HOA - ALJDEC decisions

25F-H127-REL · Department of Real Estate - H/C · 2026-05-18

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

In the Matter of

Vanderbilt Farms Marana Homeowners Association,

Petitioner,

Arthur Eckhart and Beckie Hansen Eckhart,

Respondents.

No. 25F-H127-REL

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: April 27, 2026

APPEARANCES: Arthur Eckhart and Beckie Hansen Eckhart appeared on their own behalf. Attorney Tessa Knueppel represented Vanderbilt Farms Marana Homeowners Association.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay A. Abramsohn

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Notice of Hearing Packet (Packet). Respondent Exhibits A through C. _____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. 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 Arizona. Homeowners’ associations, and their members are governed by Chapter 16 of Title 33, the Planned Communities Act, Arizona Revised Statutes (Ariz. Rev. Stat.) §§ 33-1801 to 33-1818.

2. Vanderbilt Farms Marana Homeowners Association (Vanderbilt) is a homeowners’ association whose members own single-family residences in the Vanderbilt property in Marana, Arizona.

3. Arthur Eckhart and Beckie Hansen Eckhart (Respondents) are members of Vanderbilt.

4. On May 28, 2025, Vanderbilt issued an architectural violation notice regarding a corrugated steel fence having been erected in between the common walls of Respondents and the neighbor. The Courtesy Notice provided in relevant part, as follows:

It has been reported that a large 8 foot high corrugated steel fence is permanently erected in between the common walls. No ARC requests were found for the fencing in complaint and is in violation of CC&Rs for Vanderbilt.

Please bring this issue into compliance within 14 days from the date of this inspection. If you wish to contest this notice, the process you must follow is to file an appeal with the Board of Directors. Please visit https://www.homeownerresources.com/Appeals to file your appeal. Requests for an appeal must be received within 21 days of receipt of this notice. ...

5. On October 24, 2025, Vanderbilt issued an architectural violation notice regarding the metal fencing. The Courtesy Notice provided in relevant part, as follows:

Any exterior change to the appearance of your property must be submitted for approval in accordance with the CC&Rs and Design Guidelines. Per previously insured denial letter dated 9/29/25 the metal fencing does not meet community design guidelines and must be removed.

6. On November 12, 2025, Vanderbilt issued a noncompliance issue notice regarding the metal fencing. This notice was a Notice of Non-Compliance which imposed a $25.00 penalty. The Notice states, in pertinent part:

In an effort to gain compliance, the community is inspected on a regular basis. If any deviations from the community restrictions are noted, we have been asked by the Board of Directors to inform the homeowner of the deviation. We have become aware of violation(s) of the governing documents in connection with your lot/unit that appears to deviate from the community restrictions and ask that it be brought into compliance. You are hereby notified of the following violation.

There are photos of your violation available for your review. To review these photos, please visit https://www.homeownerresources.com/compliance

and enter the following id: V1637400.

A fine of $25.00 has been posted to your account for the violation indicated above. Please bring this issue into compliance within 14 days from the date of this inspection. Pursuant to Arizona law, the process to contest this notice is to appeal the fine before the fine becomes a permanent obligation. Please visit https://www.homeownerresources.com/Appeals to file your

appeal. Requests for an appeal must be received within 21 days of the date of this notice. You will have the opportunity to present backup documentation, if any, supporting your appeal. If the Board approves your appeal, the fine will be reversed and your contest of this notice will have been successful.

7. On or about December 15, 2025, Vanderbilt filed its single-issue petition alleging that Respondent was in violation of Article 4, Sections 4.4.2, 4.4.4, 4.4.5, 4.4.7, 4.8, 4.5.1, Article 5, Section 5.2.6, and Article 11, Section 11.3 of the Vanderbilt CC&Rs. The stated violation was having installed the metal fencing “without prior written approval from the Design Review Committee, in a manner inconsistent with the harmony, landscaping, exterior design, and perimeter requirements of the community, as evidenced by the Board of Directors' unanimous denial of the ARC submittal on August 12, 2025, at the Board meeting, and subsequent denials of the Homeowners' appeal.”

8. The petition was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an

evidentiary hearing.

9. At hearing, Community Manager Jean Mondor testified on behalf of Vanderbilt. Respondents Arthur Eckhart and Beckie Hansen Eckhart testified on their own behalf.

9. Respondents do not disagree that the metal fencing had been installed without prior approval by the architectural committee or the Board. Respondents stated that they have paid or been assessed penalties: $25.00 with the October notice; $25.00 with the November Notice; and $50.00 with the December notice.

10. At hearing, Respondents provided an explanation regarding why the fence had been built; Respondents described discord to the point of criminal activity and harassment from the neighbor including throwing things over the fence and animal issues. Respondents stated that, when the neighbor [Mr. Capone] moved in, he told them he was the HOA President.

11. Respondents indicated that there was no active homeowner’s association (HOA) at the time the homes were being built and that they had been told by the sales agent and by the construction manager that they could do anything in the backyards but would need HOA approval for the front yard. Respondents indicated that they never received a copy of the CC&Rs and, essentially, believed they were allowed to do as they wished in the backyards.

12. At hearing, Respondents provided summary information and a written statement regarding the matter. In that statement, Respondents recount their efforts to try to obtain consent of other neighbors and further efforts to obtain city code and/or law enforcement assistance. Respondents recounted the harassment from the neighbor being well known to others and to law enforcement and emphasized their perceived need for protection from the neighbor. Respondents also indicated that since the fence was erected in their own backyard, they had been having less trouble with harassment from the neighbor. Respondents want to be able to keep the fence and argued they need that level of security which the fence affords them.

13. Vanderbilt argued that it is permitted to, and required to, enforce the governing documents which in this case (a) do not allow such fencing to be erected and (b) certainly not erected without approval. Vanderbilt argued that the fence is not in compliance with the applicable CC&R restrictions and that it was installed without approval. Vanderbilt noted that all the Vanderbilt governing documents were recorded with the County and, thus, available to residents. Vanderbilt requested that the Respondents be found not to be in compliance with the CC&Rs; Vanderbilt requested that Respondents be ordered to remove the fence.

Referenced Authorities

14. Article 4.4.2 of Vanderbilt’s CC&Rs indicates there are design guidelines for harmony of a design with surrounding structures and topography.

15. Article 4.4.4 of Vanderbilt’s CC&Rs indicates there are design guidelines for landscape design, content and conformity with natural desert character of the property.

16. Article 4.4.5 of Vanderbilt’s CC&Rs indicates there are “requirements concerning exterior color schemes, exterior finishes, and materials, and requirements concerning yard and building ornaments, recreational equipment, exterior lighting and exterior furniture, and other items or improvements Visible From Neighboring Property.”

17. Article 4.4.7 of Vanderbilt’s CC&Rs indicates there are design guidelines for perimeter and screen wall design and appearance.

18. Article 4.5 of Vanderbilt’s CC&Rs requires that fences and other structures or improvements may not be started “except in compliance with plans and specifications therefore that have been submitted to and approved by the Design Review Committee and any applicable Subsidiary Committee in accordance with this Declaration and the Design Guidelines.”

19. Article 4.8 of Vanderbilt’s CC&Rs indicates that residents “aggrieved by a decision of the Design Review Committee may appeal the decision to the Board in accordance with procedures to be established in the Design Guidelines.”

20. Article 5.2.6 of Vanderbilt’s CC&Rs states that nothing “be done thereon which may be, or may become, an annoyance or nuisance to Persons or property in the vicinity of such Lot or Parcel, or which shall interfere with the quiet enjoyment of each of the Owners and Occupants.”

21. Article 11.3 of Vanderbilt’s CC&Rs states as follows:

In the event any portion of any Lot, Parcel, or Dwelling Unit is maintained so as to present a nuisance, or substantially detracts from or affects the appearance or quality of any neighboring Lot, Parcel or other area, or is used in a manner which violates this Declaration or any applicable Tract Declaration, or in the event the Owner of any Lot or Parcel fails to perform such Owner's obligations under this Declaration, any applicable Tract Declaration, the Association Rules, or the Design Guidelines, the Association, by Board resolution, may make a finding to such effect, specifying the particular condition(s) that exist, and thereafter give notice to the Owner of such Lot or Parcel that unless specified corrective action is taken within a specified time period the Association, at such Owner's cost, may take whatever action is appropriate to compel compliance including, without limitation, appropriate legal action. If at the expiration of the specified time period the requisite corrective action has not been taken by the Owner, the Association is hereby authorized and empowered, at its sole discretion, to cause corrective action to be taken or to commence appropriate legal action and the cost thereof, including court costs and attorneys, fees, shall be added to and become a part of the Assessments to which the offending Owner and the Owner's Lot or Parcel is subject and shall be secured by the Assessment Lien.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-2199(B) permits an owner or a planned community organization to file a petition with the Department for a hearing concerning violations of planned community documents under the authority of Title 33, Chapter 16. Such petitions will be heard before the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency.

Vanderbilt bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondents violated Vanderbilt’s CC&Rs by a preponderance of the evidence. Respondents bear the burden to establish affirmative defenses by the same evidentiary standard.

“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, if a restrictive covenant is unambiguous, it is enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties. “Restrictive covenants must be construed as a whole and interpreted in view of their underlying purposes, giving effect to all provisions contained therein.”

Vanderbilt has met its burden to establish that Respondents proceeded to install the subject metal fencing in violation of the various applicable Vanderbilt CC&R provisions. Vanderbilt has also demonstrated that it provided an appropriate process to the Respondents regarding the subject fence and that the Board had denied Respondent’s appeals. Therefore, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Vanderbilt has established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondents violated the applicable CC&Rs. Thus, Vanderbilt is the prevailing party and Respondents shall reimburse to Vanderbilt the $500.00 filing fee.

order

IT IS ORDERED that Vanderbilt’s Petition against Respondents is affirmed.

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, May 18, 2026.

/s/ Kay Abramsohn

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile May 18, 2026 to:

Susan Nicolson, Commissioner

Arizona Department of Real Estate

Tessa Knueppel

CHDB Law

Counsel for Petitioner

[email redacted]

Arthur Eckhart and Beckie Hansen Eckhart

11739 W Vanderbilt Farms Way

Marana AZ 85653

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff