HOA - ALJDEC decisions

LTA24F-LTA011-ADH · Arizona State Department of Housing - LTA · 2024-07-08

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Ana Santana et al.,

Petitioner,

Country Villa MHC. LLC et al.,

Respondent.

No. LTA24F-LTA011-ADH

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: June 24, 2024

APPEARANCES: Petitioner Ana Santana appeared on her own behalf. Scott Baluha, Esq. represented Respondent Country Villa MHC. LLC. Lydia Solis served as the Spanish interpreter.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Petitioner’s Exhibits 1-2, and Respondent’s Exhibits 1-2 were admitted into evidence.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Country Villa MHC. LLC (“Respondent”) is a mobile home community located at 1105 N. Dysart Rd. in Avondale, Arizona. Ana Santana (“Petitioner”) rents Lot number 61 from Respondent.

On or about February 22, 2024, 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”).

After Respondent filed a written answer on March 27, 2024, the Department referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.

The hearing took place on June 24, 2024.

Petitioner entered into a rental agreement with Respondent and moved into the community on or about May 1, 2023.

Petitioner received copies of Respondent’s Rules and Regulations.

At hearing, Petitioner alleged the following violations by Respondent that occurred between September 1, 2023 up to the filing of her Petitioner:

Lack of new contract between her and the new owner.

Due date of rent changed.

Notice of towing.

Lack of a property manager on site.

Incorrect charges for water, sewer and trash bill.

Petitioner testified that she used to be an assistant to the property manager until the end of August 2023. She testified further that commencing September 1, 2023, there were new owners of the property, however, they did not meet the residents until December 2023.

Further, Petitioner testified that none of the contracts or rules and regulations had been changed since the new ownership and she believed that this was to occur in order to accurately reflect the current parties involved.

Petitioner testified that there was no property manager on site, and that the management company was about 20 minutes away, which was an inconvenience for some residents as they were elderly and could not drive. Further, Petitioner testified that she and other residents would call the office with complaints and that the staff would not be helpful. As to the towing issue, Petitioner testified that the old property manager would give warnings if a vehicle was to be towed, but that the new management company does not provide the same.

Petitioner’s biggest concern however was the billing for the water, sewer and trash services. First, Petitioner testified that she, as well as other residents received incorrect bills for their Lots. For example, Petitioner testified that she received charges for Lot 71, while she resides at Lot 61. Petitioner testified she informed the management company, and while they corrected the issue and offered her credits, Petitioner wanted to ensure that the meter readings were correct. In fact, Petitioner testified that she offered to read the meters for the management company.

Second, Petitioner testified that she was concerned that she was being double billed for sewer and water, and had serious misgivings that the bills were now accurate.

Respondent offered the testimony of Amala Santos who was the Regional Manager and oversaw the property management for Respondent.

Ms. Santos testified that she took the required 6 hour course for property managers, and stated that she was knowledgeable as to mobile home park utility billing.

As to the billing errors, Ms. Santos testified that in October, 2023, Respondent began using Conservice as its billing service. She testified further that she believed Petitioner notified her in December about the billing issues. Ms. Santos testified that she then investigated the matter and brought the issue to the attention of Conservice. Ms. Santos testified that it was an error on the part of Conservice, who has since corrected the issue, and issued credits to the affected owners. However, Ms. Santos testified that some units were still under investigation.

Further, Ms. Santos testified as to the different charges which appear on the new Conservice bills. She testified that the “water base charge” was charged from the city to the property owner and passed on to the tenant, whether there is usage or not. The “sewer” charge was based on the accumulated usage amount for the single unit. The “sewer base charge” again was charged from the city to the property owner and passed on to the tenant, whether there is usage or not. And finally the “water” charge, was for each renter’s actual usage. Ms. Santos testified that all rates were based upon the single family rate from the city of Avondale.

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. §§ 33-1412, 33-1413(A), and 33-1413.01.

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. While the tribunal appreciates Petitioner’s concerns that the new management company may not be as present as the previous company, this however does not rise to the level of a statutory violation. Likewise, while perhaps the new property manager could have explained the change in the utility bill, Petitioner has not met her burden to show that the bills violated the statutes, once the errors were corrected.

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, July 8, 2024.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile July 8, 2024 to:

Joan Serviss

Director

Arizona Department of Housing

1110 W. Washington, Suite 280

Phoenix, AZ 85007

Scott A. Baluha

[email redacted]

Ana Santana

1105 N Dysart Road #61

Avondale AZ 85323

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff