David Y. Samuels Vs The Concorde Condominium Home Owners Association - 24F-H025-REL

Описание: This summary outlines the proceedings, arguments, and final decision in the matter of David Y. Samuels vs The Concorde Condominium Home Owners Association, Case No. 24F-H025-REL, heard before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Amy M. Haley of the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

Key Facts and Background

The case concerned a dispute over fees, fines, and assessments related to a condominium unit located in Mesa, Arizona. The property owner is Daso Properties, LLC, and the Petitioner, David Y. Samuels, is the managing member who filed the petition on his own behalf. The Respondent is The Concorde Condominium Home Owners Association (HOA). Samuels filed the petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department) around November 1, 2023, alleging the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1803 by charging late fees, collection fees, and attorney fees without documentation demonstrating they were warranted.

Hearing Proceedings and Key Arguments (April 3, 2024)

The hearing focused heavily on the status of the homeowner ledger and procedural issues.

Petitioner's Argument: Mr. Samuels argued that the HOA’s collection efforts were unethical or illegal. He contended that many of the late fees, collection fees, and attorney fees stemmed from a prior balance of $931.95 that was later forgiven or waived because the HOA or prior management companies could not provide documentation to support the charge. He argued that if the unsupported prior balance was removed, he was current (or even ahead) on assessments until 2024, rendering the substantial collection fees unreasonable. Additionally, fines totaling $1,645 were waved, which Samuels asserted was due to the charges being erroneous, not a "good faith gesture".

Respondent's Argument: The HOA, represented by counsel Ashley Turner, denied any statutory violation and asserted that the association was authorized to collect late fees and collection charges due to a delinquency that existed when the matter was referred for collections. More critically, the HOA raised two procedural arguments:
Improper Statute: The HOA is a condominium association, governed by A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 9, yet the petition was brought under A.R.S. § 33-1803, which governs planned communities.
Lack of Standing: Mr. Samuels, as an individual, was not the legal "owner" of the unit (Daso Properties, LLC), and therefore lacked standing to bring the petition under A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A).

Legal Outcome and Final Decision

The ALJ issued a decision on April 18, 2024, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1803.

The petition was dismissed based on two fundamental legal flaws:
Lack of Standing: The Tribunal found that David Y. Samuels, as an individual and not the property owner (Daso Properties, LLC), did not have standing to bring the action under A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A).
Improper Cause of Action: The Tribunal found that the statute cited, A.R.S. § 33-1803, was improper because the property is a condominium, not a planned community, meaning the Respondent was not subject to that chapter. Consequently, Petitioner stated no claim upon which relief could be granted under the cited statute.

The petition was ordered dismissed.

Case Details:
Case ID: 24F-H025-REL
Docket: 24F-H025-REL

For more AZ HOA transparency resources visit https://yourazhoaattorney.com

Legal & Accuracy Notice - yourazhoaattorney.com is operated by Hound LLC, a homeowner-run project, not a law firm. Nothing in this video is legal advice or creates an attorney-client relationship. We analyze public ADRE/OAH records and may express opinions. Not affiliated with ADRE or the OAH. Read the full Legal & Terms: https://yourazhoaattorney.com/legal