25F-H072-REL

Case Summary: 25F-H072-REL Key Facts Case 25F-H072-REL involves a dispute between Timothy A. Burke (Petitioner), a homeowner and board member, and the Cortessa Community Association (Respondent) [1, 2]. On July 21, 2025, Burke filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging that the Homeowners Association (HOA) and its management company, Kinney Management Services, violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to provide requested financial information and community records [2, 3]. An evidentiary hearing was held on October 23, 2025, before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Nedra-Su Kawasaki [1, 4]. Main Issues The central issue of the hearing was whether the HOA failed to make requested records reasonably available within the ten-day timeframe required by A.R.S. § 33-1805 [3, 5]. The HOA argued that it had established clear protocols for records requests, which were to be routed through a dedicated email or the board president, and that Burke’s requests were submitted outside of this process [6, 7]. The HOA also contended that Burke was making these extensive requests in his official capacity as the board's Treasurer, not as a standard homeowner, which they argued fell outside the specific protections of the statute [6, 8]. To demonstrate a pattern of non-compliance, Burke called two other homeowners, Rockwell Kelly and Dara Chavez, to testify [9, 10]. Both witnesses testified that they had properly submitted records requests to the management company as regular homeowners, but their requests were either ignored, dismissed as "unreasonable," or significantly delayed without the records being made available for examination [9-12]. Final Outcome On November 28, 2025, the ALJ issued a decision determining that A.R.S. § 33-1805 differentiates between requests made by homeowners and requests made by board members for board purposes [13, 14]. The judge found that Burke had explicitly made his document requests in his capacity as Treasurer on behalf of the board [14]. Consequently, the statute did not apply to Burke's specific requests, and the HOA did not violate the law regarding his emails [14, 15]. However, the ALJ concluded that the HOA did violate A.R.S. § 33-1805 by failing to timely provide or make records available for examination to the other testifying homeowners, Kelly and Chavez [16, 17]. The ruling emphasized that while the HOA could delegate tasks to its management company, it could not abdicate its legal obligation to fulfill the requests [16]. Ultimately, the ALJ deemed Burke the prevailing party, but strictly as it related to homeowner member requests [17]. The HOA was ordered to reimburse Burke's $500 filing fee within 30 days and was directed to fully comply with A.R.S. § 33-1805 for all future homeowner member records requests [17, 18]. Case Details: - Case ID: 25F-H072-REL - Docket: 25F-H072-REL - Judge: Nedra-Su Kawasaki 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