ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final
21F-LTA2021003-ADH · Arizona State Department of Housing - LTA · 2021-03-19
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
MARK PEARSON, et al.,
Petitioner,
v.
SHADOW MOUNTAIN VILLAGE, et al.,
Respondent.
No. 21F-LTA2021003-ADH
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
DECISION
ORAL ARGUMENT: February 1, 2021
APPEARANCES: Petitioner Mark Pearson appeared on his own behalf. Respondent Shadow Mountain Village, et al. was represented by Scott A. Baluha.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Tammy L. Eigenheer
Pending before the Office of Administrative Hearings is the Motion to Dismiss (Motion) filed by Respondent Shadow Mountain Village, et al. Respondent argued that Petitioner had not claimed any violation of the Arizona Mobil Home Parks Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, Petitioner was not a tenant at Respondent’s property, and the Arizona Department of Housing (Department) could not grant the relief Petitioner requested.
BACKGROUND
The parties were involved in a matter before the West Mesa Justice Court. On March 19, 2020 in case number CC2020-056864, the judge ruled in favor of Respondent and awarded a monetary judgment and possession of the manufactured home space. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal and filed an appeal memorandum, but the Maricopa Superior Court had not yet rendered a decision in regards to the appeal. At the time of his appeal, Petitioner payed the appropriate bond to stay the writ of restitution and was allowed to remain in possession of the property so long as he continued to pay rent to the Court on or before the 1st of each subsequent month.
In July of 2020, Petitioner failed to pay the amount Respondent believed to be required to the Court. Respondent requested the writ of restitution based on Petitioner’s failure to pay the full amount due, and the Court issued a writ of restitution on or about July 16, 2020. The writ of restitution was served and possession of the manufactured home space was returned to Respondent.
Throughout the oral argument on the Motion, Petitioner attacked the judge’s ruling regarding the writ of restitution and the allegedly fraudulent charges Respondent used to justify requesting the writ of restitution. Petitioner was unwilling to accept that neither the Administrative Law Judge nor the Department had the authority to overturn the decision of the judge from the West Mesa Justice Court.
Petitioner reiterated throughout the oral argument that “everything in this petition relate[d] to the fraud.”
RECOMMENDED ORDER
As Petitioner failed to raise any issues in his petition that the Department could address in this venue,
IT IS RECOMMENDED granting Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss.
In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order will be 40 days from the date of that certification.
-54864001
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
001
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
-137160-45720000Done this day, March 19, 2021.
/s/ Tammy L. Eigenheer
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted electronically to:
Carol Ditmore,
Arizona Department of Housing
-54864001
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
001
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
-137160-45720000