AZHOC - Arizona Homeowners Coalition
Voice for homeowner rights and justice.

Comments or Questions

 To post a comment or ask a question please either register here Click here or log in above.

Thank You

Please log in to submit content!

1 2 3 11
  • From dennisl on Board imposed fine


    In late 2018 the Arizona Appellate court ruled in the case Turtle Rock III v Fisher not only that for fines to be reasonable they must be based on a fee schedule that is commensurate to the significance of the violation and that that schedule must be published and distributed to all homeowners. That ruling specifically determined that their is a difference between a fee schedule and a fee policy that is one size fits all, and that the later does not satisfy the ruling. The Court did not stop there it also stated that for any fine to be reasonable it must be based on the actual cost to the association. This ruling had the entire HOA industry in a turmoil not only in Arizona but across the country. The HOA industry with it’s hundreds of attorneys appealed this decision to the Arizona Supreme Court but the court refused to hear the appeal and upheld the ruling but de-published the ruling. What that means is that that decision cannot be used as case law precedent in any other subsequent case. In my non-legal opinion the part of this decision that stated that fines must be based on cost went way too far and is what cause it to be depublished. Any attorney presenting a similar case should study the arguments presented in this case because they were legitimate and sound and will most likely result in similar court ruling in the future.

    To answer your question directly from Turtle Rock III v Fisher yes the fines must be based on a schedule that is based on the significance of the violation. The fine for painting your house pink without approval should be significantly greater than the one for leaving your trash can out too long.


    Go to comment
    2020/06/14 at 1:22 pm
  • From dennisl on liquor on HOA Common Areas

    First you need to understand that in an HOA all the common area actually belongs to the association and not to any homeowners. So the Association gets to decide any and all rules relative to the use of the common property. The answer to your question is yes the homeowner can consume their own liquor if the association allows them to do that if not than the homeowners cannot. It would be no different if the property in question was your house. if you allow a neighbor into your house they cannot simply bring their own liquor and drink it in your house unless you approve of that action.

    In a Condominium the situation is a little different in that all the common property belongs to all the homeowners. So the general rules that apply to HOA’s don’t apply based simply on ownership. If there are 100 unit owners that all own 1/100 of the common property then they would all have to agree to a rule affecting the use of the common property, and you know as well as I to expect 100 different people to agree on anything would be impossible. So the Declarations are written to empower the association board to decide how the common property is used, even though the association owns no part of the common property.

    Talk about a double standard, no matter what type of community you have the association gets to decide how the common property is used and what rules it wants to apply to that use.


    Go to comment
    2020/06/13 at 10:52 pm
  • From dennisl on identifying the homeowner who turned in a complaint against another


    You not only have the right it is the law in Arizona that the association identify the individual who filed the complaint. See ARS 33-1803 for HOA. The same language is used in the Condominium statutes as well.


    Go to comment
    2020/06/09 at 5:36 am
  • From dennisl on Ahwatukee Board of Management received loan of $178,750 from a federal PPE relief program


    As with any government program meant to help people there are people and corporations out there that will try and scam and abuse the program. Why would anyone believe that the HOA industry would be about any of this? I’m just surprised that we have not about more of this from the HOA industry. The payroll protection program was meant to accomplish just that If your association has no-one on the payroll or if those employees are paid thru assessment income those associations are not eligible for that program. While the government has protected people from bank foreclosures based on non-payment or apartment rental evictions based on non-payment no relief was provided to homeowners from assessment non-payment and the HOA industry was not restricted in any way from unrestrained collection cost and foreclosure. Why would this industry then be able to get forgivable loans to protect payroll, while their source of income is not in jeopardy?

    If your suspect fraud report that fraud to the Office of the Inspector General thru this link .

    As with anything that happens in an HOA the people can come together and attend a board meeting and demand to know why the board sought and obtained a loan with the required approval of the association.

    If you believe that the HOA violated their governing documents by requesting a loan without getting the required approval of the community than file a petition to the Arizona Dept. of Real Estate based on governing documents violation. Request that they comply with the governing documents and get approval from the homeowners prior to applying for a loan. Since the loan that was received was done illegally it should be returned.
    These are some of my thoughts on this issue. The rest of my thought should not be posted on a public forum.


    Go to comment
    2020/06/08 at 6:31 am
  • From dennisl on Changes to Agenda During the Meeting

    The open meeting laws for Common Interest Communities are intentionally substantially different from those for public bodies and municipalities. While the public body open meeting laws mandate that those bodies cannot consider any issue that was not posted on the agenda prior to the meeting. There is no such provision for common interest communities. In fact currently there is no provision requiring the posting of the agenda prior to the meeting at all. Many board and their useless attorneys have used the concept of “if it’s not on the agenda the board cannot consider the issue? to suppress question and issues raised by homeowners in the meeting. While I’ve been trying for several years now to get legislation to mandate that a draft agenda be published prior to any board meeting to give the homeowners an opportunity to decide if they wanted to go to the meeting of not. If the only time you find out what will be discussed at the meeting is at the meeting itself. This suppress public participation which is what the board and management companies want but not what the homeowners need. We need to keep flexibility in this process so that homeowners can bring up issue and have them dealt with by the board at that same meeting, while still making sure that anything the board is considering is brought to the attention of the homeowners prior to the meeting and along with the notice of that meeting.

    When reading the law one must be very careful to read what it actually says and not what your would like it to say.


    Go to comment
    2020/06/05 at 9:15 pm
  • From Charlotte Hazzard on Removal of entire board of directors

    South Ranch II, Julie Anderson property manager and Mulcahy law firm are a team they have openly charged me for court fees that I never had a fair fight for in my dispute. I was discriminated against and it’s now a legal matter with the help of the law firm that put two liens on my habitat for humanity home of 2001. I want this legal extortion to stop as it should have never started. /Beth Mulcahy #017005 Mulcahy Law Firm 3001 E Camelback Rd # 130, Phoenix, AZ 85016 602 241 1093 I do not owe any outstanding debt as they have created. I speak the truth and I was a target for inhumanity for not watering a plant not in the CC&R’s. HUD please help save my home my hands have been tide and no attorney can help as they are on the HOA side.

    Go to comment
    2020/05/26 at 7:21 pm
    • From dennisl on Removal of entire board of directors

      Without knowing all the details of your situation I can tell you one thing Beth is renowned for her abuse of homeowners and her distorted view of the law. In Arizona the association can foreclose on your home only if you are delinquent in payment of your assessments only of $1,200 or one years worth of assessment. The assessment lien on your home is statutory and automatic and does not require judicial review. However, the law does allow association to include all late fees, collection cost and attorney fees in that lien. We were able to change the law last year to require that the association provide written notice to the homeowner 30 day prior to assigning assessment debt to any collection attorney (like Beth). This notice must be by certified mail. If that notice was not provide it could be argued that all the collection cost and attorney fees charged after that failure are null and void.
      Any fines and penalties charged by an association can be a lien on the home if awarded by a court of law, but that lien is not foreclosable, and can be disposition only when you sell your house. This will not stop attorneys like Beth from charging thousands of dollars in collection cost and fee threatening to foreclose on your house for those cost just because they can. They will never win in court but they have no intention of going to court they simply want to scare homeowners into paying for their vacation homes, with these idle threats.
      The first thing that you need to do is find out if you owe any money for assessments, Arizona law requires that any money that you pay must be applied to the assessment first. But attorneys like Beth often write so called no-cost collection contracts with associations that allow them to take their cut first and pay of the actual assessment last. This is totally illegal but attorneys don’t care about the law and only want their money. If you owe any money for assessment make a check for that amount and state on it that it is for assessments only and provide that to the attorney. That action will block them from ever foreclosing on the home.
      If you need an attorney contact Jonathan Dessaules Law Group, they will help you.

      Go to comment
      2020/05/28 at 9:02 am
  • From Charlotte Hazzard on Board vote after petition to remove Board

    This is very helpful, hello everyone I am new and need guidance in my experience with my HOA of treatment. It’s not honest and I am glad that with people helping people. Nothing worse than knowing your HOA is after your home and only have one agenda. I have never been in violation yet I experience a Sheriff Sales on my home. Unbelievable with South Ranch II and this community if for the less fortunate yet we still pay our bills with honer. We need a new board to represent our scared neighborhood. Thanks for this website, Charlotte

    Go to comment
    2020/05/21 at 8:08 am
    • From dennisl on Board vote after petition to remove Board

      Welcome. Please know that your are not alone and I created this organization to help homeowners in this state understand how they can live from within these mini totalitarian governments. If you can provide me more details I’ll see what I can do to help. You can provide me the details on this website or by simply writing me at

      Go to comment
      2020/05/21 at 7:18 pm
  • From dennisl on COVID pool closure


    I understand your frustration, but the common property actually belongs to the HOA and under the current situation the association thru it’s board must consider the risk to the community and the association relative to opening up the common property. I’m sure the actions taken by the board are based on advice from their attorneys who are by their nature risk adverse. The test for any action from the board is would any reasonable man/woman under the same conditions take the same actions. In this case the answer to that question is probably yes. If a homeowner contracted the virus based on exposure to an asymptomatic individual using the pool with them and the person died. The association could be subject to a law suit that could cost the community 10’s or 100’s of thousands of dollars. All of that money would come from all the homeowners collectively in the form of special assessments. The association is being guided to err on the side of caution in this case and keep the pools closed.

    You are correct their are no laws requiring the association to keep the pools closed. What other communities do really has no bearing on what your board does. They have a duty to treat each homeowner fairly and to act in what they truly believe is the best interest of the association and the community as a whole.

    While I’ll often disagree with decisions of boards that act in their own self interest, I believe that your board is acting responsibly and do not find it appropriate to second guess this decision. Their job is not to make everyone happy because that is an impossible expectation. Their job is to act in the best interest of the community as a whole.


    Go to comment
    2020/05/18 at 8:48 pm
  • From Thomas J Vandanelzen on Important Things to Remember

    Well, not anymore. The ADRE ALJ has decided that HOAs do not need a CC&R to write a Rule/Regulation and that is now law, evidently. My breach of contract lawsuit in Pinal County Superior Court judge as adjudicated that, if the ADRE ALJ says you don’t need a Restriction to write a rule, then my breaking the rule that was not based on any Restriction was still valid and has the force of a Restriction. I have fought this for well over a year and I guess I have to give up. If Arizona no longer requires Restrictions to write Rules, Texas is looking better.

    Go to comment
    2020/05/14 at 3:12 pm
    • From dennisl on Important Things to Remember

      I truly understand your frustration. The ALJ in this case clearly missed the point and bought into the arguments of the HOA’s attorney. This is their territory and they will throw everything at these judges hoping that something will stick. Attorneys are not bound to the truth in defending their clients, that is why an attorney is never sworn in under oath in presenting a case. The problem is that the burden of proof is on the petitioner to prove their case, not the other way around. A flag is not a sign and the sum total of the restrictions that can be applied to a property must be identified in the CC&R’s under property servitude law. Your governing documents have no restrictions on the flying of flags so their self created rule is invalid. The ALJ however can only consider the state law and the specific provisions of the governing documents.

      Go to comment
      2020/05/18 at 8:58 pm
  • From Jose on Can HOA restrict street parking on public street?

    So if a new management company took over the hoa after 2016 would that make the parking policy null and void?

    Go to comment
    2020/05/06 at 3:14 pm
    • From dennisl on Can HOA restrict street parking on public street?


      First you never established who owned the streets the city or the HOA. The law only applies to HOA’s that have the streets owned by the municipality. Second if you look at the statute and my prior responses you will see that the statute states that if the CC&R’s are revised after December 2014 that only the municipality can restrict use of the streets. This has absolutely nothing to do with the management company and only applies if the CC&R’s were changed and recorded by vote of the members for any reason. If they (the CC&R) have not been changed and they allow the association to place restriction on the streets even if they do not own them then nothing changes, and the law does not kick in.

      So to your question the parking policy is valid irrespective of the management company if the association owns the streets, and remains valid if the municipality owns the streets and the CC&R’s have not been changed since December 2014.


      Go to comment
      2020/05/06 at 6:36 pm