OAH hearing leads to HOA attorney seeking arrest of homeowner for not attending attorney fee hearing

August 15, 2014

The Arizona ALJ (Brian Brendan Tully) at OAH granted summary judgment (October 2012) for Terravita in regard to a request for minutes to an alleged executive meeting.[i] The order further states that the judge “concludes that . . . there are no issues contained in the Petition that require an evidentiary hearing.”  However, without an evidentiary hearing, where the homeowner could contest the allegation that it was indeed an executive meeting, the judge essentially took the word of the HOA’s attorney, the CAI member, Curtis Ekmark. In his discussion, the judge once again assumes the validity of Ekmark’s assertion that it was indeed an executive meeting, and argues that the homeowner did not show he had a legal right to executive minutes.

In Arizona, the court operates on a notice basis, that is, just give sufficient information that the complaint is valid, and then present your detailed evidence before the court.  That was not allowed in this case.

Homeowner filed superior court appeal[ii] contesting the ALJ’s decision as “contrary to law, an abuse of discretion, arbitrary and capricious.”  

 6. Administrative Law Judge Brian Brendan Tully’s October 4, 2012 Decision in 12F -H 12120 14-BFS, based exclusively upon certain “statements, claims and contentions (sic)” made by Respondent, Terravita Community Association, Inc., in its pleadings, denied Petitioner (Plaintiff) a hearing which would have brought forward the facts of the contested matter based upon evidence, witnesses’ sworn testimony and argument upon the merits of the matter’s facts and the planned community statutes relevant to those facts, instead, Tully vacated the matter from the calendar of the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Read the entire Commentary at http://wp.me/p3njZ-16a


[i] Brown v. Terravita, No. 12F-H1212014-BFS, Administrative Law Judge Decision, Office of Administrative Hearings, October 4, 2012.

[ii] Brown v. Terravita, LC2012-000699, Maricopa County.

AB 1482, Ariz. Sess. L. Ch. 82 makes HOA omnibus bill valid.

August 1, 2014


As of July 24, 2014 the unconstitutional statutes were made constitutional with the adoption of SB 1482 this year. However, Dave Russell has filed a constitutionality challenge (CV 2014-093-052, Maricopa County Superior Court) to the bill, which has not yet been decided by the court.

ALERT!! ARS shows invalid HOA statutes

March 28, 2014

 See AZ legislature fails to remove invalid statutes from its ARS web page

“Because the [right] to rule is rather the appearance of justice rather than justice itself, the appearance of injustice defeats every [right] to rule.”[1] While the SB 1454/HB 2371 redux bills SB 1482 and HB 2695 appear to be dead this session, there is still no bill to repeal the amended statutes in Sess. L. […]

Bill to allow HOA managers to represent HOAs at OAH!

February 20, 2014


The 2014 session of the Legislature has 2 mirror bills, SB 1482 and HB 2695, that are copies of the trice defeated bills of 2013, HB 2371/SB 1454 (found unconstitutional by the courts in Staropoli v State of Arizona). They seek special exceptions for unlicensed, untrained HOA managers to represent HOAs at OAH (and in small claims court). There is no provision for you, the homeowner, to have an unlicensed, untrained third-party speak for you at OAH. There are no provisions for training or licensing of HOA Managers for this purpose.


See tyranny of the AZ Senate: SB 1482 as SB 1454 redux and AZ’s ominous SB 1482: the return of unconstitutional SB 1454

OAH website registration expired as of May 5, 2013

March 7, 2013

Folks, I’d never believe it, but an example of government transparency lost has occurred right here in Arizona. Network Solutions, the USA entity that registers domain names like AZOAH.COM, the OAH website, shows that the registration of this name has expired as of this past Monday.

  That’s why there’s no access.  I presume somebody will pay the fee, unless the OAH budget has been cut.

OAH refuses to correct misleading public information on non-HOA petitioners

July 20, 2012

My investigation into the false and misleading reporting that a non-HOA entity is an OAH Petitioner, in violation of ARS § 41-2198.01(B), indicates an administrative error on the part of OAH. An error which is easily correctable and which would not mislead the public. Yet, the Director/Chief Administrative Judge refuses to correct the false statement.  (12F-H1212010-BFS, Pecos Ranch Community Association, Associated Asset Management, LLC vs. Randy and Sharon Hoyum).

In response to my notification, OAH took the position that only the assigned ALJ could make the change upon motion by a party.  But, OAH has no procedure for filing a motion to intervene by a person affected by the Petition, a person with rightful standing.  And why should a third party or even a party to the case be required to correct an obvious clerical error, most likely not the doing of an ALJ.  Where is the logic?   Something is wrong here!  This concern for impartiality to the extent of not correcting a clerical error is very disturbing.

The Petition was filed by the Brown/Olcott attorney for the HOA and AAM is not a co-petitioner, and there is no DFBLS Multiple Petitioners form submitted.  The petition form asks for both the name of the management firm and the attorney.  Obviously, some newbie got it wrong, and if not, then we really have a serious question of the integrity of OAH with respect to HOA adjudication. 

The important issue is the position by OAH to allow an obvious false statement to continue to be displayed for public consumption.  A position of bureaucratic rules over justice.

OAH history was made this month: first HOA petition filed

July 16, 2012

OAH history was made this month with the first of 101 Petitions filed, since Sept. 2006, by an HOA.:   12F-H1212010-BFS, Pecos Ranch Community Association, Associated Asset Management, LLC vs. Randy and Sharon Hoyum.

Please note, however, the co-plaintiff is an HOA management firm and is barred from filing HOA petitions by statute. It is the same management firm hit with the UPL ruling that it engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. See
Final Order: HOA management firm engaged in unauthorized practice of law