Скачать или смотреть John L. Shields vs. Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch - 17F-H1717034-REL-RHG

This summary details the rehearing proceedings held before the Office of Administrative Hearings on February 5, 2018, regarding a dispute between Petitioner John L. Shields and Respondent Will Rogers Equestrian Ranch, a homeowners’ association (HOA).

Key Facts and Background

Petitioner John L. Shields is an HOA member who filed a petition alleging the Respondent violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The core dispute centered on the HOA’s approval of a 5' long x 6' high common block wall extension built by Petitioner's next-door neighbor, Joe Johnson. The original hearing resulted in dismissal, but Petitioner successfully sought a rehearing due to alleged errors of law and misconduct by the prior Administrative Law Judge.

The wall extension was initially built by Mr. Johnson around October 13, 2016, without prior board approval. Petitioner immediately expressed his disapproval. Mr. Johnson later submitted his proposal to the HOA’s Architectural Control Committee (the Committee). The Board, acting as the Committee, initially verbally approved the block wall in November 2016 but advised Mr. Johnson he still needed the neighboring property owner’s approval. The Board formally approved the proposal in January 2017.

Main Issues and Arguments

The Petitioner’s sole issue at the rehearing was that the Respondent improperly approved Mr. Johnson’s proposal because Mr. Johnson had not demonstrated he obtained Petitioner's approval, as allegedly required by CC&R § 6.2(A). CC&R § 6.2(A) requires that such alterations to party walls "shall not be altered... without approval of the adjoining Owner(s), if any, and the [Committee]".

The Respondent argued that, acting under CC&R § 7.2, the Committee’s duty was limited to assessing the proposal's aesthetic suitability and consistency with the development. CC&R § 7.2 requires Committee review and approval of fences and alterations, and mandates that approval "shall not be unreasonably withheld".

Legal Points and Conclusion

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the Petitioner bore the burden of proving the HOA violated the applicable statutes or CC&Rs by a preponderance of the evidence.

The ALJ established a critical distinction between the duties of the homeowner and the duties of the HOA:
Homeowner Obligation (CC&R § 6.2(A)): CC&R § 6.2(A) required Mr. Johnson to obtain the adjoining property owner’s (Petitioner’s) approval before building the extension.
HOA Obligation (CC&R § 7.2): The Respondent HOA's obligation, acting as the Committee, was governed by CC&R § 7.2, which required them to consider only whether the proposal was aesthetically pleasing and consistent with the community.

Crucially, the ALJ concluded that the Respondent had no obligation under CC&R § 6.2(A) to obtain or ensure Petitioner approved the block wall extension. Furthermore, nothing in CC&R § 7.2 required the Respondent to consider whether the adjoining neighbor had approved the extension when granting Committee approval.

Outcome

The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent HOA erroneously approved the proposal. Therefore, the petition was dismissed, and no action was required of the Respondent. This recommended order, being issued as a result of a rehearing, was binding on the parties.

Case Details:
Case ID: 17F-H1717034-REL
Docket: 17F-H1717034-REL-RHG

For more AZ HOA transparency resources visit https://yourazhoaattorney.com

Legal & Accuracy Notice - yourazhoaattorney.com is operated by Hound LLC, a homeowner-run project, not a law firm. Nothing in this video is legal advice or creates an attorney-client relationship. We analyze public ADRE/OAH records and may express opinions. Not affiliated with ADRE or the OAH. Read the full Legal & Terms: https://yourazhoaattorney.com/legal