts and fee schedules regarding legal representation are protected by attorney-client privilege and cannot be disclosed without board waiver. Furthermore, executive session minutes are expressly protected from disclosure under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(3), because non-board members are excluded from executive sessions under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A).
Why did the Superior Court order Brown to pay $5,000 in attorneys' fees?
After Superior Court Judge Crane McClennen affirmed the ALJ’s summary judgment dismissing Brown’s petition, Terravita applied for attorneys’ fees under A.R.S. § 12-341.01, claiming the administrative appeal arose out of contract (the CC&Rs;). Judge McClennen awarded Terravita $5,000 in fees on February 13, 2014.
What did the Arizona Court of Appeals decide in 1 CA-CV 14-0455?
Brown appealed pro se to the Arizona Court of Appeals (1 CA-CV 14-0455). On July 30, 2015, the Court of Appeals issued a Memorandum Decision reversing the fee award, holding that Plaintiff-Appellant Brown was the prevailing party on appeal. On remand, Judge McClennen entered judgment on November 24, 2015 in favor of Brown and awarded Brown his taxable costs.
Why is Brown v. Terravita regularly cited in Arizona fee disputes?
The decision is widely cited (including in Whitmer v. Hilton Casitas) on the boundaries of fee shifting under A.R.S. § 12-341.01, establishing that purely statutory claims and administrative appeals do not automatically ‘arise out of contract’ simply because the parties belong to a common-interest community.
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. LC2012-000699 / 1 CA-CV 14-0455 |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Superior Court |
| Decision / key date | November 24, 2015 |
| Judge / panel | The Hon. Crane McClennen |
| Parties | William M. Brown (Appellant) v. Terravita Community Association and Arizona DFBLS (Appellees) |
| Governing law |
|
| Topics | Attorney FeesMeetings & RecordsProcedure |
| Outcome / holding | Following the Arizona Court of Appeals reversal in 1 CA-CV 14-0455, the Superior Court vacated the $5,000 attorney fee judgment against homeowner William M. Brown and entered final judgment in his favor. Administrative review petitions concerning statutory record requests do not trigger fee shifting against homeowners under A.R.S. § 12-341.01. |
| Primary public source | View hosted source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Reviewed source package | 16 PDFs |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 10 roadmap entries |
| Video overview | William M. Brown v. Terravita Community Ass'n: Overturning HOA Attorney Fees |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 5 questions |
| Featured download links | 3 download links |
Key Issues & Findings
In May 2012, homeowner William M. Brown submitted a records request to Terravita Community Association, Inc. under A.R.S. § 33-1805, seeking the association's legal engagement agreements with Ekmark & Ekmark, fee schedules, and minutes from board executive sessions. When the association refused, Brown filed an administrative complaint with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety (DFBLS No. 12F-H1212014-BFS). Administrative Law Judge Brian Brendan Tully granted the association's motion for summary judgment, concluding the requested records were protected by attorney-client privilege and executive session confidentiality statutes. Brown appealed to Maricopa County Superior Court (LC2012-000699). Judge Crane McClennen affirmed the administrative order and entered a $5,000 attorney fee judgment against Brown under A.R.S. § 12-341.01. Brown appealed pro se to the Arizona Court of Appeals (1 CA-CV 14-0455). On July 30, 2015, the Court of Appeals issued a Memorandum Decision reversing the fee award and designating Brown the prevailing party. On remand, Judge McClennen entered judgment on November 24, 2015 in favor of Brown and awarded him costs.
While the administrative tribunal correctly recognized that attorney retainer agreements and executive session minutes are protected from general member inspection under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B) and § 33-1804(A), the trial court erred in penalizing the homeowner with $5,000 in association attorneys' fees under A.R.S. § 12-341.01.
Under Arizona law, fees are authorized under § 12-341.01 only in contested actions 'arising out of a contract.' Brown's administrative petition was grounded in the enforcement of statutory transparency mandates under A.R.S. § 33-1805, rather than a breach-of-contract claim based on the declaration. The Court of Appeals determined that Brown was the prevailing party on appeal in 1 CA-CV 14-0455, overturning the superior court's fee award.
Pursuant to the appellate mandate, Judge McClennen entered judgment for Brown for his taxable costs ($280.00) and exonerated his $500.00 supersedeas cost bond, closing the case pursuant to Rule 54(c). The case stands as a key defense against HOAs using fee-shifting statutes to discourage homeowners from seeking administrative review.
This case is a landmark victory for self-represented homeowners. Had the $5,000 fee judgment stood, it would have created a chilling effect preventing homeowners from using state administrative hearing processes to question association secrecy. The Court of Appeals' reversal demonstrates that an HOA cannot easily weaponize A.R.S. § 12-341.01 to extract attorney fees when a homeowner invokes statutory inspection rights.