HOA - ALJDEC decisions

26F-H068-REL · Department of Real Estate - H/C · 2026-07-02

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

In the Matter of

Daniel Hunter & Nicole Hunter

Petitioners

Del Camino Homeowners Association, Inc.

Respondent

No. 26F-H068-REL

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: June 15, 2026

APPEARANCES: Petitioners Daniel and Nicole Hunter were represented by Joshua Austin. Respondent Del Camino Homeowners Association, Inc. was represented by Elizabeth Lindblom.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Petitioners’ Exhibits 1-34 were admitted into evidence.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

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 12, 2026, Petitioners filed a single-issue petition against the Association with the Department. Petitioners tendered $500.00 to the Department with his petition.

On or about April 9, 2026, the Del Camino Homeowners Association, Inc. (“Association”) filed its Answer with the Department whereby it denied all complaint items in the petition.

Per the Notice of Hearing, the Department referred this matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”), an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing on June 15, 2026, regarding the following issue based on Petitioners’ petition:

on July 25, 2025, the Del Camino Homeowners Association violated Article XI of the CC&Rs, Section 5.1 of the Bylaws, and A.R.S. §33-1817 by denying 3 Petitioner's architectural request for window replacement without citing any objective written architectural standard governing windows style (and in fact having no architectural guidelines at all, in violation of the association's CCR's and its bylaws) and without providing a

reasonable detailed written explanation for the denial, instead relying on subjective aesthetic criteria such as "East Coast style' versus 'Southwest style.'

Respondent is a homeowners’ association whose members own properties in a residential real estate development located in Scottsdale, Arizona.

Petitioners are property owners and members of the Association.

The Association is governed by its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (“CC&Rs”), and overseen by a Board of Directors (“the Board”). The Association is also regulated by Title 33, Chapter 16, Article 1 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (“Ariz. Rev. Stat.”)

The Agency Record from the Department and Notice of Hearing were also admitted into the evidentiary record.

Mr. Hunter testified that he and his wife had been residing in the community for approximately 13 years. Mr. Hunter testified that in July 2025, they decided to replace the home’s exterior windows, due to damage and lack of efficiency at a cost of approximately $25,000.00. Mr. Hunter testified that due to his work background in commercial energy efficiency upgrades, he believed that the windows were a “maintenance project not a capital project” and did not think to seek permission from the Association.

Next, Mr. Hunter testified that at some point after some of the windows were installed, he noticed a neighbor taking pictures of the residence/windows. Mr. Hunter then questioned the neighbor and was informed that the neighbor believed that the windows were not in compliance with the Association’s rules and regulations. Then Mr. Hunter testified that he submitted a form for Architectural Design/Change on July 7, 2025, as well as sending a letter to the Board of the Association, apologizing for his mistake by not seeking approval sooner.

Mr. Hunter then testified that on July 25, 2025, he received correspondence from the Association denying his request for the windows requested that Petitioner forward alternative options within 30 days. Further, Mr. Hunter testified that after the denial, several letters were exchanged between himself and his uncle as well as the Association.

Mr. Hunter testified that he then proposed to the Association, on November 3, 2025, to paint his house in a color which would allow the windows to better blend in with the home, however this request was denied by the Association on November 20, 2025. Next, Mr. Hunter testified that on December 2, 2025, he proposed to the Association to paint the trim surrounding the windows, to try to match the color or the home, despite the paint potentially violating his window warranty. However, this request was likewise denied by the Association on December 11, 2025.

Further, Mr. Hunter testified that in February 2026, he received a Notice of Violation regarding his windows as they “were not in conformity with the Associations governing documents.”, and on March 24, 2026, the Association levied a $250.00 fined for the same. Mr. Hunter testified that in good-faith, he paid the fine.

Mr. Hunter testified that after further e-mail exchanges, he submitted yet another application for the Association to consider. On April 11, 2026, Mr. Hunter proposed that he be permitted to install dark sunscreens around the windows, so the frames were not visible. However, that too was denied on May 12, 2026.

In summation, Mr. Hunter testified that he did not understand why the “pop-out” style of window was such a concern to the Association, and was actively trying to find a workable solution, yet the Board rebuked him at every turn. Lastly, Mr. Hunter testified that there were no specific guidelines as to the style of windows that were required by the Association, so he had no guidance as to the specific reasoning for the denial. Thus, Mr. Hunter concluded his testimony stating that he wanted to finish installation of his windows recognizing the fact that they are not in conformity with the rest of the homes in the Association.

Robert Clinger, the Association President and member of the Architectural Committee, testified for Respondent. Mr. Clinger testified that while there were no specific guidelines for the types of windows to be installed, the committee generally considers the overall aesthetic of the homes in the community, and there were no homes which had the style of windows which Petitioner installed. Further, Mr. Clinger testified that the Association has denied other homeowners’ permission to install these types of windows so was not treating Petitioner’s any differently.

As to the three subsequent proposals, Mr. Clinger testified that simply painting the home to match the windows would still be out of the community standards as the windows would still “pop-out”. Furthermore, Mr. Clinger testified that painting the window frame was not a solution as potentially there would need to be constant maintenance to re-paint the same due to weather damage. Finally, Mr. Clinger testified that the sunscreens were not a viable solution either.

While Mr. Clinger testified that the Association was still willing to work with Petitioners to find a solution, he ultimately admitted that the windows needed to be flush with the wall, was his guiding principle.

Conclusions of Law

This matter lies within the Department’s jurisdiction. Pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-2102 and 32-2199 et al., regarding a dispute between an owner and a 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(D), 32-2199.02, and 41-1092, OAH has the authority to hear and decide the contested case at bar.

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1817, Section 5.1 of the Bylaws and Article XI of the CC&R’s.

“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.”

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1817(3) provides as follows, “[a]pproval of a construction project's architectural designs, plans and amendments shall not unreasonably be withheld.”

Section 5.1 of the Bylaws provides:

5.1. Committee The Architectural Committee shall promulgate architectural guidelines and standards to be used in rendering its decisions (the "Architectural Guidelines"). Subject to the provisions of Section 2 of Article XI of the Declaration, the decision of the Architectural Committee shall be final on all matters submitted to it pursuant to the Declaration. The Declarant shall establish an Architectural Committee to perform the of the Architectural Committee set forth in the Declaration and shall adopt the procedural rules and regulations for the performance of such duties by the Architectural Committee, including procedures for the preparation, submission and determination of the application for any approvals required by the Declaration. The Architectural Committee shall consist of such number of regular members and alternative members as the Declarant may designate and such members shall be appointed by the Declarant. The initial Architectural Committee shall consist of two (2) regular members Appointees need not be architects or Owners and do not need to possess any special qualifications of any type except such as the Declarant may, in its discretion, require The Architectural Committee shall hold regular meetings, a quorum for such meeting shall consist of a quorum of the regular members, and the concurrence of a majority of the regular members shall be necessary for any decision of the Architectural Committee. An alternate member, approved by the Declarant, may constitute a quorum by his presence and shall have all of the authority of a regular member while so participating.

Article XI of the CC&R’s provides in pertinent part:

Section 1. Establishment. The Declarant shall establish an Architectural Committee to perform the of the Architectural Committee set forth in this Declaration and adopt the procedural rules and regulations for the performance of such duties by the Architectural Committee, including procedures for the preparation, submission and determination of the application for approvals required by this Declaration. The Architectural Committee shall consist of such number of regular members and alternate members as the may designate and such members be appointed by the Declarant. The initial Architectural Committee shall consist of two (2) regular members.

. . .

Article III Section 2(a) of the CC&R’s provides in pertinent part:

Section 2. Covenants, Conditions. Restrictions and Easements to Lots Within Land Use Classifications. The following covenants, conditions, restrictions and reservations of easements and rights shall apply to all Lots and the Owners thereof.

(a) Architectural Control. The Property is subject to architectural control as established by the Architectural Committee. No improvements, alterations, repairs, excavation, grading, landscaping or other work which in any way alters the exterior appearance of any of the Property, or the improvements located thereon, its natural or improved state existing on the date this Declaration was first recorded be made or done without prior written approval of the Architectural Committee, except as otherwise expressly provided in this Declaration. No building, fence, wall, residence or other structure shall be commenced, erected, maintained, improved, altered, or made without the prior written approval of the Architectural Committee. subsequent additions to or changes or alterations in any fence, wall or other structure, exterior color scheme, and all changes in the grade of Lots, shall be subject to the prior written approval of the Architectural Committee. No changes or deviations in or the plans and specifications once approved by the Architectural Committee be without prior written approval of the Architectural Committee.

The material facts in this matter are not in dispute.

Petitioners undertook a major expense in replacing their windows. While the tribunal appreciates Mr. Hunter’s testimony, he should have known that this undertaking to change the appearance of the exterior of his home required prior approval from the Association. That unfortunately is where the fault lies in this action. There was no unreasonable denial in this case, as Petitioners’ home is the only home with these windows, and Mr. Clinger testified that other homeowner’s requests were denied. Thus, the tribunal finds that the Association was not in violation as asserted by Petitioners.

Based upon the foregoing, Petitioners did not meet their burden of proof in demonstrating that the Association was in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1817, Section 5.1 of the Bylaws and Article XI of the CC&R’s.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners’ petition in this matter be denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-2199.02(A), Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioners’ filing fee as required by Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-2199.01.

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.

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000Done this day, July 2, 2026.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile July 2, 2026 to:

Susan Nicolson

Commissioner

Arizona Department of Real Estate

[email redacted]

Joshua Austin

[email redacted]

Elizabeth Lindblom

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff