Michael J. Stoltenberg, Petitioner, vs. Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association - 20F-H2020059-REL-RHG

Описание: This proceeding (Case No. 20F-H2020059-REL-RHG) is a rehearing involving Petitioner Michael J. Stoltenberg and Respondent Rancho Del Oro Homeowners Association (HOA).

Procedural History (Original Case)

Petitioner Stoltenberg filed the initial petition alleging the HOA violated its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) § 5.1 and A.R.S. § 10-3842 by failing to maintain landscaping and acting in bad faith,. Section 5.1(a) of the CC&Rs requires the HOA to maintain landscaping on individual lots outside of structures,. Petitioner contended that this obligation included the maintenance of his back yard, including his pool, which he referred to as a "water feature" and part of his unique xeriscape landscaping,,.

The Original Hearing (August 3, 2020) found that since January 2020, the HOA had consistently maintained the Petitioner’s front yard,. However, the HOA repeatedly attempted to access the back yard but was refused access by the Petitioner, who kept the gate locked due to liability concerns related to his pool,.

The Original Outcome (August 17, 2020) denied the petition. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner had not established a CC&R violation because he refused to allow the HOA access to perform maintenance,. The Judge also noted that nothing in the CC&Rs required the Respondent to maintain an individual member's pool,.

Rehearing Proceedings

Petitioner sought and was granted a rehearing, citing issues including alleged irregularity, failure of the Judge to interpret CC&Rs § 5.1 and A.R.S. § 10-3842, and ADA issues related to hearing loss,,.

The Rehearing (February 2, 2021) focused primarily on the scope of the HOA's obligation. Petitioner reasserted that because "landscaping" was undefined in the CC&Rs, it should be interpreted to include maintenance of his pool, including the pump, filter, chemicals, patio, and hardscape. Petitioner also contended the HOA failed to communicate the landscaping schedule so he could unlock the gate.

Key Legal Issues and Rationale at Rehearing

The main legal point remained whether the HOA's duty to maintain "landscaping" required it to maintain the Petitioner’s private swimming pool,. Petitioner bore the burden of proving the violation but failed to cite authority to support his definition,,.

The Administrative Law Judge analyzed common definitions of "landscaping" and referenced Arizona's contractor licensing scheme,. The Judge concluded that the definitions of landscaping cannot reasonably be read to include a swimming pool and associated mechanical equipment. This conclusion was reinforced by the State's separate license classifications for Hardscaping and Irrigation Systems (which explicitly preclude work on swimming pools) and Swimming Pool Service and Repair,,.

Additionally, Petitioner admitted that the Respondent did not have access to his back yard to perform landscaping services.

Final Decision

The Order of Rehearing (February 12, 2021) dismissed the Petitioner Michael J. Stoltenberg’s Petition. Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated the governing documents,. The decision noted that given Petitioner's necessity to keep the gate secured, it was reasonable for the Respondent, going forward, to communicate the days and times for back yard landscaping services to allow Petitioner to provide access.

Case Details:
Case ID: 20F-H2020059-REL-RHG
Docket: 20F-H2020059-REL-RHG

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