ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final
25F-H013-REL · Department of Real Estate - H/C · 2026-02-25
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
VINMAR LLC,
Petitioner,
v.
Third Avenue Lofts Unit Owner Association,
Respondent.
No. 25F-H013-REL
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: September 19, 2025; February 17, 2026.
APPEARANCES:
For Petitioner: Jonathan Blangiardo.
For Respondent: Tessa Knueppel.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Samuel Fox
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Notice of Hearing File, provided by the Department of Real Estate. Petitioner’s Exhibits A–O; SA–SI. Respondent’s Exhibit Packet.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Third Avenue Lofts Unit Owner Association (Respondent) was a Condominium Association in Arizona.
VINMAR LLC (Petitioner) owned Unit 216 at Respondent’s community and was a member of Respondent.
On or about October 3, 2024, Petitioner filed a one-issue Petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department) alleging that Respondent had violated Condominium Statutes, A.R.S. § 33-1260.01 and 33-1227, and CC&Rs § 4.14. The Issue Statement was as follows:
THIRD AVENUE LOFTS UNIT OWNERS ASSOCIATION IS UNLAWFULLY IMPOSING EXPLOITATIVE FEES AND RENTAL RULES IN VIOLATION OF CC&RS 4.14, ARS § 33-1260.01, AND ARS § 33-1227, PRESSURING ME TO COMPLY BY RESTRICTING MY AMENITY ACCESS AND SUSPENDING MY VOTING RIGHTS, WHICH CREATES UNDUE HARDSHIP FOR ALL AFFECTED HOMEOWNERS.
Respondent, through its Attorney, Alexis Firehawk, filed a written answer to the Petition, denying the allegations.
The issue statement presented more than one issue, even though Petitioner only paid for one issue. Although the Arizona Department of Real Estate arranged a hearing at the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, it did not provide a copy of the Notice of Hearing to the Tribunal, identifying a single issue for hearing. The Tribunal required Petitioner to select a single issue for hearing, but Petitioner did not.
The parties agreed on the following issue: whether or not the move-in and move-out fees were permissible, including whether they violated A.R.S. § 33-1260.01.
At the hearing, Petitioner’s manager, Jonathan Blangiardo, stated that his issue was discrimination against rentals and he wanted to address a pattern of bad conduct by Respondent by discussing other issues, including improperly blocking his amenities, not responding to document requests, not holding special meetings, changing rules outside of the ordinary process, and other issues that would each require a separate petition item to be addressed here. Those issues were not relevant to the issue for hearing. He stated that he would file another petition to address the other issues.
Petitioner testified that Respondent charged a $150.00 move-in fee, a $150.00 move-out fee, and a $25.00 registration fee. He testified that his unit is pre-furnished, so his tenants were low impact when they moved in and out. Although he did not phrase it this way, Petitioner testified that he should be treated differently from owner-occupied and non-pre-furnished rental units because of his tenants’ low impact. Petitioner believed that the fee was unreasonable in his circumstances. Petitioner testified that Respondent intended to target rental units with these fees, noting a communication where the fees were referred to as “rental fees.” Petitioner believed that Respondent’s intent was to target rental units.
Respondent’s General Manager for the Association, Michelle Collins, testified that resident occupation fee is to get the resident set up for entry of the building (an app), entry to the garage (an app and a sticker), and receiving updates (e.g. emergency communications or utility outages) through Respondent’s systems. It also provided for desk staff, who were available to help residents. She testified that tenant-residents and owner-residents both pay the same fees. She testified that the fees were reasonable compared to comparable condominiums.
Respondent changed its fee structure to charge a $25.00 check-in fee, a $25.00 registration fee, and a $75.00 charge to use the elevators to move furniture.
Ms. Collins testified that the check-in fee is an administrative fee for setting up residents to access the building, garage, and receive communications.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A.R.S. § 32-2199 authorizes the administrative law judge to “adjudicate complaints regarding and ensure compliance with . . . [t]itle 33, chapter 9 and condominium documents.”
A.R.S. § 32-2199.01 permits a member of a condominium association to file a petition with the Department for a hearing concerning the planned community association’s alleged violations as set forth in Title 33, Chapter 9. A Petition may have up to four issues, and a fee of $500.00 is imposed for each issue. An issue is a matter of fact, and the fact at issue may result in more than one violation of statute or community documents within a single Petition issue. Different factual issues must be presented under different Petition issues and a separate fee must be paid.
One Petition issue was properly brought under this matter. That issue was “whether or not the move-in and move-out fees were permissible, including whether it was a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1260.01.” This matter lies within the Department’s jurisdiction. That statute provides that such petitions will be heard before the Office of Administrative Hearings.
A.R.S. § 32-2199.02 authorizes the administrative law judge to “order any party to abide by the statute, condominium documents, community documents or contract provision at issue and may levy a civil penalty on the basis of each violation.” This Tribunal is not authorized to order other remediation or order civil penalties for other conduct.
Respondent’s CC&Rs § 3.3.1(a), Unit Owners’ Easements of Enjoyment, sets the following restriction:
The right of the Association to adopt reasonable rules and regulations governing the use of the Common Elements. Such rules and regulations may include rules and regulations to control parking in the Parking Garage.
Respondent’s CC&Rs § 1.11, defines Common Elements as “all portions of the Condominium other than the Units.”
Respondent’s CC&Rs § 7.4, User Fee Assessment, states:
The Association may establish and charge fees for the use of certain recreational or other facilities in the Condominium. All such fees shall be assessed to the Owners as a User Fee Assessment which shall be payable within fifteen (15) days after notice of the Use Fee Assessment is given to the Owner.
Respondent’s CC&Rs § 1.14, defines Condominium as “the Parcel, together with the Building and all other Improvements located thereon.” Facilities is not a defined term.
A.R.S. § 33-1260.01 states, in relevant part:
C. Notwithstanding any provision in the condominium documents, on rental of a unit an association shall not require a unit owner or a unit owner's agent to disclose any information regarding a tenant other than the name and contact information for any adults occupying the unit, the time period of the lease, including the beginning and ending dates of the tenancy, and a description and the license plate numbers of the tenants' vehicles. If the condominium is an age restricted condominium, the unit owner, the unit owner's agent or the tenant shall show a government issued identification that bears a photograph and that confirms that the tenant meets the condominium's age restrictions or requirements.
D. On request of an association or its managing agent for the disclosures prescribed in subsection C of this section, the managing agent or, if there is no managing agent, the association may charge a fee of not more than twenty-five dollars, which shall be paid within fifteen days after the postmarked request. The fee may be charged for each new tenancy for that unit but may not be charged for a renewal of a lease. Except for the fee permitted by this subsection and fees related to the use of recreational facilities, the association or its managing agent shall not assess, levy or charge a fee or fine or otherwise impose a requirement on a unit owner's rental unit any differently than on an owner-occupied unit in the association.
Respondent’s CC&Rs § 7.7(e) only addresses use of funds, which is not relevant to the analysis in this matter. It authorizes “[t]he Association [to] use the funds and property collected and received by the Association for the purpose of . . . taking such other action as the Board of Directors deems necessary, appropriate or desirable for the management and administration of the Association or the benefit of the Association or the Condominium.” It does not authorize imposition of fees.
A.R.S. § 33-1260.01 does not prohibit either fee structure applied by Respondent. It authorizes Respondent to charge a disclosure fee, not larger than $25.00, for each new tenant that moves into a rental unit. That disclosure fee and fees for use of recreational facilities are the only fees that Respondent can charge to a rental unit differently than owner-occupied units. The statue is clear that all fees (other than the stated exemptions) must be applied to all units without difference, meaning equally.
The preponderance of the evidence did not establish that Respondent charged a disclosure fee in excess of $25.00.
For the $150.00 move-in and move-out fees, the fees were applied every time residents moved into a unit or moved out of a unit, regardless of any other factor. Petitioner argued that the rule treats pre-furnished rentals differently because those residents basically only bring clothing, so it disproportionately impacted pre-furnished rental units. This argument is asking to be treated differently. Equal treatment is applying one rule for everyone, which is what Respondent had done. Petitioner sought equitable treatment, which would take other circumstances into account (such as the low impact of moving in and out of a pre-furnished rental) and treat different units differently to promote fairness.
Respondent changed their rule to provide the equity Petitioner sought with the $25.00 check-in fee, $25.00 registration fee, and $75.00 elevator fee for moving furniture That rule is applied equally to all units.
The preponderance of the evidence did not establish that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1260.01(D).
The CC&Rs authorize Respondent to charge reasonable fees for use of certain recreational facilities or other facilities in the Condominium. Facilities is not defined, and those “certain” facilities are not identified. A facility is “something that makes an action, operation, or course of conduct easier;” or “something that is built, installed, or established to serve a particular purpose.” Therefore, the moving elevator is a facility, the phone applications to access the doors and garage are facilities, and the front desk with an attendant is a facility. Accordingly, Respondent was authorized to apply a charge for use of those facilities.
Respondent argued that staff time was also a permissible charge; however, staff time, alone, is not a facility, and the record did not support that Respondent had other authorization for charging a fee for staff time.
Whether Respondent had the authority to require that new residents use a certain facility, which may be accompanied by a fee, was not at issue.
The preponderance of the evidence did establish that Respondent violated its CC&Rs by charging a fee it was not empowered to charge under the community documents; specifically, it is more likely than not that one or more of the $150.00 move-out fees were charged when the individual moving out did not use any facility. It is plausible that one or more move-in fees were charged when an individual moved in without using any facility, but based on the record, the preponderance of the evidence does not support that any resident used no facilities that would accrue the move-in fee.
The preponderance of the evidence did not support any findings or conclusions about the number of fees that were inappropriately applied.
The preponderance of the evidence did not support a violation of the CC&Rs under the new fee regime: $25.00 check-in fee, $25.00 registration fee, and $75.00 elevator fee for moving furniture.
order
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner is deemed the prevailing party in this matter regarding one or more of the $150.00 move out fees.
IT IS ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioners the filing fee of $500.00, to be paid directly to Petitioners within thirty (30) days of this Order.
IT IS ORDERED Respondent is directed to comply with the requirements of its Community Documents going forward.
No Civil Penalty is found to be appropriate in this matter.
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 forty (40) days from the date of that certification.
Done this day, February 25, 2026.
/s/ Nicole Robinson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Susan Nicolson, Commissioner
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Vinmar LLC
C/O Jonathan W. Blangiardo
[email redacted]
Alexis Firehawk Esq & Emily Cooper Esq
C/0 CHDB Law LLP
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff