HOA - ALJDEC decisions

25F-H044-REL · Department of Real Estate - H/C · 2026-06-11

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Michael J. Schmidt,

Petitioner,

v.

Starpass Master Homeowner Association, Inc.,

Respondent.

No. 25F-H044-REL

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: June 20, 2025 & April 30, 2026.

APPEARANCES: Michael J. Schmidt (“Petitioner”) appeared on his own behalf with Bruce Pryor as a witness. Frederick Christopher Ansley appeared on behalf of Starpass Master Homeowner Association, Inc. (“Respondent”). Michael Morris and Douglas Imperi Jr. observed.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Jenna Clark.

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: May 15, 2025, Notice of Hearing, December 29, 2025, Amended Notice of Hearing; including the referring agency’s attached administrative file, Respondent Exhibits R and S, Minute Entries and Orders dated June, 27, 2025, August 12, 2025, September 10, 2025, October 14, 2025, November 17, 2025, December 03, 2025, January 05, 2026, January 07, 2026, February 20, 2026, and April 02, 2026, were admitted into the evidentiary record.

_____________________________________________________________________

After review of the hearing record in this matter, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and issues this Order to the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate (“Department”).

FINDINGS OF FACT

Background and Procedure

The Department is authorized by statute to receive and to decide petitions for hearings from members of homeowners’ associations and from homeowners’ associations in Arizona.

On or about March 20, 2025, Petitioner filed 129-page single-issue HOA Dispute Process Petition (“Petition”) with the Department. Petitioner specifically alleged as follows:

Respondent/Declarant has kept Declarant Control over Starr Pass Homeowners Association (SPHOA) by refusing to recognize and/or comply with both Arizona Law and the SPHOA Declaration and Bylaws; Respondent/Declarant has maintained his status of Declarant for over 30 years by amending the SPHOA Declaration to maintain his Type B Membership using the 4th, 6th, 7th and 8th amendments to the 1992 Amended and Restated Declaration with the 8th Amendment defining an indefinite period of time for the termination of the Type B membership; in addition, Respondent/Declarant states that he has 6639 Type B votes because of an alleged 2231 Planned Lots on property in SPHOA which he allegedly owns; this conduct by Respondent/Declarant is believed to be in violation to AZ A.R.S. 33-1820 (Adopted 9/14/2024) as well as going against Article III Sections 2 and 5 of the SPHOA Declaration and Articles IV and V of the SPHOA Bylaws; Petitioner requests the court to issue a subpoena to Respondent/Declarant requesting that the Respondent/Declarant identify any and all property within SPHOA by Parcel Number which he now owns and which are the justification for his alleged 2231 Planned Lots owned by Respondent/Declarant.

In the Petition, Petitioner marked and identified alleged violations of Arizona Revised Statute (“Ariz. Rev. Stat.”) § 33-1820, Bylaws Articles III-V, and Declaration Article III Section 2 and 5-6, and Article XI Section 8 by maintaining Declarant Control through amending community documents. Petitioner requested an order directing Respondent to abide by the aforementioned statutes and governing documents. Petitioner did not request the imposition of a civil penalty against Respondent.

On an unknown date, Petitioner tendered a $500.00 filing fee to the Department for the petition.

On April 03, 2025, the Department issued a HOA Notice of Petition to Respondent.

On or about April 20, 2025, Respondent returned its Answer to the Department whereby it denied all complaint items in the petition.

On May 15, 2025, the Department issued a Notice of Hearing setting the above-captioned matter for hearing before ALJ Sam Fox at the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”), an independent state agency, at 1:00 p.m. on June 20, 2025, to address Respondent’s alleged violation(s) of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1820, Bylaws Articles III-V, and Declaration Article III Sections 2 and 5-6, and Article XI Section 8.

On June 20, 2025, ALJ Sam Fox opened the hearing record in the above-captioned matter. However, the parties were unable to conclude the presentation of their evidence in the time allotted. As a result, the matter was continued and set for a Status Update on June 27, 2025, for the parties to provide stipulated dates of availability for further hearing.

On June 24, 2025, Petitioner submitted notice to the Tribunal that included the following advisement, in pertinent part:

We plan on filing at least 2 and possibly 3 additional issues. One will be Termination of Right to Appoint Members of the BOD. Article III, Section 5 and one will be Violation of ASR 33-1820 Paragraph 1. Article III, Section 2 does not provide a date for termination nor a method of calculating for Declarant Control. Regarding the third, I need your input on. Our goal is to have an order that states that Declarant Control has ended. The current issue and the 2 new issues are all related to Declarant Control but I do not know if the third new issue of termination of Declarant Control requires a sperate filing of this issue.

(All errors in original.)

On June 27, 2025, an Order Granting Continuance was issued by the Tribunal that scheduled a continued hearing at 9:00 a.m. on September 10, 2025.

On August 11, 2025, Respondent submitted the following correspondence to the Tribunal:

On July 24, 2025, Petitioner promised—" I will also be filing this week 2 additional Issues which I would like to have consolidated with the current Hearing.” Certainly, the Respondent did not receive the “additional two Issues” and it has been 18-days since this undertaking was provided. As I may require reasonable time to prepare regarding these Issues and to avoid another continuation, Respondent respectfully request the Court to set a date specific for Petitioner to identify all the Issues.

On August 12, 2025, the Tribunal issued an order that required Petitioner to submit proof of new petition and request for consolidation and/or petition amendment to the Department by August 20, 2025.

On August 20, 2025, Petitioner notified the Tribunal that he had submitted a new dual-issue HOA Dispute Process Petition with the Department and had also requested that those issues be consolidated with the matter at bar.

On August 26, 2025, Mr. Imperi Jr. submitted a Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief on behalf of SWVP Starr Pass LLC.

On September 02, 2025, Petitioner filed a Motion to Amend Complaint in this matter to include two additional issues.

On September 04, 2025, the Tribunal issued an Order to advise the parties that OAH did not have authority to add issues to the pending matter and could only consolidate existing matters. The Tribunal advised that because there was no second complaint pending for Petitioner before OAH, Petitioner’s motion was denied. In addition, the Tribunal provided notice that the September 10, 2025, continued hearing was converted to a telephonic prehearing conference. The Tribunal further advised that the Amicus Brief was accepted.

On September 10, 2025, the Tribunal issued an Order Granting Continuance that set the above-captioned matter for a Status Update on October 13, 2025.

On October 14, 2025, the Tribunal issued an Order Granting Continuance that set the above-captioned matter for another Status Update on November 14, 2025.

On November 17, 2025, the Tribunal issued an Order to advise the parties that further hearing had been scheduled for 1:00 p.m. on January 06, 2026, because Petitioner failed to provide a Status Update.

On December 03, 2025, the Tribunal issued an Order to advise the parties that OAH does not have jurisdiction over issues unless the Department authorizes jurisdiction, and thusly could not add additional issues for adjudication in the matter at bar. The Tribunal also provided the following advisement:

[SWVP] is not a party to this proceeding. SWVP has not entered any evidence in the record, and SWVP will not be given the opportunity to present evidence. The Amicus Brief filed by SWVP is not evidence. The Amicus Brief holds the limited value of input from a person who is interested in the outcome of this matter.

On December 29, 2025, the Department issued an Amended Notice of Hearing that confirmed consolidation of the following two (2) additional issues for hearing:

Is the 8th Amendment to Article III Section 2 of Starr Pass HOA Declaration in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1820 and thus unenforceable because A.R.S. § 33-1820 ¶ 1 requires a date of or method for calculating the date of termination of Type B Membership and Amendment 8 does not meet this requirement and thus, the date of termination reverts to the prior 7th Amendment which defines a termination date of 12/31/2020 because Article XI, Section 5 Conflict of Provisions of SPHOA 1992 Amended & Restated Declaration states that AZ Law will control in case of conflict between AZ Law and the Master Declaration

Has the Type B Membership been terminated and converted to Type A Membership due to (1) the finding in pending Docket 25F-H044-REL relating to violation of A.R.S. § 33-1820 ¶ 2 due to Declarant conveying the second to last lot to a buyer and/or (2) the finding in Issue [2] above relating to unenforceability of the 8th Amendment to Article III Section 2 of SPHOA due to A.R.S. § 33-1820 ¶ 1 which requires us to revert back to the prior 7th Amendment which defines the termination and conversion of Type B Membership as 12/31/2020 thus, pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1820 ¶ 1 and/or that Declarant Control has come to an end for SPHOA Respondent/Declarant and Respondent/Declarant needs to hold a Meeting of SPHOA pursuant to the Declaration Article III Section 6 and the Bylaws in Article III, Article IV and Article V for electing a new Board of Directors using only the votes of Type B Members.

On an unknown date, Petitioner tendered a $1,000.00 filing fee to the Department for the second petition.

On January 07, 2026, per Respondent’s request, the Tribunal issued an Order Granting Continuance that set the above-captioned matter for further hearing at 1:00 p.m. on February 23, 2026.

On or about February 06, 2026, the above-captioned matter was reassigned to the undersigned for adjudication.

On February 17, 2026, the parties were informed that ALJ Fox was unavailable to continue adjudication of the above-captioned matter and were further notified that the undersigned had been assigned to preside over their scheduled further hearing. The parties were tasked with choosing between commencing proceedings from the beginning or having ALJ Clark review ALJ Fox’s prior hearing record and presuming the matter from the end of that record. The parties chose the latter option.

On February 20, 2026, the Tribunal issued a Further Hearing Order that set the above-captioned matter for further hearing at 9:00 a.m. on April 30, 2026.

On March 02, 2026, per the joint request of the parties the Tribunal issued a Minute Entry that scheduled a telephonic prehearing conference for 8:00 a.m. on April 02, 2026.

On April 02, 2026, after the parties participated in a telephonic prehearing conference in the above-captioned matter, the undersigned issued a Minute Entry that contained the following information, in pertinent part:

The hearing issues in this matter are –

Whether Respondent violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1820, Bylaw Articles III-V, and CC&Rs Article III Sections 2 and 5-6, and/or Article XI Sections 5 and 8. (See 03/15/2025 Notice of Hearing and 12/29/25 Amended Notice of Hearing for specific factual allegations)

Correspondence was not returned as undeliverable by either party.

On April 30, 2026, further hearing was held in the above-captioned matter.

The Parties and Governing Documents

Respondent is a homeowners’ association formed in March 1986, whose members own properties in a residential real estate development located in Tucson, Arizona. Membership for the Association is compromised of the Starpass subdivision.

Petitioner is a Starpass property owner and a member of the Association.

The Association is recognized by the State of Arizona as a domestic nonprofit corporation.

The Association is governed by a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (“Declaration”) and overseen by a Board of Directors (“the Board”). The Declaration empowers the Association to control certain aspects of property use within the development. The Bylaws dictate how the Association operates internally, governing the Board, meetings, and elections. When a party buys a residential unit in the development, the party receives a copy of the Declaration and Bylaws and agrees to be bound by their terms. Thus, the Declaration forms an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner, and the Bylaws outline how the Association is permitted to operate.

Article III – The Master Association, Section 2 Types of Membership and Voting Rights of the Declaration provides the following:

The Master Association shall have two types of Membership:

Type A – All Owners of Lots, excluding Declarant and Developers. Type A members shall have one vote for each such Lot owned.

Type B – The Type B Membership shall be the Declarant. The Declarant shall have three votes for each Lot and three votes for each Planned Lot owned by the Declarant. Declarant shall also have three votes for each Lot and three votes for each Planned Lot owned by a Developer.

Each Developer who has been designated in writing by Declarant as a Co-Declarant shall, at such time as Declarant no longer owns a single Lot, Block, or Planed Lot anywhere from within the Annexation Land become entitled to Class A membership. Each such Co-Declarant shall, at such time, have one vote for each Lot and one vote for each Planned Lot owned which has been annexed into the Properties. Developer shall have no votes in the Master Association until such time, if at all, as set forth in this section.

Notwithstanding any contrary provision, in Lots for the entire Annexation Land shall be computed regardless of the portion actually then annexed into the Properties hereto, the total number of Lots and Planned Lots for the land 2196, meaning that the votes of the Declarant for that area of Starpass initially is 6,588. The Declarant will have fewer votes as Lots are sold to the public.*

Type B Membership shall terminate and be converted to Type A the earlier of:

The time at which the total outstanding votes of Type A equal the total outstanding votes of Type B, or

December 31, 2000.

Co-owners must agree among themselves as to how a vote shall be case. Regardless of the number of co-owners, no more than one Type A Membership vote may be cast for each Lot.

___________________________________

* As an example, assume that on a given date the Block Plat has 500 Lots and 1695 Planned Lots for a total density of 2196 units. Assume that a Developer owns an unsubdivided Block having 200 Planned Lots and that another Block of land shown on the Block Plat consists of 400 Lots all of which have been sold to Lot purchasers. Assume further that the Declarant owns 100 subdivided Lots and also owns all remaining Blocks having a density of 1496 Planned Lots. The Type and Type B Membership votes entitled to be case would be as follows:

The Type A votes entitled to be case would equal 400.

The Type B votes entitled to be cast by the Declarant would be 5388 (200 Planned Lots owned by Developer + 100 Lots owned by Declarant + 1496 Planned Lots owned by Declarant, multiplied by 3).

The Developer would have no votes in the Master Association.

Any mortgagee who acquires title to a Lot pursuant to a judgement of foreclosure or a trustee’s sale shall automatically become entitled to exercise all voting rights which the Owner of said Lot would otherwise have had.

If any lender to whom Declarant has assigned, or hereafter assigns, as security all or substantially all of its rights under this Master Declaration succeeds to the interests of the Declarant by virtue of said assignment, the absolute voting rights of the Declarant as provided herein shall not be terminated thereby, and such lender, or successor to such lender by assignment or foreclosure or acceptance of a deed in lien thereof, shall hold the Declarant’s memberships and voting rights on the same terms as they were held by Declarant.

Article III – The Master Association, Section 5 – Articles and Bylaws of the Declaration provides the following:

The manner in which the Master Association holds meetings and attends to other corporate formalities shall be controlled by the provisions of the Bylaws, the Articles of Incorporation, and this Master Declaration which shall control. The Board of Directors of the Master Association shall be elected by majority vote of the total votes cast by the Membership at a meeting attended by a quorum as called for by the Bylaws, except that for a period of ten years from the date hereof, Declarant shall, so long as it owns a single Lot of Planned Lot in the Annexation Land, have the right to appoint the member of the Board of Directors without a meeting and without a vote of the Members, and during said ten year period no election of the Members to elect the Directors shall be had unless Declarant has in writing relinquished its right of exclusive appointment.

Article III – The Master Association, Section 6 – Transition to Board of the Declaration provides the following:

Prior to the time that the operations of the Master Association are turned over to the Members by the Declarant, the Members shall be required by February 15 of each year to report and submit to the Master Association, in writing, any claims or disputes with regard to the operations of the Master Association by the Declarant, maintenance of any streets, roads, sidewalks, street signs, walls, fences, landscape, or other improvements originally constructed by Declarant or the collection of assessments, maintenance and reserve accounts, and other matters falling within the realm of responsibility of the Master Association.

Article IX – General Provisions, Section 8 – Duration and Amendment of the Declaration provides the following:

Duration. Each and every provision of this Master Declaration shall run with and bind the land for a term of twenty-five (25) years from the date of recording of this Master Declaration, after which time this Master Declaration shall be automatically extended for successive periods of ten (10) years each unless prior to the beginning of any single ten (10) extension period, such extensions is disapproved at a regular or special meeting of the Members by the affirmative vote of at least seventy-five (75) percent of the votes of the total number of votes of the Membership.

Amendment. This Master Declaration may be amended during the first twenty-five (25) year period, and during subsequent extensions thereof, by an instrument in writing signed by: a) the President and Secretary of the Master Association not less than seventy-five percent (75%) of the total votes of the Membership, or b) the Ownors [sic] of at least seventy-five (75) percent of the Lots and Planned Lots within the Properties (except that for purposes of these sub-parts (a) and (b), a condominium unit shall be deemed to be one-half of of Lot and an apartment until one-fourth of a Lot).

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Master Declaration:

If Declaration shall determine that any amendments to this Master Declaration or any amendments to the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws of the Master Association shall be necessary in order for existing or future mortgagees, deeds of trust, or other security instruments to the acceptable to the Veterans Administration, the Federal Housing Administration of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Federal National Mortgage Association, or the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, then Declarant shall have and hereby specifically reserves the right and power to make and execute and such amendments without obtaining the approval of any Owners, Members, First Mortgagees or if any other person or entity whomsoever.

In the event this Master Declaration is recorded or used for any purpose prior to having been approved by the Veterans Administration, Federal National Mortgage Association, or Federal Housing Administration, then notwithstanding Section 10 below, Declarant shall have the absolute right to amend the provisions hereof without the approval of any agency or any percentage of the Membership whatsoever until such approval is fist obtained. Such amendment shall be effective when signed by the Declarant and duly recorded.

No amendment to the provisions hereof may restrict, limit or eliminate any easement reserved or granted by the provisions hereof, unless Declarant consents in writing to such amendment.

The Declaration was amended re/recorded before the Pima County Recorder on or about November 25, 1992, December 21, 1992, February 05, 1999, April 29, 1994, January 31, 1995, May 29, 1997, January 01, 2007, and October 13, 2020.

Bylaws Article III – Meeting of Members, Section 6 - Voting provides the following:

Voting rights shall be determined as provided in the Declaration. When a vote of the Membership requires a specific percentage of votes, the percentage shall be determined by reference to the aggregate number of votes of the Membership, unless it is stated that the requisite percentage must be each type of membership.

Bylaws Article IV – Board of Directors: Selection: Term of Office, Section 1 – Number provides the following:

The affairs of this Association shall be managed by a Board of three (3) Directors, who need not be members of the Association, except that as many as nine (9) directors may serve after 60% of the Lots and Planned Lots have been sold.

Bylaws Article IV – Board of Directors: Selection: Term of Office, Section 5 – Action Taken Without a Meeting provides the following:

The Directors shall have the right to take any action I the absence of a meeting which they could take at a meeting by obtaining the written approval of all the Directors. Any action so approved shall have the same effect as though taken at a meeting of the Directors.

Bylaws Article V – Nomination and Election of Directors, Section 1 – Nomination provides the following:

Except as provided in Section 2 below, nomination for election to the Board of Directors shall be made by a Nominating Committee. Nominations may also be made from the floor at the annual meeting. The Nominating Committee shall be appointed by the Board of Directors prior to each annual meeting of the Members, to serve from the close of such annual meeting until the close of the next annual meeting, as such appointment shall be announced at each annual meeting. The Nominating Committee shall make as many nominations for election to the Board of Directors as it shall in its discretion determine, but not less than the number of vacancies that are to the filled. Such nominations maybe made from among members or non-members.

Bylaws Article V – Nomination and Election of Directors, Section 2 – Election provides the following:

Election to the Board of Directors shall be by secret written ballot. At such election the Members or their proxies may cast, in respect to each vacancy, as many votes as they are entitled to exercise under the provisions of the Declaration. The persons receiving the largest number of votes shall be elected. Cumulative voting is not permitted.

Hearing Evidence

Petitioner testified on his own behalf. Frederick Christopher Ansley testified on behalf of Respondent. The substantive evidence of record is as follows:

Petitioner opined that on November 18, 2012, Mr. Ansley “lost” his right to appoint Board Members and argued that he continued to do so “for the last twelve plus years.” Per Petitioner, the Pima County Assessor's Office confirmed that only one parcel, Parcel [SSN redacted] (a reclaimed water reservoir), is owned by Starpass Residential LLC. Respondent does not own a lot that is currently for sale in the Starpass subdivision. The second to last Lot in the Starpass subdivision was conveyed to a buyer on February 04, 2011.

Petitioner waived providing testimony on Issues 2 and 3.

Mr. Ansley was the developer of the Starpass subdivision and is its current Declarant. Per Mr. Ansley, ALJ Moses-Thompson issued a Final Order in 24F-H030-REL on April 23, 2024, that addressed the same or similar issues currently before the Tribunal. Mr. Ansley opined that because the Final Order was not appealed by Petitioner, the legal principles of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel precluded him from raising those issues now.

Additional Evidence

On June 12, 2014, the Association filed for bankruptcy before the District Court of Arizona in Docket No. 14-09117.

On July 26, 2019, the Association again filed for bankruptcy before the District Court of Arizona in Docket No. 19-09333.

Closing Arguments

In closing, Respondent argued that because Petitioner became a Member of the Association after the eight amendment of the Declaration was recorded, which has never been legally declared invalid, and because 24F-H030-REL has never been overturned, a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1820 cannot exist since it is inapplicable. Regarding Petitioner’s remaining governing document violations, Respondent argued that the doctrines of issue preclusion, waiver, lack of jurisdiction, and factual insufficiency prevented Petitioner from sustaining his burden of proof.

In closing, Petitioner argued that Mr. Ansley did not own any lots in the Starpass subdivision other than his personal property and therefore did not have any Type B votes. Petitioner also argued that Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1802, enacted in September of 2024, was retroactively applicable to the Declaration’s eighth (8th) amendment. Petitioner beseeched the Tribunal to find that Declarant Control has ended for Declarant, and direct Respondent to call a Special Meeting of the Association pursuant to the Bylaws Article Ill- V for the sole purpose of electing a new Board of Directors by votes of Type A Members only. Petitioner also requested that a Monitor or Auditor be assigned to ensure that the Board of Directors election is held in accordance with the Association’s governing documents.

Conclusions of Law

This matter lies within the Department’s jurisdiction pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-2102 and 32-2199 et seq., regarding a dispute between an owner and a condominium and/or planned community association. The owner or association may petition the department for a hearing concerning violations of community documents or violations of the statutes that regulate planned communities as long as the petitioner has filed a petition with the department and paid a filing fee as outlined in Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-2199.05.

Pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-2199(2), 32-2199.01(A), 32-2199.01(D), 32-2199.02, and 41-1092 et seq. OAH has the authority to hear and decide the contested case at bar. OAH has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1820, Bylaws Articles III-V, and Declaration Article III Section 2 and 5-6, and Article XI Section 8. Respondent bears the burden of establishing any affirmative defenses by the same evidentiary burden.

“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” A preponderance of the evidence is “[t]he greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

Declarant Control is the period during which the developer of a homeowner’s association community retains the exclusive right to appoint and remove the association’s Board of Directors and Officers. State law set strict maximum limits on how long this control may last before transitioning to homeowner control.

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1820 provides, in pertinent parts, as follows:

Notwithstanding any provision in the community documents:

1. Each declaration that provides for a period of declarant control of the association shall also provide for a date of or method for calculating the date of the termination of declarant control.

2. For every planned community, without regard to whether the community documents provide for the termination of declarant control, declarant control terminates not later than the date on which the second to last lot in the planned community is conveyed to a buyer.

3. After termination of the period of declarant control and while the declarant owns one or more lots in the planned community, the association shall:

(a) Provide at least the same level maintenance of common areas that the declarant provided.

(b) Not impede the declarant's ability to develop, construct and sell its lots and not impede access to and use of common areas by the declarant in the same manner as other members.

When construing statutes, we look first to a statute's language as the best and most reliable index of its meaning. If the statute's language is clear and unambiguous, we give effect to that language and apply it without using other means of statutory construction, unless applying the literal language would lead to an absurd result. Words should be given “their natural, obvious, and ordinary meaning." Statutes should be interpreted to provide a fair and sensible result. Unless defined by the legislature, words in statutes are given their ordinary meanings. Each word, phrase, clause, and sentence of a statute or rule must be given meaning so that no part will be void, inert, redundant, or trivial.

The crux of the case at bar is whether Petitioner established that Respondent’s alleged conduct constitutes one or more violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1820, Bylaws Articles III-V, and/or Declaration Article III Section 2 and 5-6, and Article XI Section 8. Based upon a review of the credible and relevant evidence in the record, the Tribunal finds that Petitioner has sustained his burden of proof regarding Issue 2 only.

The material facts in the case at bar are unclear as neither party presented sufficient evidence to address any of the issues for hearing. Both party representatives assumed facts not in the hearing record and impermissibly attempted to testify during examination of adverse witnesses. Neither submitted evidence that independently established or otherwise corroborated their positions. Thus, the Tribunal is left to mostly rely on the referring agency’s administrative record to address the hearing issues.

Overall, in these proceedings Petitioner contends that (1) Mr. Ansley has maintained Declarant Control over the Association for decades by continuously amending governing documents to maintain authority, (2) that the Association’s 8th amendment to Article III Section 2 is unenforceable because it inherently violates Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1820, and (3) Type B Membership has been converted to Type A Membership due to Declarant conveying the second to last lot to a buyer and/or due to the Association’s 8th amendment to Article III Section 2 being voided as unenforceable.

Based on review of the credible and relevant evidence of record, the Tribunal agrees with Petitioner, in part.

Here, there is no credible evidence of record that tends to establish the number of planned lots in the subdivision and/or the number of planned lots owned by the Declarant by parcel number. Additionally, there is no credible evidence of record that tends to establish if and/or when the second to last lot in the subdivision was sold or otherwise conveyed to a buyer. However, the credible evidence of record does establish that the Association’s 8th amendment does not provide a date of termination or method for calculating such a date. Instead, it reverts to the Association’s 7th amendment which identifies December 31, 2020, as the date of termination for Declarant Control. As such, a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1820 has been established. No other violations of law or governing document(s) exist.

Notably, unless specifically stated by the Legislature, statutes are not retroactively applicable to past events or actions. In other words, in Arizona statutes are prospective only. Any argument to the contrary is erroneous.

Thus, the undersigned concludes that because Petitioner sustained his burden of proof in this matter in part, his petition must be granted in part and denied in part.

FINAL ORDER

In light of the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that Issue 2 as identified in the Amended Notice of Hearing, including the relief requested by Petitioner, is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Issues 1 and 3 as identified in the Notice of Hearing and Amended Notice of Hearing, including the relief requested for each by Petitioner, are denied and dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall reimburse a portion of Petitioner’s filing fee, totaling $500.00 (five hundred dollars), as required by Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-2199.01-02.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall henceforth abide by Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1820.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no civil penalties shall be levied against Respondent as a result of these proceedings.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that each party bears its own costs related to preparation and litigation of this matter.

NOTICE

Pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. §32-2199.02(B), this Final Order is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is granted pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-2199.04. Pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1092.09, a request for rehearing in this matter must be filed with the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate within thirty (30) days of the service of this Final Order upon the parties.

Done this day, June 11, 2026.

Office of Administrative Hearings

/s/ Jenna Clark

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:

Susan Nicolson, Commissioner

Arizona Department of Real Estate

100 N. 15th Ave., Ste. 201

Phoenix, AZ 85007

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

Michael J. Schmidt, Petitioner

2093 S. Twinkling Starr Dr.

Tucson, AZ 85745

[email redacted]

Starrpass Master Homeowners Association, Inc., Respondent

c/o Chris Ansley, Agent

3702 W. Tohono Crossing Pl.

Tucson, AZ 85745

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff