25F-H047-REL

In the matter of canonical case ID 25F-H047-REL, petitioner Scott D. Haferkamp filed a complaint with the Arizona Department of Real Estate against the Artisan Parkview Condominium Association, Inc. (the HOA) [1, 2]. The dispute originated from the HOA's repeated denial of Haferkamp's architectural applications to install solar panels and battery backup systems on his condominium unit in 2014, 2024, and 2025 [3-5]. The HOA denied these applications primarily because the installations would require structural attachments and penetrations to the building's shared common elements, specifically the roof and exterior walls, which the board determined could void warranties and impose undue maintenance burdens on the community [5-8]. Following his initial application denial, Haferkamp circulated a petition among the community and gathered signatures from more than 25% of the homeowners in 2014 and 2015 [3, 9, 10]. He submitted this petition to the HOA's property management company, requesting a meeting and hoping the board would establish rules or guidelines permitting solar technology [9-12]. While the HOA placed the subject of solar installations on a September 2015 board meeting agenda, no special members' meeting was called, and the board did not adopt any alternative rules or guidelines for solar installations [4, 10]. During the hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings, the case was narrowed to a single primary issue: whether the HOA violated its governing documents—specifically Article 2, Section 2.2 of the Bylaws—due to a "lack of action on signed homeowner petition and the HOA/board not providing guidelines/rules for solar" [13-15]. Haferkamp argued that the HOA wrongly failed to call a special meeting and ignored the homeowners' petition [11]. Conversely, the HOA argued that the claims were beyond the statute of limitations, that the adoption of community rules falls under the board's exclusive authority rather than a mandatory membership vote, and that the Bylaws afford the board discretion in deciding whether to convene a special meeting [12, 16-18]. In the final outcome, the Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the HOA and denied Haferkamp's petition [19]. The judge concluded that Article II, Section 2.2 of the Bylaws grants the HOA discretionary power regarding whether or not to call a special members' meeting [20]. The judge noted that by putting the issue on a regular board meeting agenda, the HOA implicitly declined to hold a special meeting, which was within its rights [21]. Additionally, the judge found that Haferkamp failed to prove that the board's inaction in adopting solar guidelines constituted a violation of the community's CC&Rs or Bylaws [21]. Consequently, the HOA was named the prevailing party, and Haferkamp was ordered to bear his own filing fees [19]. Case Details: - Case ID: 25F-H047-REL - Docket: 25F-H047-REL 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