Arizona HOA Rental Restrictions | Kalway | 1 CA-CV 22-0780
Bonham is a practical short-term-rental amendment case. The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of an HOA enforcement suit because the original declaration did not give fair notice that the HOA could later ban short-term rentals by majority amendment.
Last updated June 3, 2026. Case: Village of Oakcreek Association v. Lance E. Bonham, Arizona Court of Appeals No. 1 CA-CV 22-0780; Yavapai County Superior Court No. V1300CV202280081.
Scope note: This page covers the nonprecedential Court of Appeals decision and the uploaded appellate/trial record. The complete uploaded source-document index below is generated from the local raw source folder, including court PDFs, court DOC/DOCX notices, and AI/source CSVs where present. AI-generated CSV summaries were reviewed only as orientation and are not treated as court authority.
The rule in one sentence
A general business-use restriction in original CC&Rs does not necessarily give homeowners fair notice that the HOA may later ban short-term rentals by majority amendment.
Case snapshot
Dismissal for homeowner Bonham was affirmed.
Kalway reasonable-and-foreseeable notice for CC&R amendments.
2016 and 2017 amendments banned short-term rentals.
Bonham received appellate fees and costs subject to ARCAP 21.
Case Dossier
This generated dossier mirrors the structured data surfaced on the OAH/ADRE case pages. It is added from the curated court-case record and the custom page source package, while the hand-authored analysis below remains intact.
Case Summary
| Case ID / citation | 1 CA-CV 22-0780 |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Court of Appeals |
| Decision / key date | October 3, 2023 |
| Judge / panel | David D. Weinzweig, Michael S. Catlett, Maria Elena Cruz |
| Parties | A planned-community association sued a homeowner to stop short-term rentals after majority-approved CC&R amendments banned short-term rentals. |
| Governing law | |
| Topics | rental-restrictionscc-and-rsprocedureattorneys-fees |
| Outcome / holding | The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal for Bonham and held the challenged short-term-rental amendments were not enforceable against him because they were not reasonably foreseeable from the original declaration. |
| Primary public source | View source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Uploaded source package | 70 PDFs, 1 supporting source/review file |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 5 roadmap entries |
| Video overview | Village of Oakcreek v. Bonham: HOA Short-Term Rental Restrictions After Kalway |
| Study / briefing material | 2 sections |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 3 questions |
| Curated download aliases | 4 download links |
Key Issues & Findings
Village of Oakcreek Association sued Lance Bonham to enforce 2016 and 2017 CC&R amendments that banned short-term rentals. Bonham moved to dismiss under Kalway, arguing the original declaration did not provide fair notice that a majority could later impose that kind of rental restriction. The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal. It rejected the association’s argument that a generic no-business covenant made short-term-rental restrictions foreseeable, because the original declaration did not address residential rentals or lease duration.
The court applied Kalway and asked whether the original declaration gave objective notice of a future rental restriction. The declaration broadly barred business operations on lots, but it did not mention residential rentals. A business-use restriction was not enough to warn owners that a later majority amendment could ban short-term rentals. The court also treated Bonham as an owner with title before the relevant amendments based on the declaration’s broad definition of ownership and his trustee status.
Bonham is a practical short-term-rental amendment case for Arizona HOAs and homeowners. It shows that an association cannot rely on generic business-use language as a substitute for a real leasing covenant when trying to enforce a later rental ban. It also pairs well with Gross: both cases apply Kalway to rental amendments and both warn boards to tie new rental restrictions to language already present in the original CC&Rs.
Why this case matters
Bonham is useful because it applies Kalway to the most common HOA amendment fight: short-term rentals. The association argued the original declaration barred business activity, so a later rental ban was foreseeable. The Court of Appeals disagreed because the business-use covenant did not say anything about residential rentals.
The decision gives homeowners a concrete argument when an HOA tries to convert a general residential-use or business-use clause into a later rental prohibition. It also gives boards a drafting warning: if rental restrictions are intended, the original declaration needs a clearer tether than a broad no-business provision.
Video overview: HOA short-term rental amendments after Kalway
Watch this overview for Village of Oakcreek v. Bonham, where the Court of Appeals held that a general business-use restriction did not give fair notice that the HOA could later ban short-term rentals by amendment.
Homeowner study guide: short-term rental enforcement questions
| Homeowner question | Study-guide answer | Bonham-specific caution |
|---|---|---|
| What did the amended Village of Oakcreek leasing restriction define as a lease? | The study materials describe a broad definition covering any agreement, contract, grant, or arrangement giving a non-owner access to or use of a lot or unit. | That rule was part of the association’s enforcement theory; the appellate issue was whether the later restriction was valid and foreseeable. |
| Did the amended rule require at least a 30-day lease term? | Yes, the association relied on Section 4.23 language requiring lease terms of at least 30 days. | Bonham affirmed dismissal because the original declaration did not give fair notice that this later short-term-rental ban could be imposed by amendment. |
| What owner obligations did the association allege for allowed leases? | The study guide identifies whole-lot leasing, single-family use, no subleasing, owner responsibility for occupants, and a tenant registration form within five days. | Those are enforcement allegations and governing-document requirements to verify against the current declaration before relying on them. |
| What progressive enforcement steps did the association use? | The record describes a courtesy notice, notices of non-compliance, monetary penalties, and then litigation for injunction and money judgment relief. | The association alleged ongoing Airbnb activity, but the legal result turned on amendment validity, not just whether short stays occurred. |
| What penalty balance did the complaint allege? | The study materials identify an alleged $16,500.00 monetary penalty balance as of February 28, 2022. | An alleged account balance is not the same as a final judgment; always check the ruling and judgment. |
| Is a hearing required before fines? | A.R.S. 33-1803(B) requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before monetary penalties are imposed. | Procedural fine compliance is a separate issue from whether the underlying amended rental restriction is enforceable. |
| Can unpaid fines become a lien? | The study guide flags a distinction between fines themselves and enforcement costs such as attorney fees under the declaration. | Do not assume every fine is lienable; check A.R.S. 33-1803, the declaration language, and the specific account charge. |
| What is the homeowner takeaway? | A later rental restriction needs both procedural adoption and substantive foreseeability under Kalway. | Bonham is strongest as a fair-notice case, not as a general permission slip to ignore every rental rule. |
Briefing notes from the review packet
The enforcement action concerned Lot 75, Cathedral View, identified in the briefing as 40 Rio Verde Circle in Sedona.
The association relied on a leasing restriction adopted in 2016 and re-recorded in 2017 that barred leases shorter than 30 days.
Bonham acquired title by quitclaim deed recorded in January 2017, which placed him inside the association’s enforcement theory.
The association alleged ongoing Airbnb rentals, including advertised and reviewed stays shorter than 30 days.
The complaint sought to collect a penalty balance the association alleged had reached $16,500.00 by February 28, 2022.
Even assuming the alleged rentals, the dispositive issue was whether the later rental ban was valid and foreseeable under Kalway.
Enforcement history summarized from the briefing
| Date or period | Association action or allegation | Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| June 22, 2021 | Courtesy notice reportedly warned Bonham about alleged short-term-rental violations. | Shows the beginning of the association’s progressive enforcement record. |
| October-November 2021 | The association alleged Airbnb reviews and short stays, then issued notices of non-compliance and fines. | Documents the alleged factual basis for enforcement, separate from the legal validity of the amendment. |
| December 2021-February 2022 | Additional notices and alleged rentals increased the claimed penalty balance. | Frames the monetary judgment request in the complaint. |
| April 2022 | The association sued for injunction, personal judgment, and implied-covenant relief. | Moves the dispute into the court system where Kalway controlled the amendment-validity question. |
| October 3, 2023 | The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal for Bonham. | The appellate court focused on the original declaration’s lack of fair notice for a short-term-rental ban. |
Litigation roadmap
Sued Bonham to stop short-term rentals under amended CC&Rs.
Filed by: Association
Frames the enforcement action as a CC&R amendment validity dispute.
Moved to dismiss under Kalway, arguing the amendments were not foreseeable from the original declaration.
Filed by: Homeowner
Shows how Kalway can be raised at the pleading stage.
Granted dismissal and entered judgment for Bonham.
Filed by: Superior Court
Created the final judgment appealed by the association.
Affirmed dismissal and held the declaration did not provide sufficient notice of a future rental restriction.
Filed by: Court of Appeals
This is the key appellate analysis for short-term rental amendments.
Issued mandate after the appellate process concluded.
Filed by: Court of Appeals
Marks the final procedural close of the appeal.
Complete uploaded source-document index
This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/village-of-oakcreek-association-v-bonham/raw/: 70 PDFs, 1 supporting review/media file. Files are ordered by the date/sequence embedded in the normalized filename; AI-generated review materials are labeled separately and should not be treated as court filings.
Index Of Record
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Complaintbreach Of Contract Injun
Type: Opening pleading
Starts or reframes the case and identifies the claims or relief requested.
Summons
Type: Procedural/service filing
Service document used to notify a defendant or respondent that the case has been filed.
Certificate Of Compulsory Arbitra
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
Plaintiffs Request To Schedule Hea
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
Request For Preliminary And Perman
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
Order Setting Order To Show Cause He
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Motion To Appear Telephonically Or
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
Order Denying Motion To Appear Tele
Type: Court order/minute entry
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
Motion For An Order Allowing Altern
Type: Court order/minute entry
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
Order For Alternative Service
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Proof Of Service By Certified
Type: Procedural/service filing
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Certificate Of Service
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
Defendant Lance Bonhams Motion To D
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
Attachment 1 Of 1 Defendant Lance Bo
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Response To Request For Preliminar
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
Motion To Appear Telephonically Or
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
Order Granting Video Appearance
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Order Granting Stipulation To Vaca
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Stipulation To Vacate June 72022 Or
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Notice Of Substitution Of Counsel W
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
Stipulation Of Material Facts And E
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Plaintiffs Response In Opposition
Type: Briefing paper
Opposing or responsive paper; compare it to the motion or request filed immediately before it.
Defendant Lance Bonhams Reply In Su
Type: Briefing paper
Reply paper; usually the final written response before the court takes the issue under advisement.
Certificate Of Good Faith Consulta
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Plaintiffs Motion To Reconsiderat
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
Defendants Application For Attorn
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
Attachment 1 Of 1 Defendants Applic
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Defendants Statement Of Costs And N
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Defendants Notice Of Lodging Propo
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
Attachment 1 Of 1 Defendants Notice
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
Order
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Plaintiffs Objection To Defendant
Type: Briefing paper
Opposing or responsive paper; compare it to the motion or request filed immediately before it.
Defendants Reply In Support Of Appl
Type: Briefing paper
Reply paper; usually the final written response before the court takes the issue under advisement.
Attachment 1 Of 1 Defendants Reply I
Type: Briefing paper
Reply paper; usually the final written response before the court takes the issue under advisement.
Judgment
Type: Decision or judgment
Decision document; read it to understand the controlling result before moving to later filings.
Village Of Oak Creek Associations N
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Initial Notice Re Appeal
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
Notice Of No Transcript Order
Type: Court order/minute entry
Adds hearing transcript material to the record for later review or appeal.
Record Electronically Transmitte
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Appellate Clerk Notice Re Appellan
Type: Procedural/service filing
Moves the dispute into appellate or judicial-review procedure; use it to track the next forum.
Village Of Oakcreek Associations N
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Certificate Of Service Village Of O
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
Case Management Statement
Type: Court/source PDF
Case-management filing; it tells the court how the parties propose to schedule and manage the case.
Appellate Clerk Notice Re Appellee
Type: Procedural/service filing
Moves the dispute into appellate or judicial-review procedure; use it to track the next forum.
Defendantappellee Lance Ebonhams
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Certificate Of Service
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
Appellants Opening Brief
Type: Briefing paper
Opening merits brief; this is where the appellant or moving party frames the legal argument.
Certificate Of Compliance For Appe
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
Certificate Of Service For Appella
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
Appellee Lance Ebonhams Answering
Type: Responsive pleading
Responding party’s first substantive response to the complaint or petition.
Certificate Of Compliance For Appe
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
Certificate Of Service For Appelle
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
Appellants Reply Brief
Type: Briefing paper
Reply paper; usually the final written response before the court takes the issue under advisement.
Certificate Of Compliance For Appe
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
Certificate Of Service For Appella
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
Enotification Of Memorandum Decis
Type: Court notice/document
Court notice or document from the appellate upload; read it with the surrounding docket filings.
Memorandum Decision Distribution
Type: Decision or judgment
Decision document; read it to understand the controlling result before moving to later filings.
Memorandum Decision
Type: Decision or judgment
Decision document; read it to understand the controlling result before moving to later filings.
Application For Attorneys Fees And
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
Certificate Of Service
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
Exhibit Ato Application For Attorn
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
Plaintiffs Objection To Defendant
Type: Briefing paper
Opposing or responsive paper; compare it to the motion or request filed immediately before it.
Certificate Of Service For Plainti
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
Reply In Support Of Application For
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
Certificate Of Service
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
Div 1 Transmittal Of Partial Record
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Notice Of Petition For Review From A
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
Order Awarding Attorneys Fees And
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Civil Mandate
Type: Decision or judgment
Decision document; read it to understand the controlling result before moving to later filings.
For homeowners using this case
- Compare the original declaration to the new rental restriction line by line.
- Do not stop at the amendment-vote percentage; Kalway asks whether the new burden was fairly foreseeable.
- Look for older language that actually mentions leasing, occupancy, rental duration, transient use, or business use.
- Use Bonham with Gross to separate invalid rental bans from narrower occupancy refinements.
For boards and managers
- A majority vote alone may not save an amendment that creates a new rental burden.
- Generic no-business language is a weak foundation for a short-term-rental ban.
- Before enforcement, audit the original CC&Rs and any earlier leasing provisions against Kalway, Gross, and Bonham.
- Fee exposure can follow if the association litigates an amendment that lacks a clear covenant tether.
FAQ
Did the HOA win in Bonham?
No. The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of the association’s suit against Bonham.
Is Bonham published precedent?
No. It is a memorandum decision, but it is still useful as a practical Kalway example and was cited in the later published Gross opinion.
What was missing from the original declaration?
The court found the original declaration generally barred business operations but did not provide fair notice of a future short-term-rental restriction.