19F-H1919055-REL

Case Summary: Pius J. Lacher v. Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association (No. 19F-H1919055-REL) Key Facts and Main Issues In this matter, Petitioner Pius J. Lacher brought a dispute against Respondent Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings [1]. The central issue was whether the Office of Administrative Hearings had the statutory jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute [2]. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent failed to fulfill its obligations under "CC&R 6.3.2" of the Trilogy Golf Club's "Amended and Restated Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements for Golf Course Use" (Golf Course Declaration) [3, 4]. However, the Petitioner did not allege that the Respondent violated any provisions of its own governing documents, specifically the "Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Meadowbrook Village at Power Ranch Community Association" (Association Declaration) [4]. The Respondent subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss the petition [1]. In reviewing the filings, the Administrative Law Judge determined that the Golf Course and the Community Association are two separate legal entities [5]. While the Association might have certain obligations under the Golf Course Declaration, the failure to meet those specific obligations does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Office of Administrative Hearings [5]. Arizona law dictates that the venue's jurisdiction over such matters strictly applies to disputes concerning violations of planned community documents or statutes that regulate planned communities [6]. Because the Petitioner failed to cite any breached provisions of the Association Declaration or applicable community statutes, there were no grounds to pursue an enforcement action in this specific venue [7]. Final Outcome On September 20, 2019, Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer concluded that the Office of Administrative Hearings lacked the statutory authority to hear the dispute [7, 8]. Consequently, the judge granted the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, formally dismissing the Petition [1, 7]. The order noted that while the Petitioner could not proceed in this venue, he might still have the right to seek a resolution in another appropriate venue [7]. Case Details: - Case ID: 19F-H1919055-REL - Docket: 19F-H1919055-REL - Judge: Tammy L. Eigenheer For more AZ HOA transparency resources visit https://azhoawatch.org Legal & Accuracy Notice - azhoawatch.org 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://azhoawatch.org/legal