HOA - ALJDEC decisions

26F-LTA2626006-ADH · Arizona State Department of Housing · 2026-04-27

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Shirley Ryan, et al.,

Petitioner,

Pine Shadows MHP, et al.,

Respondent.

No. 26F-LTA2626006-ADH

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

DECISION

HEARING: April 14, 2025

APPEARANCES: Petitioner Shirley Ryan appeared on her own behalf with witness, Suzette Gilbreth. Scott Baluha, Esq. represented Respondent Pine Shadows MHP. McKenzie Flores appeared as a witness.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative Notice taken of Agency Record; All of Petitioner Shirley Ryan’s Exhibits, pages 1 through 17; All of Respondent Pine Shadows MHP’s Exhibits 1 through 7

FINDINGS OF FACT

Background and Procedure

On or about February 25, 2026, the Arizona Department of Housing (“Department”) received a Petition from Shirley Ryan (“Petitioner”) against Pine Shadows MHP (“Respondent”) for an alleged violation of the Arizona Mobile Home Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (“LTA”), A.R.S. §§ 33-1401 through 33-1501. Specifically, Petitioner alleged that at the direction of Respondent, she contacted a plumber who “found that the leak was caused by a major water line break that occurred before my meter.” Petitioner requested reimbursement for damages in the amount of $1,050.00 and asserted that Respondent was in violation of A.R.S. §§ 33-1473 and 33-1474.

On or about February 25, 2026, the Department provided notice of the Petition to Respondent.

On or about February 27, 2026, Respondent filed a timely Response to the Petition.

On or about February 27, 2026, the Department provided Petitioner a copy of the Response to the Petition.

On or about March 9, 2026, Petitioner filed a request for a hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings.

On March 13, 2026, the Department issued a Notice of Hearing, setting a hearing on April 14, 2026, at 9:00 a.m.

At the hearing, Petitioner testified on her own behalf and called Suzette Gilbreth as a witness. Respondent called McKenzie Flores as a witness.

Hearing Evidence

On or about November 14, 2025, Petitioner called Respondent’s Community Manager, McKenzie Flores, regarding the increase in the amount of her water bill. Ms. Flores advised Petitioner that she more than likely had a leak that was causing an increase in her water usage.

On December 22, 2025, Petitioner called Ms. Flores again to inquire about a water bill totaling $1,695.34. Ms. Flores dispatched Respondent’s maintenance employee who was not a licensed plumber and had no background in plumbing. Following the inspection conducted by Respondent’s maintenance employee, Ms. Flores advised Petitioner that she would need to hire a licensed plumber to locate and repair a leak that Respondent’s maintenance employee had found underneath her home. Ms. Flores did not provide any documentation to Petitioner regarding her assertion that a leak was found under her home, nor did Respondent provide documentation of such at the hearing.

Petitioner hired a licensed plumber, Desert Ohana Plumbing Company, LLC, that found, in pertinent part, the following:

41. All fixtures had been affected by rocks and debris entering through water supply causing toilets to constantly run in home and other fixtures to have no cold water.

. . .

43.High water usage was caused by rock and sediment clogging fill valves on toilets. Customer has no water main leak from meter to home. Rock and sediment have entered the water supply before customers meter at major leak right next door. This caused rock and sediment to enter customers home from water main supply from park. Nothing on customers side of meter allowed rock and sediment to enter home. Drain and flush of home was directly caused by main water line break before meter as was the high water usage.

Petitioner paid $1,050.00 to Desert Ohana Plumbing Company, LLC for the plumbing repairs.

On January 5, 2026, Petitioner emailed Ms. Flores in pertinent part as follows:

As we previously discussed I’ve had a licensed plumber at my home for the last several days in an attempt to discover if I have a leak in my system which would justify the enormous water bill. I’m attaching his invoice with detailed description of services rendered along with photos.

The total charges for plumbing was $1050 which I paid. . . .

I’m exercising my rights under section 33-1473 of the LANDLORD TENANT ACT to recover damages. . . .

On January 5, 2026, Ms. Flores responded to Petitioner in pertinent part as follows:

After reviewing the information, please note that management is not responsible for issues concerning inside the home that may contribute to increased water usage. As outlined in the lease agreement, residents are responsible for utilities and any plumbing issues within the residence.

Line-item number 43 was not on the initial invoice submitted by Petitioner to Respondent. Petitioner requested that the plumbing contractor further document its findings in more detail after the initial invoice had been submitted.

Suzette Gilbreth, another resident of the community, testified that she spoke with the plumbing contractor while he was working at Petitioner’s lot and was informed that the issue resulted from a sediment build-up caused by a “big hole next door” that “pushed into [Petitioner’s] line.” Petitioner’s plumbing required flushing as a result.

McKenzie Flores testified that on December 18, 2025, in accordance with paragraph 13 of Petitioner’s rental agreement, Respondent sent its employee to inspect Petitioner’s lot.

Ms. Flores testified that Respondent’s employee discovered a leak in a pipe under Petitioner’s home and took video of the leak, however, Respondent did not provide the video to Petitioner or the Tribunal. Ms. Flores testified that although the employee found a leak in a pipe under the home, there was no water visible.

In reliance on Ms. Flores’ assertion, Petitioner hired a plumber to find the leak, instead resulting in the discovery of the sediment issue in the plumbing.

On January 5, 2026, Ms. Flores received an email from Petitioner requesting reimbursement for the plumbing expenses, and Ms. Flores responded that Respondent was not responsible because the leak was in Petitioner’s home. Ms. Flores did not deny reimbursement based on a lack of notice to Respondent.

During her testimony, Ms. Flores referenced an invoice dated November 12, 2025, from Mr. Rooter, a plumbing contractor, in reference to plumbing work that had been performed at lot 344, the lot next to Petitioner’s. The invoice stated in pertinent part:

11-12-2025- arrived on site. Excavated down to 6” water main. Removed the broken mip pvc connected to main, Threaded in new sch 80 mip to the main. Re-piped from 3⁄4” existing line to other 3⁄4” existing line with 4 90’s and a 3⁄4” x 1” x 3/4” tee.

Got the repair done. Maintenance personnel is re-pressurizing the system and will backfill when system is pressurized.

Ms. Flores testified that this work was performed on the main line ten feet from the meter.

Respondent contended at hearing that if Petitioner “suspected” Respondent was liable for damages due to its work on the main line in November 2025, Petitioner was required to provide notice to Respondent in order to provide Respondent the opportunity to hire its own plumber. However, in this case, Petitioner first notified Respondent in November 2025, of a concern with her excessive water bill, and then again in December 2025. Instead of dispatching a licensed plumber to inspect and determine the cause, Respondent had its maintenance personnel who had no plumbing background, inspect Petitioner’s plumbing. Thereafter, Respondent informed Petitioner that there was a leak under her home, yet failed to provide any evidence of such. Respondent suggested that Petitioner hire a plumber to find the cause of the leak and perform any necessary repairs. Petitioner did so and the licensed plumber found that Petitioner’s high water usage was caused by “rock and sediment clogging fill valves on toilets,” that there was “no water main leak from meter” to Petitioner’s home, and that rock and sediment entered the water supply before Petitioner’s meter. The licensed plumber also stated that “nothing on [Petitioner’s] side of meter allowed rock and sediment to enter home” and that the “drain and flush of home was directly caused by main water line break before meter.”

Moreover, Respondent was aware on November 12, 2025, that there was an issue with the main plumbing line and Respondent’s maintenance personnel re-pressurized the system and backfilled. It appears, from the evidence presented, that it was Respondent’s backfilling that caused rock and sediment to clog fill valves and enter the water supply before Petitioner’s meter, causing rock and sediment to enter Petitioner’s home from the main water supply from the park, and that nothing on Petitioner’s side of the meter caused rock and sediment to enter her home.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The Department has jurisdiction to determine whether Respondent violated the LTA, as alleged in Petitioner’s petition. This matter was properly brought before the Office of Administrative Hearings for adjudication.

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s alleged statutory violation(s) by a preponderance of the evidence. Respondent bears the burden of persuasion 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.”

A.R.S. § 33-1473 provides as follows:

A. If the landlord fails to comply with section 33-1434, the tenant may recover damages for the breach under section 33-1471, subsection B, or may notify the landlord of his intention to correct the condition at the landlord's expense. After being notified by the tenant in writing, if the landlord fails to comply within twenty days or as promptly thereafter as conditions require in case of emergency, the tenant may cause the work to be done by a licensed contractor and, after submitting to the landlord an itemized statement and a waiver of lien, deduct from his rent the actual and reasonable cost of the work.

B. A tenant may not repair at the landlord's expense if the condition was caused by the deliberate or negligent act or omission of the tenant, a member of his family or other person on the premises with his consent.

A.R.S. § 33-1474 provides as follows:

A. If contrary to the rental agreement or section 33-1434, the landlord deliberately or negligently fails to supply essential services, the tenant may give reasonable notice to the landlord specifying the breach under tenant's remedies.

B. The rights under this section do not arise until the tenant has given notice to the landlord. Such rights do not arise if the condition was caused by the deliberate or negligent act or omission of the tenant, a member of his family or other person on the premises with his consent.

6. A.R.S. § 33-1434 provides in pertinent part as follows:

A. The landlord shall:

. . . .

2. Make all repairs and do whatever is necessary to put and keep the premises in a fit and habitable condition.

. . . .

4. Maintain in good and safe working order and condition all swimming pool, shower, bathhouse, electrical, plumbing and sanitary facilities, including the recreational hall or meeting facilities supplied or required to be supplied or maintained by the landlord.

. . . .

A.R.S. § 33-1471(B) provides in pertinent part as follows: “[e]xcept as provided in this chapter, the tenant may recover damages, and obtain injunctive relief for any noncompliance by the landlord with the rental agreement or section 33-1434.”

The Tribunal is required to apply equitable principles when rendering decisions. The application of equity entails offering a remedy to avoid an unconscionable or unjust result.

In this case, Petitioner contacted Respondent in November 2025, expressing concern about her high water bill and was questioning the reason for such. This communication occurred two days after Respondent hired a plumber to repair the main plumbing line to the lot next to Petitioner’s. Again, in December 2025, Petitioner contacted Respondent with the same concerns, and instead of hiring a plumber to determine the cause of the issue, Respondent dispatched its own maintenance personnel with no background in plumbing, to inspect. Respondent advised Petitioner that there was a leak under her home, however, provided no evidence of such, and advised her to hire a plumber. Petitioner did so at Respondent’s suggestion, and the licensed plumber determined that rock and sediment in the plumbing lines caused the issues, not a leak as asserted by Respondent. This was discovered subsequent to Respondent’s maintenance personnel re-pressurizing the system and backfilling after the November 12, 2025 repair to the main line.

The credible and probative evidence established that it was Respondent’s backfilling that caused rock and sediment to clog fill valves and enter the water supply before Petitioner’s meter, causing rock and sediment to enter Petitioner’s home. Moreover, Petitioner could not have informed Respondent of the intent to correct the issue until after the plumber inspected, as Petitioner was led to believe by Respondent that there was a leak under her home.

Therefore, Respondent was aware that Petitioner was going to hire a licensed plumber to find the source of the issue and correct it because Petitioner did so at Respondent’s suggestion, and Respondent erroneously informed Petitioner that the leak was emanating from under her home. Thereafter, Petitioner notified Respondent that the licensed plumber did not find a leak, and further informed Respondent of the actual cause of the increased water bill, and requested reimbursement of the plumbing repair expense.

The Administrative Law Judge concludes that Respondent was on notice of the plumbing issue, especially in light of the fact that there was an issue with the main line next to Petitioner’s lot and Respondent’s maintenance personnel performed the backfilling after the repair was performed, causing debris to clog the water supply.

Consequently, the Administrative Law Judge further concludes that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1434(A)(4) by failing to maintain the plumbing in good and working order. Therefore, Petitioner may recover her damages from Respondent.

Petitioner has sustained her burden of proof in this matter, and consequently, the Department has grounds to discipline Respondent based on violations of A.R.S. §§ 33-1473 and 33-1474.

Petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of $1,050.00.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner $1,050.00 for the costs she incurred to repair the plumbing issue.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner’s $50.00 filing fee.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent’s request for attorney’s fees and costs are denied.

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, April 27, 2026.

/s/ Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile April 28, 2026, to:

Ruby Dhillon-Williams

Interim Director

Arizona Department of Housing

[email redacted]

Shirley Ryan

[email redacted]

Scott A. Baluha

Zona Law Group P.C.

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff