25F-H074-REL

Case Summary: 25F-H074-REL (Barbara Kunkel v. Agua Dulce Homeowners Association) Key Facts In May and June 2025, a petition was circulated to recall Barbara Kunkel from her position as president of the Agua Dulce Homeowners Association (HOA) board [1, 2]. Seeking to verify the exact timeline and validity of the recall process, Kunkel submitted formal records requests on June 25 and June 26, 2025 [2, 3]. She specifically requested documentation proving the exact time and date the HOA’s management company, Cadden Community Management, received the signed recall petition [3, 4]. Additionally, she requested copies of all related email communications between Cadden personnel and HOA members [3, 4]. When the HOA failed to produce these documents within the 10-day timeframe mandated by Arizona law, Kunkel filed a complaint with the Arizona Department of Real Estate [5-7]. Main Issues The central legal issue during the November 21, 2025 administrative hearing was whether the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 by unlawfully withholding or failing to respond to Kunkel's records request [8, 9]. Kunkel argued the management company possessed these records and had a statutory duty to provide them [2, 10]. In its defense, the HOA argued that it could not produce documents that it did not possess [11]. The HOA's counsel stated that a timestamped receipt for the petition was never created, and any direct emails between Cadden and the homeowners were never turned over to the Association's board to become official records [11, 12]. Furthermore, the dispute coincided with a change in the HOA's property management; Sienna Community Management took over operations from Cadden on July 1, 2025 [13, 14]. Sienna's representative testified that they had provided all the records they received during the transition, but acknowledged the handover was challenging and it was possible Cadden had not transferred its complete files [15-17]. Final Outcome On December 8, 2025, Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone issued a final decision denying Kunkel's petition [18, 19]. Judge Stone determined that while Kunkel had made a valid records request, she was simply the victim of "bad timing" due to the abrupt change in property management companies [14]. The judge concluded that Kunkel failed to meet her burden of proof because she did not present persuasive evidence that the requested documents—such as the timestamped receipt or specific withheld emails—actually existed [14]. Consequently, Kunkel's claims were dismissed, and her requests to levy a civil penalty against the HOA and to be reimbursed for her filing fee were denied [18]. Case Details: - Case ID: 25F-H074-REL - Docket: 25F-H074-REL - Judge: Adam D. Stone 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