30364 Respondents exhibit packet.pdf

26F-LTA2626003-ADH · Arizona State Department of Housing · 2026-04-15

ZONA LAW GROUP P.C. February 11, 2026 SCOTTSDALE OFFICE PARK VIA CERTIFIED U.S. MAIL 7701 E. INDIAN SCHOOL ROAD AND VIA FIRST CLASS U.S. MAIL SUITE J SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85251 Lester Payne 501 E. Ray Rd., #8 (480) 949-1400 Chandler, AZ 85225 FAX (480) 946-1211 Lester Payne SCOTT A BALUHA 3104 E. Camelback Rd., Apt 1253 Phoenix, AZ 85016 [email redacted] Re: Our Client/Your Landlord – Chandler Meadows Arizona, L.L.C. dba Chandler Meadows

NOTICE OF TERMINATION (NON-RENEWAL)/NOTICE OF RENT INCREASE Lester Payne:

Our office represents Chandler Meadows Arizona, L.L.C. dba Chandler Meadows (the “Community”) located at 501 E. Ray Rd., Chandler, AZ 85225. Notice is hereby given, pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-341(B), that your storage agreement with the Community will terminate at midnight of March 1, 2026, which is your next periodic rental payment date that is more than ten (10) days from the date of this letter. You must remove your manufactured home and all personal property from Space # of the Community on or before March 1, 2026.

If you do not remove the manufactured home and all personal property from Space #8 on or before March 1, 2026, the rental rate to continue to store the manufactured home shall increase to $1,026.00 (one thousand and twenty-six dollars) per month, plus all applicable taxes and utilities. The Community shall reject any payments tendered that are less than the total amount due and shall proceed with the appropriate landlord lien process which may result in the home being sold at an auction. Further, any attorney fees and costs incurred by the Community to proceed with the landlord lien sale process shall be added to the amounts which must be paid in order to redeem any interest the legal owner may have in the manufactured home on Space #8.

Sincerely,

/s/ Scott A. Baluha Scott A. Baluha For the Firm ZONA LAW GROUP P.C. February 13, 2026 SCOTTSDALE OFFICE PARK VIA CERTIFIED U.S. MAIL 7701 E. INDIAN SCHOOL ROAD AND VIA FIRST CLASS U.S. MAIL SUITE J SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85251 Lester Payne 501 E. Ray Rd., #8 (480) 949-1400 Chandler, AZ 85225 FAX (480) 946-1211 Lester Payne SCOTT A BALUHA 3104 E. Camelback Rd., Apt 1253 Phoenix, AZ 85016 [email redacted] Re: Our Client/Your Landlord – Chandler Meadows Arizona, L.L.C. dba Chandler Meadows

REQUIREMENTS FOR REMOVAL OF MANUFACTURED HOME FROM SPACE #8 Lester Payne:

Our office represents Chandler Meadows Arizona, L.L.C. dba Chandler Meadows (the “Community”) located at 501 E. Ray Rd., Chandler, AZ 85225. This letter is a follow up to our prior correspondence dated February 11, 2026, which provided you with notice of termination and a notice of rent increase for the manufactured home located on Space #8 of the Community. It has come to our attention that you have expressed interest in having a buyer remove the manufactured home from the Community. This letter is intended to advise you of the legal requirements that must be satisfied before any person may enter the Community and begin work on the removal of the manufactured home from Space #8.

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1485.01, before any person may remove a manufactured home from a mobile home park, the following requirements must be satisfied:

1. All past due rent and any other monies owed to the Community must be paid in full as of the date of removal. As of the date of this letter, the total amount of unpaid rent owed to the Community is $913.28. This amount is subject to change and will be updated at the time of removal to reflect any additional rent that may accrue.

2. You must provide the Community with a written notification of your intent to remove the manufactured home, including the date the home will be removed, the name, address, and telephone number of the person or entity that will be removing the home, and the name, address, and telephone number of the person or entity that will be the responsible party for restoring the mobile home space.

3. You must provide the name and proof of insurance or bond for any person or entity that will perform the removal of the manufactured home. If the mover is not insured and licensed, a $2,500.00 surety bond must be posted with the Community. Zona Law Group P.C. P a g e | 2 of 2

4. You must obtain a written clearance for removal from the Community. The Community will not issue a clearance for removal until all of the above requirements have been satisfied.

Please be advised that, pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1451(C), a person shall not enter a mobile home park and begin work on the removal of a mobile home without first satisfying the requirements for a clearance for removal as prescribed in A.R.S. § 33-1485.01. Any person who has not satisfied these requirements and who refuses to leave and remove their removal equipment from the Community upon request commits criminal trespass in the third degree pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-1502. The Community will enforce these statutory protections and will contact law enforcement if any person attempts to enter the Community to remove the manufactured home without first obtaining the required clearance for removal.

Additionally, pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1451(C), a person or entity who violates the clearance for removal requirements shall be liable for two times the amount of any rents due.

Nothing in this letter shall be construed as a waiver of any rights or remedies available to the Community under the prior notice dated February 11, 2026, or under applicable law. All terms and conditions of the prior notice remain in full force and effect. Please reach out to the Community manager to provide the required documentation and complete the process.

Sincerely,

/s/ Scott A. Baluha Scott A. Baluha For the Firm ZONA LAW GROUP P.C. Attorneys at Law 7701 East Indian School Road Suite J Scottsdale, Arizona 85251 (480) 949-1400 Scott E. Williams, #012417 Mark B. Zinman, #024028 Scott A. Baluha, #029957 [email redacted] Attorneys for Respondent DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING STATE OF ARIZONA

LESTER PAYNE, JR., Case No. LTA 26-26/003 Petitioners, RESPONDENTS’ RESPONSE TO v. PETITION CHANDLER MEADOWS, et al.,

Respondents. Respondents, answering the Petition filed herein, hereby respond as follows: A. Respondents deny committing any violations of the Arizona Mobile Home

Parks Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (the “Act”).

B. Respondents deny Petitioners’ claims. Petitioner is not a resident nor subject

to any rental agreement with the Respondent and, therefore, no subject matter jurisdiction exists. C. Respondents allege that the Petition fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

D. Respondents allege that the function of the ALJ is unlawful due to the fact that final decisions are made by administrative law judges in a State Agency other than the Department of Housing. E. Respondents allege that the ALJ lacks jurisdiction to grant the relief requested. WHEREFORE, Respondents request that this Petition be dismissed and that they

be awarded their attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in responding to the Petition pursuant

to the parties’ Rental Agreement, which provides for an award of attorneys’ fees incurred

in administrative hearings, A.R.S. § 12-341.01, and any other applicable law. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THIS 6th day of February, 2026. ZONA LAW GROUP P.C.

ZONA LAW GROUP, P.C. 7701 E. Indian School Road, Suite J

By:___/s/ Scott A. Baluha___________________ Scotts dale, AZ 85251 (480) 949-1400

Scott A. Baluha 7701 E. Indian School Rd., Suite J Scottsdale, AZ 85251 Attorneys for Respondents ORIGINAL of the foregoing e-mailed and mailed this 6th day of February, 2026 to: Department of Housing Attention: Ashley Solis Neri 1110 W. Washington, #280 Phoenix, AZ 85007-2935 [email redacted] COPY of thethforegoing mailed this 6 day of February, 2026 to: Lester Payne 501 E. Ray Rd., #8 Chandler, AZ 85225 Petitioner Pro Se /s/ AN

ZONA LAW GROUP P.C. Attorneys at Law 7701 East Indian School Road Suite J Scottsdale, Arizona 85251 (480) 949-1400 Scott E. Williams, #012417 Mark B. Zinman, #024028 Scott A. Baluha, #029957 [email redacted] Attorneys for Respondent IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS STATE OF ARIZONA LESTER PAYNE, JR., Case No. LTA 26-26/003 DOCKET NO. 26F-LTA2626003-ADH Petitioners, v. RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS CHANDLER MEADOWS, et al., Respondents.

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-4062(C), Respondent Chandler Estates (“Respondent” or “Community”) hereby moves for the dismissal of this Petition because the Petitioner is not a “tenant” as defined by the Arizona Mobile Home Parks Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (the “Act”), the Act expressly excludes the Petitioner’s circumstances from its

coverage, the Petitioner’s own documents confirm he never intended to reside at the

Community, and the Department of Housing does not have jurisdiction over his claims.

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-4061, an administrative law judge shall adjudicate complaints regarding compliance with the Act. And, 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 of Housing for a hearing concerning violation of the Act. The Petitioner does not meet either criterion. The following Memorandum of Points and Authorities and the Department’s file in this matter support this Motion to Dismiss. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES Factual and Procedural Background

On September 5, 2025, Petitioner Lester Payne (“Petitioner” or “Owner”)

purchased a 2002 Clayton Homes manufactured home (VINs: CEM002208AZA and

CEM002208AZB) at a public landlord lien sale auction conducted at Space No. 8 of Chandler Meadows Mobile Home Park, located at 501 E. Ray Road, Chandler, AZ 85225. At the time of the auction, the Community was owned and operated by BCORE Chandler ZONA LAW GROUP P.C.

Meadows, L.L.C. The Petitioner paid $28,000.00 for the mobile home via two cashier’s 7701 E. Indian School Road, Suite J

checks totaling $28,000.00. Scotts dale, AZ 85251 (480) 949-1400

As a condition of participating in the auction, the Petitioner signed a Bidder’s Agreement to Terms of Sale of Personal Property (“Bidder’s Agreement”). A true and correct copy of the Bidder’s Agreement is attached hereto as Respondent’s Exhibit 1. The Bidder’s Agreement explicitly stated, in pertinent part, that 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.” The Bidder’s Agreement presented the Petitioner with two clear options: (1) qualify

as a tenant and sign a Rental Agreement to reside in the Community, or (2) sign a Storage Agreement to store the mobile home on the premises while making repairs and selling it. The Petitioner chose neither option. He did not apply for tenancy, did not undergo the

background or application process, and did not execute a residential rental agreement with any owner or operator of the Community. On or about December 19, 2025, the current owner acquired ownership of the Community. After the acquisition, the Community intended to negociate a storage agreement with the Petition. However, the Petitioner alleged damages associated with an alleged delay in getting the title paperwork completed and the Petitioner refused to sign a

storage agreement for the home. 1. THE PETITIONER IS NOT A TENANT UNDER THE ACT AND CANNOT AVAIL HIMSELF OF REMEDIES THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-4061, “an administrative law judge shall adjudicate

complaints regarding and ensure compliance with the Arizona mobile home parks ZONA LAW GROUP P.C.

residential landlord and tenant act.” Further, under A.R.S. § 41-4062(A), only “a person 7701 E. Indian School Road, Suite J

who is subject to title 33, chapter 11 or a party to a rental agreement entered into pursuant Scotts dale, AZ 85251 (480) 949-1400

to title 33, chapter 11 may petition the department for a hearing concerning violation of” the Act. A.R.S. § 33-1409(29) of the Act 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, the Petitioner never signed a rental agreement for the occupancy of Space No. 8. A storage agreement was presented to him but he refused to sign. The Petitioner is not, and has never been, a “tenant” at Chandler Meadows. Because the Petitioner is not a tenant under the Act, 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 of Housing under A.R.S. § 41- 4062(A). //

2. THE ACT EXPRESSLY EXCLUDES THE PETITIONER’S CIRCUMSTANCES Even if the Petitioner could somehow be considered “subject to” the Act, A.R.S. § 33-1407(C) provides an independent basis for dismissal. That statute provides: “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.” ZONA LAW GROUP P.C.

The mobile home at Space No. 8 has not been occupied for residential purposes by 7701 E. Indian School Road, Suite J

any person since the Petitioner acquired it at the lien sale auction on September 5, 2025. Scotts dale, AZ 85251

This is undisputed. The Petitioner cannot meet the exception to this exclusion because (480) 949-1400

there is no evidence—let alone “clear and convincing evidence”—that he “acquired the mobile home for residential purposes.” To the contrary, the Petitioner’s own actions and documents confirm he purchased the home as an investment to repair and resell. He does not reside at the Community, his driver’s license lists a different address (3104 E. Camelback Rd., Phoenix, AZ 85016), and he has never applied for tenancy. Because the Act “does not apply” to the Petitioner’s mobile home under § 33- 1407(C), the Department of Housing has no jurisdiction over any of the Petitioner’s claims, and this Petition must be dismissed. 3. THE PETITIONER’S CLAIMED VIOLATIONS ARE NOT COGNIZABLE UNDER THE ACT The Petition alleges violations of A.R.S. §§ 33-1410 (good faith obligation), 33- 1434 (landlord duties), 33-1471 (material noncompliance), 33-1476 (good cause for termination), and 33-1491 (retaliatory conduct). Each of these provisions applies exclusively to the landlord-tenant relationship as defined by the Act. Because no landlord-

tenant relationship exists between the Petitioner and the Community—only a storage arrangement governed by A.R.S. § 33-301 et seq.—none of these provisions apply, and the Department of Housing lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate claims arising under them. Additionally, the Petitioner’s complaint regarding the delay in title transfer is a dispute arising from the lien sale process conducted by the prior owner under A.R.S. § 33- 1023. Title transfer disputes are not within the purview of the Act or the Department of

Housing. Simply, this is not the proper forum for such disputes.

The Petitioner’s claim of “retaliation” under A.R.S. § 33-1491 is likewise without

merit. The anti-retaliation provisions of the Act protect “tenants” who have complained about violations of the Act. The Petitioner is not a tenant. CONCLUSION ZONA LAW GROUP P.C.

The Petition must be dismissed. The Petitioner is not a “tenant” under the Act. He 7701 E. Indian School Road, Suite J

never signed a residential rental agreement with any owner or operator of the Community. Scotts dale, AZ 85251 (480) 949-1400

The Department of Housing does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate claims arising under a storage agreement governed by A.R.S. § 33-301 et seq., nor does it have jurisdiction over title transfer disputes arising from a landlord lien sale under A.R.S. § 33-1023. Therefore, Respondent respectfully requests that the Petition be dismissed. Respondent also requests an award of its costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in responding to this Petition. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 17th day of March, 2026. ZONA LAW GROUP, P.C. By: /s/ Scott A. Baluha Scott A. Baluha 7701 E. Indian School Rd., Suite J Scottsdale, AZ 85251 Attorneys for Respondent

ORIGINAL of the foregoing e-mailed and mailed this 17th day of March 2026 to: Department of Housing Attention: Ashley Solis Neri 1110 W. Washington, #280 Phoenix, AZ 85007-2935 [email redacted] COPY of the foregoing mailed this 17th day of March, 2026 to: Lester Payne 3104 E. Camelback Rd., #1253 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Petitioner Pro Se ZONA LAW GROUP P.C.

7701 E. Indian School Road, Suite J

/s/ AN Scotts dale, AZ 85251 (480) 949-1400

ZONA LAW GROUP P.C. February 27, 2026 SCOTTSDALE OFFICE PARK VIA EMAIL TO [email redacted] 7701 E. INDIAN SCHOOL ROAD SUITE J Consumer Protection & Advocacy Section Civil Litigation Division SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85251 Attorney General’s Office (480) 949-1400 2005 N. Central Ave. FAX (480) 946-1211 Phoenix, AZ 85004

Re: CIC 26-003061—Lester Payne v. Chandler Meadows SCOTT A. BALUHA Our Client: Chandler Meadows Arizona, L.L.C. dba Chandler [email redacted] Meadows

Dear Consumer Protection & Advocacy Section:

Our office represents Chandler Meadows Arizona, L.L.C. dba Chandler Meadows (the “Community”) located at 501 E. Ray Rd., Chandler, AZ 85225. We write in response to the consumer complaint filed by Lester Payne (“Complainant”) under CIC 26-003061, received by our client on or about February 20, 2026. For the reasons set forth below, the Complaint is without merit and should be dismissed.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On September 5, 2025, the Complainant purchased a 2002 Clayton Homes manufactured home (VINs: CEM002208AZA and CEM002208AZB) at a public landlord lien sale auction at Space No. 8 of Chandler Meadows Mobile Home Park. The auction was conducted by the Community’s prior owner, BCORE Chandler Meadows, L.L.C. (“Prior Owner”), pursuant to Arizona’s landlord lien sale process under A.R.S. § 33-1023. The Complainant paid $28,000.00 for the home via two cashier’s checks.

As a condition of participating in the auction, the Complainant signed a Bidder’s Agreement to Terms of Sale of Personal Property (“Bidder’s Agreement”). The Bidder’s Agreement explicitly stated that the home was sold “as is, with all faults and no warranties whatsoever,” that the landlord “makes no warranties, express or implied, with regard to the condition of, title to, or liens against, the Personal Property,” and that the “Buyer purchases the Personal Property subject to any liens with priority over the Landlord’s Lien and at their own risk.”

Critically, the Bidder’s Agreement presented the Complainant with two clear options upon full payment: (1) qualify as a tenant and sign a Rental Agreement to reside in the Community, or (2) sign a Personal Property Storage Agreement to store the home on the premises. The Bidder’s Zona Law Group P.C. P a g e | 2 of 4

Agreement stated: “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.”

The Complainant chose neither option. He did not apply for tenancy, did not undergo the background or application process, and did not execute a residential rental agreement with any owner or operator of the Community. The Complainant does not reside at the Community. His driver’s license lists a different address (3104 E. Camelback Rd., Phoenix, AZ 85016). The Complainant purchased the home as an investment to repair and resell.

On or about December 19, 2025, Chandler Meadows Arizona, L.L.C. acquired ownership of the Community. After the acquisition, the Community attempted in good faith to negotiate a storage agreement with the Complainant. However, the Complainant refused to sign a storage agreement.

II. THE COMPLAINANT’S ALLEGATIONS

The Complainant alleges the following: (1) that the title transfer for the manufactured home was delayed approximately four months; (2) that the Community applied a rent credit of $2,565.00 (representing three months at $855.00/month) to his account, which then appeared as a negative balance on his January 2026 rent statement; (3) that after he refused to sign the Community’s proposed settlement/storage agreement, the Community reversed the rent credit; (4) that the reversal constitutes retaliatory conduct under A.R.S. § 33-1491; and (5) that the proposed settlement/storage agreement contained “unfavorable terms” including bundled terms, a broad release, and a confidentiality provision. The Complainant claims $99,000.00 in damages and alleges consumer fraud under A.R.S. § 44-1521 et seq.

III. RESPONSE

A. The Complainant Is Not a Tenant and Has No Rights Under the Arizona Mobile Home Parks Residential Landlord and Tenant Act.

The Complainant has no landlord-tenant relationship with the Community. He never signed a rental agreement for the occupancy of Space No. 8. He never applied for tenancy. He does not reside at the Community. Under A.R.S. § 33-1409(29), a “tenant” is defined as “a person signing a rental agreement or otherwise agreeing with a landlord for the occupancy of a mobile home space.” The Complainant does not meet this definition.

Moreover, A.R.S. § 33-1407(C) expressly provides that the Mobile Home Parks Residential Landlord and Tenant Act “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.” The manufactured home at Space No. 8 has never been occupied for residential purposes since the Complainant acquired it at the lien sale. The Complainant’s relationship with the Community is that of a personal property owner storing his property on the Community’s premises—governed by A.R.S. § 33-301 et seq. (general landlord-tenant provisions applicable to storage arrangements), not by the Mobile Home Parks Act. Zona Law Group P.C. P a g e | 3 of 4

Accordingly, the Complainant’s claim of “retaliatory conduct” under A.R.S. § 33-1491 is legally inapplicable. The anti-retaliation provisions of the Mobile Home Parks Act protect “tenants” who have complained about violations of the Act. The Complainant is not a tenant and cannot avail himself of these protections.

B. The Title Delay Was Caused by the Prior Owner and the Community Has No Liability for It.

The Complainant’s primary grievance concerns a delay in receiving title documentation for the manufactured home. The lien sale auction was conducted on September 5, 2025 by the Prior Owner. The title was issued on December 23, 2025 and delivered to the Complainant on January 2, 2026. The current Community owner, Chandler Meadows Arizona, L.L.C., did not acquire ownership of the Community until approximately December 19, 2025—after the lien sale had been conducted and the title processing was already underway with the Prior Owner.

The current owner bears no responsibility for the title transfer timeline established by the Prior Owner. The Complainant’s title transfer dispute, if any, lies with the Prior Owner and/or the Arizona Department of Transportation, Motor Vehicle Division, which processes manufactured home title transfers. This is not a matter within the purview of consumer protection law as applied to the current Community owner.

C. The Rent Credit Was Offered in Good Faith and Its Reversal Was Appropriate.

After acquiring the Community, the new ownership applied a $2,565.00 rent credit to the Complainant’s account as a goodwill gesture in connection with the proposed settlement/storage agreement. The credit represented three months of rent at $855.00 per month and was intended to account for the period during which the title transfer was being processed. The credit was offered as part of a comprehensive resolution that included a storage agreement, mutual release, and related terms.

The Complainant refused to sign the settlement/storage agreement. Because the rent credit was offered as consideration for the Complainant’s execution of the agreement—and the Complainant declined to execute the agreement—the Community appropriately reversed the credit. A party is not entitled to retain consideration for an agreement it has refused to sign. The reversal was not retaliatory; it was the logical consequence of the Complainant’s rejection of the proposed resolution.

D. The Community Has Not Engaged in Consumer Fraud.

The Complainant’s allegation of consumer fraud under A.R.S. § 44-1521 et seq. is without merit. Arizona’s Consumer Fraud Act prohibits the use of deception, deceptive or unfair acts, fraud, false pretenses, false promises, misrepresentation, or concealment in connection with the sale or advertisement of merchandise. See A.R.S. § 44-1522(A). None of these elements are present here.

The Community did not sell the Complainant anything—the lien sale was conducted by the Prior Owner. The Community’s offer of a rent credit as part of a proposed settlement was a good-faith attempt to resolve the Complainant’s concerns about the title delay. When the Zona Law Group P.C. P a g e | 4 of 4

Complainant refused the settlement, the Community reversed the credit. There was no deception, misrepresentation, or concealment. The Complainant was fully informed of the terms of the proposed agreement and made a voluntary decision to decline it.

The Complainant’s characterization of the proposed agreement as “coercive” is inaccurate. The Community offered a credit as an incentive to resolve the dispute cooperatively. The Complainant was free to accept or reject the offer, and he chose to reject it. His filing of a police report alleging “unauthorized reversal/theft” does not transform a legitimate business decision into a criminal or fraudulent act.

E. The Complainant’s Claimed Damages Are Unsupported.

The Complainant claims $99,000.00 in damages but provides no documentation or explanation supporting this figure. The Complainant paid $28,000.00 for the home at auction. The rent credit at issue was $2,565.00. The Complainant’s damages claim is speculative and wholly unsupported.

IV. CURRENT STATUS AND COMMUNITY’S ACTIONS

On February 11, 2026, the Community, through undersigned counsel, served the Complainant with a Notice of Termination (Non-Renewal)/Notice of Rent Increase pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-341(B), terminating the storage arrangement effective March 1, 2026 and requiring removal of the manufactured home. On February 13, 2026, the Community provided the Complainant with a detailed letter outlining the statutory requirements for removal of a manufactured home from a mobile home park pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1485.01. The Community will also file a Motion to Dismiss the Complainant’s Department of Housing petition (Case No. LTA 26-26/003) on the grounds that the Complainant is not a tenant under the Act and the Department lacks jurisdiction.

V. CONCLUSION

The Complaint is without merit. The Complainant is not a tenant of the Community. He purchased a manufactured home at a lien sale auction conducted by the Prior Owner, refused to sign either a rental agreement or a storage agreement, and does not reside at the Community. The Community’s offer and subsequent reversal of a rent credit was a good-faith business decision— not consumer fraud or retaliation. The Complainant’s claims under the Mobile Home Parks Act are legally inapplicable, and his $99,000.00 damages claim is unsupported.

Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Attorney General’s Office close this matter. Please feel free to contact me if you need anything further.

Sincerely,

/s/ Scott A. Baluha ZONA LAW GROUP P.C. by Scott A. Baluha ZONA LAW GROUP P.C. Attorneys at Law 7701 East Indian School Road Suite J Scottsdale, Arizona 85251 (480) 949-1400 Scott E. Williams, #012417 Mark B. Zinman, #024028 Scott A. Baluha, #029957 [email redacted] Attorneys for Respondent DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING STATE OF ARIZONA

LESTER PAYNE, JR., Case No. LTA 26-26/003 Petitioners, NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AND v. REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY FEES CHANDLER MEADOWS, et al.,

Respondents. Scott A. Baluha and the law firm of Zona Law Group, P.C. hereby give notice of their appearance as attorneys of record for Respondents in the above-entitled matter, and request that all pleadings and notices of hearings and proceedings in this matter be served at the following address: Scott A. Baluha Zona Law Group, P.C. 7701 E. Indian School Rd., Suite J Scottsdale, AZ 85251 //

Respondent further request that they be awarded their attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in responding to and defending against the Petition in this matter. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THIS 6th day of February, 2026.

ZONA LAW GROUP, P.C. By:_____/s/ Scott A. Baluha__________________ Scott A. Baluha 7701 E. Indian School Rd., Suite J Scottsdale, AZ 85251 Attorneys for Respondents ORIGINAL of the foregoing e-mailed and mailed this 6th day of February, 2026 to: ZONA LAW GROUP P.C.

Department of Housing 7701 E. Indian School Road, Suite J

Attention: Ashley Solis Neri 1110 W. Washington, #280 Scotts dale, AZ 85251 (480) 949-1400

Phoenix, AZ 85007-2935 [email redacted] COPY of thethforegoing mailed this 6 day of February, 2026 to: Lester Payne 501 E. Ray Rd., #8 Chandler, AZ 85225 Petitioner Pro Se /s/ AN

Lester Payne, et al., No. 26F-LTA2626003-ADH Petitioner,

vs.

Chandler Meadows MHP, et al., Respondent.

The hearing in this matter will convene at on , and will be conducted either by video conferencing or telephone participation through Google Meet as follows:

meet.google.com/dqg-bdqe-wcw

(US) 631-596-0865 PIN: 476 256 103# Click on the Google Meet video conference link if you wish to join by video conference. To join by telephone, please dial the ten digit telephone number. You will then be immediately prompted to enter the PIN followed by the # sign.

A party may also appear in person for this matter at the Office of Administrative Hearings in Phoenix. If a party wishes to appear in person, please advise the Office of Administrative Hearings at least 7 days prior to hearing that you will be appearing in person. Any documents you plan to use during the hearing should be submitted to the Office of Administrative Hearings and provided to the other party at least 7 days prior to the hearing as described in the Notice of Hearing.

Done this day, March 17, 2026. /s/ Nedra-Su Kawasaki Administrative Law Judge

After the conclusion of the hearing, you may, but are not required to, fill out an evaluation to assist the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) in fulfilling its statutory duty to obtain statistical feedback from litigants about their experience in the OAH process. Your feedback cannot be seen by the judge. If you wish to fill out an evaluation Office of Administrative Hearings 1740 West Adams Street, Lower Level Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826 about your experience at the OAH, please click here to obtain a fillable PDF form: https://www.azoah.com/Evaluation%20(1).pdf and then email the completed survey to [email redacted]

Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to: Ruby Dhillon-Williams, Interim Director Arizona Department of Housing [email redacted] [email redacted] Lester Payne, et al [email redacted] Scott A. Baluha Zona Law Group P.C. [email redacted]

By: OAH Staff