Arizona HOA Case Reviews

April 3, 2007

Case No. 07F-H067012-BFS; 07F-H067013-BFS (consolidated case)

Filed under: Uncategorized — pvtgov @ 10:45 am

Complaint:                   

Numerous (13), but only 4 allowed: accounting for reserve monies; access to records; selective HOA enforcement.

Source of Law:             Declaration; bylaws.Discussion:

Holding:  

Comments:                

Pre-conference hearing.  Either party may request a pre-conference hearing to settle or clarify aspects relating how the hearing will proceed; such as date for exchanging documents and list of witnesses.
In response to a late filing by HOA of a 17-page motionwith legal memorandum containing HOA arguments — to limit scope of the hearing, the ALJ said that he would give Petitioner time to respond.  HOA attorney said that he just files papers with respect to the topic of the pre-hearing, but ALJ pointed out that he filed a motion, and as such, Petitioner is permitted time to respond. ALJ set a 10-day response period.

HOA attorney subpoenaed documents from Petitioner.  Cannot ask other party to prepare new documents, or to do interrogatories (submit written questions to other party) or depositions (ask direct questions of other party).  With respect to a settlement agreement, ALJ properly advised parties that this is a matter outside the OAH.  

After a second pre-conference hearing, the ALJ declared many of the homeowner complaints as alleged criminal activity that is outside OAH’s jurisdiction. These relate to statutes outside the Planned Community statutes, and to alleged criminal activities. They will not be heard. 

The ALJ denied all but 4 of the complaints, and only those allegations occurring after Sept. 21, 2006.  Subpoenas for a total of 48 witnesses, 12 by petitioner and 27 by HOA, were sought, but the ALJ denied them and warned,  

If they continue to feel that a witness’s desired testimony will shed light on these limited and narrow issues within their permissible scope, they should feel free to call such witness at the hearing and re-submit the subpoena request.   However, they are admonished that they do so at the risk of the witness’s testimony not being allowed.                     

Again, this is a blanket charge against the HOA rather than complaints related to an event, like for example, an invalidly held election giving rise to several violations.

No Comments Yet »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Blog at WordPress.com.