ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final
26F-LTA2526002-ADH · Arizona State Department of Housing - LTA · 2026-02-19
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Roberta Toedtemeier, et al.,
Petitioner,
v.
Westpark MHP, et al.,
Respondent.
No. 26F-LTA2526002-ADH
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: December 29, 2025.
APPEARANCES: Roberta Toedtemeier appeared for Petitioner. Scott Baluha appeared for Respondent.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Samuel Fox
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Notice of Hearing Packet; Petitioner’s Exhibits (all); Respondent’s Exhibits (all)
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Westpark MHP (Respondent) was a mobile home community located at 2501 W. Wickenburg Way, Wickenburg, AZ 85390.
Roberta Toedtemeier (Petitioner), representative for approximately 50 residents, lived at Respondent.
On or about October 31, 2025, Petitioner filed a Petition for Hearing before the Mobile Home Parks Administrative Law Judge through the Arizona Department of Housing (the Department). On or about the same day, the Department provided Respondent a Notice of the Petition to Equity Lifestyle Properties that day. On or about the same day, Respondent filed a timely Response to the Petition, which was provided to Petitioner. On or about November 10, 2025, Petitioner requested a hearing.
The Petition alleged that Respondent violated the Arizona Mobile Home Parks Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (LTA), A.R.S. § 33-1434. Specifically,
Petition Issue One: Respondent violated safety requirements because the water supply was defective, resulting in water outages every 2.5 weeks (on average in 2024), occurring more frequently in the hotter months, and requiring residents to boil water after repairs, until testing is completed;
Petition Issue Two: Respondent violated safety requirements because many street lights, throughout the property, were inoperative or operated ineffectively, during the wrong times of day;
Petition Issue Three: Respondent violated safety requirements because many security lights, throughout the property, operated during the wrong times of day;
Petition Issue Four: Respondent violated safety requirements because multiple roads were deteriorating and aggregate broke into large chunks;
Petition Issue Five: Respondent harmed the value of the property because some walls were deteriorating and the paint was fading and delaminating;
Petition Issue Six: Respondent harmed the value of the property because water hammers damaged due to the water supply issue and because Respondent has not identified a specific valve that is required for residents to install;
Petition Issue Seven: Respondent harmed the value of the property because failure to perform maintenance such as cleaning dumpster areas, painting walls, and enforcing weed abatement.
The petition did not specifically identify which provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1434 were violated or how those provisions were violated, relying on broad statements of “safety” and “value.”
Respondent’s answer denied all of the allegations.
Lisa Pazour testified she was with Petitioner on or about December 12, 2025, taking photographs of the property, which were submitted to the Tribunal as evidence. She testified that some landscaping, streets, painting, and walls were deteriorating. She testified that the water system was not working properly and the maintenance man did not have time to hand-water the landscaping. She testified that the water would be shut off two or three times per week, and Respondent would inform residents to boil their water for a time after reconnection. She testified that the water shut-offs resulted in sediment entering the pipes, accumulating in faucet filters, damaging some water heaters, potentially damaging dishwashers or washing machines, and requiring residents to alter their routines. She testified that the water issues were most problematic for residents with wound care needs. She testified that she had not provided written notice about her concerns but that she had provided verbal notice. She testified that she did not personally have water or pavement issues at her location.
Jeff Hautz testified about the landscaping, lights, roads, and water. He testified that there were exposed wires and two dead streetlights near his home, which were repaired after about a month.
Petitioner testified about the water issues. She testified that water was shut off seventy times in the prior three years, and the sediment that went through the system after each repair it caused water hammer damage and inconvenience. She testified that the water can be a safety concern for individuals with wound care needs.
Petitioner testified that much of the landscaping had died.
Petitioner testified that wall structures were deteriorating.
Petitioner testified that the streetlights were dangerous; she noted that Respondent made efforts to fix the lights by sending an electrician out, but that only fixes some of the lights and others would die shortly thereafter.
Petitioner testified that a light by the pool lay on its side for a year without being repaired.
Petitioner testified that the roads were dangerous; at least two roads had large craters in the middle making traversing those roads challenging. She testified that there is loose gravel on the roads that goes onto driveways. She noted that Respondent had a four-year plan to repair the roads.
Petitioner testified that a resident tried to use one of the common bathrooms, but it was so soiled that he could not use it; the resident tried again six days later and it was still in the soiled condition. In response, Respondent said the cleaning company comes weekly. She testified that she has not personally seen the common bathrooms in that condition.
Petitioner testified that the residents are frustrated and needed to voice their opinions about the park. She expressed anger that Respondent gave all of the residents’ money to the shareholders instead of taking care of the community.
Donna Donovan, community manager for Respondent since approximately June 2024, testified that Respondent had a plan to repair the roads. As of the hearing, Respondent had updated the roads for about 15% of the community, and Respondent planned to update another 15% of the roads in 2026.
Ms. Donovan testified that Respondent planned to repair or replace the walls at the front of the community in January 2026.
Ms. Donovan testified that the water system could be as old as 1972, and sections were breaking down. She testified that Respondent installed isolation valves to limit the impact of leaks, but some of those valves did not work. The valves would be fixed in January 2026. She testified that she was not aware of any plan to perform preventative maintenance or replacement of the water system to stop leaks.
Ms. Donovan testified that landscapers come every Thursday. She testified that last summer, many of the plants were half killed, and Respondent wanted to wait and see if they came back before pulling them out.
Ms. Donovan testified that Respondent performed streetlight audits every two months and lights are repaired as they are identified. As of the hearing, twelve lights that were out at that time, and Respondent had a contract in place for those repairs.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Department has jurisdiction to determine whether Park’s actions or inactions were in violation of the LTA as had been alleged in Petitioner’s Petition.
The matter was appropriately referred to the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings for hearing.
Following an administrative hearing, the Administrative Law Judge may order any party to abide by the statute or contract provision at issue, may levy a civil penalty up to $500.00, and if a petitioner prevails, must order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the $50.00 filing fee. No other powers or authorizations are given to the Administrative Law Judge.
In these matters, Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated the LTA in the manner alleged in the Petition and that standard of proof is by a preponderance of the evidence. Respondent bears the burden to establish affirmative defenses by the same evidentiary standard. A preponderance of the evidence means “proof which leads the [trier of fact] to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.”
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,” unless defined by the legislature.
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, and each such term must be considered in context. Statutes should be interpreted to provide a sensible result.
A.R.S. § 33-1434(A) requires landlords to maintain a fit premises:
1. Comply with the requirements of all applicable city, county and state codes materially affecting health and safety.
2. Make all repairs and do whatever is necessary to put and keep the premises in a fit and habitable condition.
3. Keep all common areas of the premises in a clean and safe condition.
4. Maintain in good and safe working order and condition all swimming pool, shower, bathhouse, electrical, plumbing and sanitary facilities, including the recreation hall or meeting facilities supplied or required to be supplied or maintained by the landlord.
5. Provide for removal of garbage, rubbish and other waste incidental to the occupancy of the mobile home space.
6. Furnish outlets for electric, water and sewer services. The landlord shall also furnish a prospective tenant with information concerning the type, size and power rating of all electrical, water and sewer connections.
7. Provide a statement of proposed interruption of utility service to the tenants within a reasonable time frame except in the case of an interruption caused by an emergency. An emergency does not include any failure or refusal on the part of the landlord to fulfill the landlord’s duties and obligations as specified in this sction. A statement of proposed interruption of utility service may be provided by posting an announcement of the period of the interruption in a conspicuous place within the mobile home park or by individual delivery to each tenant.
The Petition did not specify what subsection each Issue violated. Accordingly, each subsection will be reviewed in turn.
A.R.S. § 33-1434(A)(1) requires compliance with other laws. The Petition did not identify any other laws (city, county, or state), and the Tribunal does not have the resources to review all potentially applicable health and safety laws. Accordingly, Petitioner did not allege, or meet her burden to prove, any violation of A.R.S. § 33-1434(A)(1).
A.R.S. § 33-1434(A)(6) requires a landlord to provide outlets for utilities and information about connections. Based upon a review of the record, the only plausible allegation was Petitioner Issue six.
A.R.S. § 33-1434(A)(7) requires a landlord to provide a statement of proposed interruption of utility service within a reasonable time frame. Based upon a review of the record, no such violation was alleged by Petitioner.
A.R.S. § 33-1434(B), (C), and (D) set certain conditions on landlords that are not plausibly related to Petitioner’s allegations. Accordingly, no such violation was alleged by Petitioner.
Key terms, “fit,” “habitable,” “clean,” “safe,” and “good” were not defined in the statute, and the parties did not offer definitions. Therefore, the ordinary meaning of such terms must be considered.
The ordinary meaning of “fit” is to be acceptable for its intended purpose, and the ordinary meaning of “habitable” is that it can be lived in. The ordinary meaning of “clean” is not dirty or polluted, and the ordinary meaning of “safe” is to be secure from threat of danger, harm or loss. The ordinary meaning of “good” is to be suitable or of high quality.
Respondent did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1434(A)(2). Petitioner raised safety concerns, but the record does not support that Respondent failed to keep the premises in a fit and habitable condition. To prove that the premises was unfit or uninhabitable, the premises would need to be in a nearly unmanageable condition. Petitioner’s grievances demonstrate inconvenience and burden, but Residents were able to live in their homes, relatively normally, most of the time. Residents had notice of the issues and the associated safety risks could be reasonably mitigated. Respondent also demonstrated that it made, or would make, repairs to the premises as problems arise, even if those repairs take longer than Residents want.
A.R.S. § 33-1434(A)(3), (4), and (5) are potentially at issue.
Petition Issue One (defective water supply): the preponderance of the evidence established that the water system has leaks relatively frequently, resulting in water outages and required at-home maintenance. However, the plumbing is not a common area, is not related to garbage or other waste, and is not a facility. Accordingly, none of the remaining provisions are appliable and no violation of A.R.S. § 33-1434 has occurred.
Petition Issue Two (streetlights): the preponderance of the evidence established that streetlights often go out and may stay out for a relatively long period of time, but the lights are on a maintenance schedule of every two months. Streetlights are not a facility or related to garbage or other waste. Arguably, streetlights help keep common areas safe; however, to violate A.R.S. § 33-1434(A)(3), the preponderance of the evidence must support that the common areas are not in a clean and safe condition. Occasionally inoperative streetlights, scattered throughout the property, do not rise to a violation of that requirement. Accordingly, no violation of A.R.S. § 33-1434 has occurred regarding the streetlights.
Petition Issue Three (security lights): the record does not support any violation regarding security lights.
Petition Issue Four (roads): the preponderance of the evidence established that the roads require replacement in some parts and maintenance in other parts. Roads are not facilities or related to garbage or other wase, but roads are likely considered a common area. Petitioner argued that the roads can be unsafe for some residents and that they may be difficult to navigate for some people. It is more likely than not that the roads are poorly maintained and ragged in parts, but the record does not support a conclusion that the roads are dangerous. A general statement that the roads are unsafe and have large pot holes is insufficient to prove that the roads were unsafe. Accordingly, no violation of A.R.S. § 33-1434 has occurred regarding the roads.
Petition Issue Five: A.R.S. § 33-1434 does not address diminution in value and no other provision is clearly applicable. Accordingly, no claim was stated that could be acted upon.
Petition Issue Six: A.R.S. § 33-1434 does not address diminution in value. It is plausible that subsection (A)(6) could apply to the valve, but the record does not support that the valve is related to the water connection. Accordingly, no violation is deemed to have occurred.
Petition Issue Seven : A.R.S. § 33-1434 does not address diminution in value. It is plausible that subsections (A)(3) or (A)(5) could apply. The dumpster area is likely a common area, but the record does not support a derelict condition around the dumpsters. The record does not support that Respondent does not keep the dumpster area relatively clean, understanding that it will need to be cleaned regularly due to its purpose. The record does not support that Respondent does not provide for removal of garbage. The record supports that it needed paint and occasional repair, such as replacing doors.
Petitioner argued that Respondent breached good faith and fair dealing under the lease. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over contract disputes or lease violations here.
Based on the foregoing, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Petitioner’s Petition should be dismissed.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the Director of the Department dismiss Petitioner’s petition against Respondent.
IT IS ORDERED Petitioners bear the cost of their filing fee.
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 19, 2026.
/s/ Samuel Fox
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Ruby Dhillon-Williams, Interim Director
Arizona Department of Housing
Scott A. Baluha
Zona Law Group P.C.
[email redacted]
Roberta Toedtemeier, et al.
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff