Ronna Biesecker, Petitioner, vs. 6100 Fifth Condominium Homeowners Association, Respondent. - 20F-H2

Описание: This summary details the administrative hearing proceedings (No. 20F-H2020050-REL) before the Office of Administrative Hearings on June 5, 2020.

Key Facts and Main Issues

The Petitioner, Ronna Biesecker (owner of unit A113), filed a petition alleging that the Respondent, 6100 Fifth Condominium Homeowners Association, violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and A.R.S. § 33-1247 by failing to maintain all Common Elements. The core dispute centered on the responsibility for repairing water leaks in the Petitioner’s unit, which began around January 2019.

The relevant legal framework, A.R.S. § 33-1247, dictates that the association is responsible for the maintenance, repair, and replacement of the common elements, while each unit owner is responsible for their individual unit. The Association’s Bylaws and CC&Rs similarly assign responsibility for common element maintenance to the Respondent.

Hearing Proceedings and Key Arguments

The Petitioner maintained that the leaks were attributable to common element defects, pointing to cracks in the exterior stucco around the sliding doors as a possible source. The Petitioner bore the burden of establishing the alleged statutory or CC&R violations by a preponderance of the evidence.

The Respondent denied the claim, asserting that the leak originated from the upstairs unit’s sliding doors or track assemblies, which maintenance is the responsibility of that unit's owner, not the Association.

The evidence presented heavily supported the Respondent’s position:
In January 2019, an Olander’s employee assessed the leak and opined it came from the unit above due to large gaps under the threshold of the upstairs sliding door.
A December 2019 inspector’s invoice specifically noted that the damage appeared to be coming from the upstairs unit sliding doors or their track assemblies.
The Respondent’s Statutory Agent testified that the common elements (stucco) were likely not the source, as an inspection confirmed the upstairs unit had no internal damage, which would have been expected if the leak originated from the stucco.

Legal Conclusions and Outcome

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that while the Association would be responsible if the damage stemmed from a common element flaw, the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the water leak was attributable to the condition of the common elements. The opinions of the inspecting companies consistently concluded that the leak originated from the upstairs unit’s sliding glass door.

Final Decision: The Petitioner did not prove the Respondent violated the CC&Rs or Arizona statutes. Therefore, the Petitioner’s petition was dismissed.

Case Details:
Case ID: 20F-H2020050-REL
Docket: 20F-H2020050-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