HOA - ALJDEC decisions

26F-LTA2526003-ADH · Arizona State Department of Housing - LTA · 2026-03-12

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Tracey Hake, et al.,

Petitioner,

vs.

Holiday Forest MHP, et al.,

Respondent.

No. 26F-LTA2526003-ADH

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: February 27, 2026

APPEARANCES: Petitioner Tracey Hake appeared on her own behalf. Respondent Holiday Forest MHP was represented by Scott A. Bahula, Esq.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Petitioner’s Exhibit A and Respondent’s Exhibits 1-5 were admitted into evidence.

_____________________________________________________________________

Holiday Forest MHP (“Respondent”) is a mobile home community located in Pinetop, Arizona. Tracey Hake (“Petitioner”) rents Lot number 50 from Respondent.

On or about December 15, 2025, Petitioner filed a Petition with the Arizona Department of Housing (“Department”) alleging that Respondent violated the Arizona Mobile Home Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) §§ 33-1401 through 33-1501 (“LTA”). Specifically, Petitioner alleged that Respondent violated A.R.S. §§ 33-1410, 33-1413 (E), (G), (H), and 33-1432(F), through various actions and failures, as outlined in the Petition for Hearing.

After Respondent filed a written answer, the Department referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.

The hearing took place on February 27, 2026.

At hearing, Petitioner testified that on or about October 1, 2025, she purchased a home from a prior tenant and entered into a month-to-month lease agreement with Respondent for $325.00 per month. Petitioner testified that she signed the lease agreement under duress even though she had requested a yearlong lease.

Petitioner also testified that she was notified a few days later that effective February 1, 2026, the rent was increasing to $445.00 per month.

Petitioner requested that the tribunal order Respondent provide her with a yearlong lease effective October 1, 2025, at a rate of $395.00 per month.

Ben Herrera testified on behalf of Respondent. Mr. Herrera was the property manager and testified that Petitioner did not request a yearlong lease until after she executed the October 1, 2025, agreement. However, Mr. Herrera testified that he has prepared a yearlong lease and placed the same in her mailbox for space 50 at the park.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The Department has jurisdiction to determine whether Respondent violated the LTA in the actions or inactions alleged in Petitioner’s Petition.

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated the LTA in the manner alleged in the Petition, and that standard 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 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.”

Petitioner alleged numerous statutory violations by Respondent based upon the complaints outlined in Petitioner’s Petition. Specifically, Petitioner alleged the following violations by Respondent: A.R.S. §§ 33-1410, 33-1413 (E), (G), (H), and 33-1432(F).

Notwithstanding her numerous complaints and allegations of statutory violations by Respondent, Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed any violations of the LTA cited by Petitioner and as set forth herein.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that the Director of the Department dismiss Petitioner’s petition against Respondent.

NOTICE

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-4063(B), this Order is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is granted pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-4065. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.09, a request for rehearing in this matter must be filed with the Director of the Department of Housing within 30 days of the service of this Order upon the parties.

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000Done this day, March 12, 2026.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile March 12, 2026 to:

Ruby Dhillon-Williams

Interim Director

[email redacted]

Scott A. Baluha

Zona Law Group P.C.

[email redacted]

Tracey Hake, et al.

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff