HOA - ALJDEC decisions

26F-LTA2626003-ADH · Arizona State Department of Housing · 2026-05-04

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Lester Payne, et al.,

Petitioner,

Chandler Meadows MHP, et al.,

Respondent.

No. 26F-LTA2626003-ADH

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

DECISION

HEARING: April 21, 2026

APPEARANCES: Petitioner Lester Payne appeared on his own behalf. Scott Baluha, Esq. represented Respondent Chandler Meadows MHP. Pilar Van Eaton appeared as a witness for Respondent Chandler Meadows MHP.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative Notice taken of Agency Record; Respondent Chandler Meadows MHP’s Exhibits 1 and 2.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Chandler Meadows MHP (“Respondent”) is a mobile home community located in Chandler, Arizona.

On September 5, 2025, Lester Payne (“Petitioner”) purchased a manufactured home at a public landlord lien sale auction conducted at Respondent’s Space No. 8.

On or about January 7, 2026, 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, 33-1471, 33-1434, 33-1491, 33-1476, through various actions and failures, as outlined in the Petition.

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 April 20, 2026.

At the outset of the hearing, Respondent, through counsel, was provided the opportunity to argue its previously filed Motion to Dismiss, and Petitioner was afforded the opportunity to respond to Respondent’s arguments. The Administrative Law Judge determined that because questions of fact existed, it was best to proceed to a hearing on the merits.

Petitioner testified on his own behalf. Pilar Van Eaton testified on behalf of Respondent.

As a condition of participating in the auction, Petitioner signed a Bidder’s Agreement to Terms of Sale of Personal Property (“Bidder’s Agreement”). The Bidder’s Agreement stated, in pertinent part:

Upon full payment, Buyer shall remove the Personal Property from Landlord’s real property (‘Premises’) as expeditiously as possible (not to exceed 15 days) unless Buyer and Landlord sign a Personal Property Storage Agreement, or Buyer qualifies to reside in Landlord’s mobile home park and signs a Rental Agreement.

At hearing, Petitioner acknowledged that he purchased the mobile home for the purpose of effectuating repairs and re-selling it for a profit. Essentially, Petitioner purchased the mobile home in order to “flip it.” This is a business for Petitioner. Petitioner never had the intention of residing in the mobile home and has never resided in the mobile home. Petitioner further acknowledged that he did not sign a rental agreement with Respondent, nor did Petitioner sign a storage agreement with Respondent notwithstanding the fact that Respondent sent Petitioner a storage agreement dated January 16, 2026.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-4062(A), only “a person who is subject to title 33, chapter 11 or a party to a rental agreement entered into pursuant to title 33, chapter 11 may petition the department for a hearing concerning violation of” the LTA.

A.R.S. § 33-1409(29) of the LTA defines a “tenant” as “a person signing a rental agreement or otherwise agreeing with a landlord for the occupancy of a mobile home space.” In this case, Petitioner never signed a rental agreement for the occupancy of Space No. 8, and although a storage agreement was presented to him, Petitioner opted not to sign the agreement. Therefore, Petitioner is not, and has never been, a “tenant” at Respondent. Because Petitioner is not a tenant under the LTA, he is not “a person who is subject to title 33, chapter 11 or a party to a rental agreement entered into pursuant to title 33, chapter 11” and therefore, lacks standing to petition the Department under A.R.S. § 41-4062(A).

A.R.S. § 33-1407(C) states:

This chapter does not apply to a mobile home that has not been occupied for residential purposes by one or more persons in its current location with the approval of the landlord since being titled to the mobile home's present owner unless the present owner proves by clear and convincing evidence that the mobile home owner acquired the mobile home for residential purposes but was prohibited from using the mobile home due to circumstances beyond the mobile home owner's control. This subsection includes a mobile home owned by a broker or dealer as defined in section 41-4001.

The mobile home at Space No. 8 has not been occupied for residential purposes by any person since Petitioner purchased it at the lien sale auction on September 5, 2025. Therefore, Petitioner cannot meet the exception to this exclusion set forth in A.R.S. § 33-1407(C) because Petitioner admittedly did not acquire the mobile home for residential purposes. Petitioner confirmed he purchased the home as an investment to repair and resell. The LTA does not apply to a mobile home that has not been occupied for residential purposes by one or more persons in its current location.

In this case, because Petitioner is not a “tenant” under the LTA as he never signed a residential rental agreement or a storage agreement with any owner or operator of Respondent, the LTA expressly excludes Petitioner’s circumstances from its coverage, and the Department does not have jurisdiction over Petitioner’s claims.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition against Respondent is Dismissed.

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, May 4, 2026.

/s/ Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile May 4, 2026, to:

Ruby Dhillon-Williams, Director

Arizona Department of Housing

Lester Payne

[email redacted]

Scott A. Baluha

Zona Law Group, P.C.

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff