HOA - ALJDEC decisions

25F-H066-REL · Department of Real Estate - H/C · 2026-01-06

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

In the Matter of:

Oren Snir,

Petitioner,

Gila Springs Association,

Respondent.

No. 25F-H066-REL

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: December 1, 2025

APPEARANCES: Oren Snir (“Petitioner”) appeared on his own behalf. Attorney Austin Baillio represented Gila Springs Association (“HOA”).

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay A. Abramsohn

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Department’s electronical file; Petitioner, four exhibits; HOA, one exhibit.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Arizona Department of Real Estate (“Department”) is authorized by statute to receive and to decide petitions for hearings from members of homeowners’ associations and from homeowners’ associations in the State of Arizona.

On or about June 7, 2025, Petitioner filed a single issue petition (“Petition”) with the Department which alleged that, pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (“Ariz. Rev. Stat.”) § 33-1805(A), the Association had failed to comply with Petitioner’s April 23, 2025 records request. In his Petition, Petitioner noted that he had asked for "All candidate forms, or other expressions of interest in becoming a candidate (e.g. emails), submitted to PMG for the upcoming board elections to be held on 4/28/2025." In his Petition, Petitioner further noted that, on April 24, 2025, a PMG representative informed me that the only candidate other than myself, "verbally expressed her intent to re-run during a telephone conversation."

The Petition then provides the following background information:

On April 25th, 2025 I replied to PMG and informed them that "this is the record I am requesting. All HOA records created by an expression of a homeowner's intent to run in the upcoming election. That phone call created an HOA record in the form of a call log/call history/call record (whatever you wish to call it) maintained by PMG's phone service provider that I wish to review," I even went as far as including an example of such record from my phone service provider. Then on April 28th, 2025 at the annual meeting when I inquired about my request I was informed that Gila Springs Associsation will not be providing such record. On May 5th, 2025 PMG followed up by saying "we do not keep phone records and are therefore unable to provide them" without pointing out any statutory exception. Later that day, I followed up with PMG explaining that the statute does not distinguish between records kept by or for the HOA, and even included an example of emails not being kept by the HOA (but by the service provider), that are still subject to review under the statute. After not hearing back, I followed up on that email on May 21st, 2025 and received a response that PMG is in receipt of my email, and that they did notice a May 5th, 2025 email that they were "not previously in possession of," and that they will follow up ASAP. On June 5th, 2025 , after still not hearing back from PMG about this issue, I again reached out to follow up on my request and was told that "[w]e cannot produce something we don't have. There are no call records that we can provide you with." After again pushing back and asking why they distinguish between call records and email records, PMG responded that "[they] consider this matter closed...."

On or about July 7, 2025, HOA returned its Answer to the Department wherein it denied Petitioner’s allegations.

On September 19, 2025, the Department referred this matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”), an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing on December 1, 2025 to determine whether a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1805(A) had occurred.

PMG Services, Inc. (“PMG”) is the HOA’s management company.

At hearing, Petitioner acknowledged that his original April 23, 2025 records request anticipated the receipt of written “candidate forms” of other “expressions of interest” such as “emails;” he had not known about any phone calls when he made the April 23, 2025 request. When he was told that there had been a phone call between an incumbent Board member and PMG, Petitioner then indicated on April 25, 2025, that was “the record” he wanted.

The impetus for the candidate form request was essentially twofold: Petitioner’s present interest in assuring that the April 28, 2025 election for the Board of Directors (“Board”) was being run correctly; and, a historical event of an election in 2023 for which Petitioner’s candidate form was at first rejected due to being filed after business hours (despite the instructions not indicating a business hours deadline) but then accepted for Petitioner’s name to be on the ballot.

Petitioner argued that phone records, even personal phone records of an employee of the management company, were HOA records subject to being disclosed pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1805(A). Petitioner further argued that knowing the exact date and time of the subject phone call would determine whether that incumbent Board member had met the March 24, 2025 business hours deadline to express an interest in being on the Board.

Petitioner argued that there is always a record of phone calls through a phone service provider and that HOA could have or was obligated to obtain that particular phone record in response to his request. Petitioner argued that Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1805(B) does not contain any exception for phone records.

At hearing, HOA argued that phone records of a personal phone device belonging to an employee of the management company (a) are not records in the possession, custody, or custody of the HOA, and (b) cannot be considered to be an HOA record. Citing Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1805(B)(4), HOA argued that it is not under an obligation pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1805(A) to produce such personal records.

Mary Jo Edel, then President and CEO of PMG, testified that she had initiated the phone call to the incumbent Board member, who was in the hospital the time, because the incumbent had previously/recently expressed her interest to be a candidate. Ms. Edel testified that she had made the call during business hours. Ms. Edel testified that PMG had an “HOA” business number for members to use, and that PMG had never had any of her personal phone device phone records.

The 2025 Candidate Form instructed persons to mail or fax the form back to PMG by a March 24, 2025, 5:00 p.m. business hours deadline; the form also contained the PMG email address.

Melissa Jordan, Managing Agent for PMG, testified that there had not been an email received by PMG from the incumbent and that there were no HOA phone records of the subject phone call. Ms. Jordan testified that she only had been able to give Petitioner what she had in response to his request.

Neither party discussed whether PMG did, in fact, provide to Petitioner any “paper” candidate forms, or emails, that had been received by PMG regarding resident/members’ interest in being on the Board for the April 28, 2025 election. However, within Petitioner’s 72-page email chain, an April 24, 2025 email (at 8:55 a.m.) from Ms. Jordan to Petitioner appears to indicate that the incumbent Board member was the only other candidate.

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 planned community association. An owner or an 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. § 33-1805(A). 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.”

In Arizona, 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. Gutierrez v. Industrial Commission of Arizona; see also State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968) ("Courts will not place an absurd and unreasonable construction on statutes.").

When the legislature uses a word or words in one section of a statute, but not another, the tribunal may not read those words into the section where the legislature did not include them. 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.

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1805(A) states, in pertinent part:

Except as provided in subsection B of this section, all financial and other records of the association shall be made reasonably available for examination by any member or any person designated by the member in writing as the member's representative. The association shall not charge a member or any person designated by the member in writing for making material available for review. The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.

Based on the hearing record, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Petitioner has not met his burden to demonstrate that PMG failed to timely respond to Petitioner’s April 23, 2025 request for documentary evidence of the candidate forms or emails from persons who had expressed an interest in serving on the Board. Petitioner had stated PMG need not provide a copy of his own form. On April 24, 2025, only one day after his request, PMG essentially responded to Petitioner that there were no other documentary candidate forms to provide to Petitioner.

Based on the hearing record, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Petitioner has not met his burden to demonstrate that a telephone call initiated on a personal phone device of an employee of the management company becomes an HOA record by virtue of the employee’s employment status. Based on the foregoing, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Petitioner did not sustain the burden of proof that the Association committed a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1805(A) and, therefore, the Petition must be denied.

FINAL ORDER

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition is denied.

NOTICE

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

Done this day, January 6, 2026.

/s/ Kay A. Abramsohn

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Susan Nicolson, Commissioner

Arizona Department of Real Estate

Attn:

[email redacted]

Austin Baillio, Esq.

[email redacted]

Oren Snir

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff