Hawk v. PC Village Association: HOA Sign Bans Preempted by Arizona Law

Posted on by

CC&R Enforceability | A.R.S. §§ 33-441, 33-1808 | 1 CA-CV 12-0362

This landmark case illustrates the limits of HOA authority when community covenants conflict with state-mandated property rights. It establishes that legislative protections for homeowners override pre-existing CC&R provisions, even if those covenants were recorded before the statutes were passed.

Last updated June 29, 2026. Case: Hawk, Court of Appeals No. 1 CA-CV 12-0362; opinion affirming.

Download the appellate opinion Download the appellate mandate Download the record index Source-file index FAQ

Scope note: This page details the factual background, key legal disputes, and the complete procedural timeline for the landmark Arizona case of Hawk v. PC Village Association. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

A.R.S. § 33-441 applies prospectively to prohibit the enforcement of pre-existing covenants, conditions, and restrictions that restrict the display of ‘for sale’ signs, and such application does not violate the Contract Clause of the United States or Arizona Constitutions.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Robert R. Hawk (Plaintiff)
    Co-owner of Pine Canyon Lot 197 who displayed a standard ‘For Sale’ sign on his property, initiating the dispute.
  • Cecilia J. Hawk (Plaintiff)
    Co-owner of Pine Canyon Lot 197 and co-plaintiff/appellee alongside her husband Robert R. Hawk.
  • Tevis Reich (Counsel)
    Law Office of Tevis Reich
    Represented plaintiffs and appellees Robert and Cecilia Hawk throughout the trial court and appeal.
  • Richard V. Mack (Counsel)
    Mack, Watson & Stratman, P.L.C.
    Counsel who represented the Arizona Association of REALTORS® as amicus curiae in support of the Hawks.
  • Scott M. Drucker (Counsel)
    Mack, Watson & Stratman, P.L.C.
    Counsel who represented the Arizona Association of REALTORS® as amicus curiae in support of the Hawks.
  • K. Michelle Lind (Counsel)
    Arizona Association of REALTORS®
    General Counsel who represented the Arizona Association of REALTORS® as amicus curiae.

Respondent Side

  • PC Village Association, Inc. (Defendant)
    Arizona non-profit homeowners association responsible for managing the Pine Canyon Subdivision.
  • Edward G. Hochuli (Counsel)
    Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C.
    Represented defendant and appellant PC Village Association, Inc. in both the trial court and on appeal.
  • J. Gary Linder (Counsel)
    Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C.
    Represented defendant and appellant PC Village Association, Inc.
  • Jonathan Confer (Counsel)
    Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C.
    Represented defendant and appellant PC Village Association, Inc.
  • Lori L. Voepel (Counsel)
    Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C.
    Appellate counsel who represented PC Village Association, Inc. throughout the appeals process.
  • Jonathan P. Barnes, Jr. (Counsel)
    Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C.
    Represented appellant PC Village Association, Inc. on appeal.
  • Warren Smith (Association President)
    PC Village Association, Inc.
    President of the PC Village Association who issued courtesy notices and signed the supersedeas bond on appeal.
  • T. Randall Bailey (Witness)
    Pine Canyon resident who submitted an affidavit supporting the validity of the CC&R sign ban.
  • Sherri Slayton (Witness)
    Pine Canyon resident who submitted an affidavit supporting the validity of the CC&R sign ban.
  • Randall Lee Hutchison (Witness)
    Pine Canyon resident who submitted an affidavit supporting the validity of the CC&R sign ban.
  • Arlene McDonald (Witness)
    Pine Canyon resident who submitted an affidavit supporting the validity of the CC&R sign ban.
  • Howard Sadkin (Witness)
    Pine Canyon resident who submitted an affidavit supporting the validity of the CC&R sign ban.
  • Deborah S. Schweikert (Witness)
    Pine Canyon resident who submitted an affidavit supporting the validity of the CC&R sign ban.
  • James R. Schweikert (Witness)
    Pine Canyon resident who submitted an affidavit supporting the validity of the CC&R sign ban.
  • Pamela S. Slayton (Witness)
    Pine Canyon resident who submitted an affidavit supporting the validity of the CC&R sign ban.
  • James D. Siragusa (Witness)
    Pine Canyon resident who submitted an affidavit supporting the validity of the CC&R sign ban.
  • Patrick H. Stewart (Witness)
    Pine Canyon resident who submitted an affidavit supporting the validity of the CC&R sign ban.

Neutral Parties

  • Hon. Mark R. Moran (Judge)
    Coconino County Superior Court
    Trial judge (Division 3) who granted summary judgment and awarded attorney’s fees to the Hawks.
  • Hon. Peter B. Swann (Judge)
    Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
    Appellate judge who sat on the panel that heard oral arguments and decided the appeal.
  • Hon. Patricia A. Orozco (Judge)
    Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
    Presiding appellate judge on the panel that heard oral arguments and decided the appeal.
  • Hon. Kent E. Cattani (Judge)
    Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
    Appellate judge on the panel that heard oral arguments and decided the appeal.
  • Deborah Young (Other)
    Coconino County Superior Court
    Clerk of Coconino County Superior Court.
  • Ruth A. Willingham (Other)
    Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
    Clerk of the Court of Appeals, Division One.
  • Jonna E. Baker (Other)
    Coconino County Superior Court
    Certified Court Reporter who transcribed the oral arguments in the trial court.

What happened

In 2009, Robert and Cecilia Hawk purchased Lot 197 in Pine Canyon, a master-planned subdivision in Flagstaff managed by the PC Village Association. The community was subject to CC&Rs recorded in 2002 and amended in 2004, which contained a strict ban in Section 12.3 prohibiting any ‘For Sale’ or ‘For Rent’ signs on residential lots. In August 2011, the Hawks displayed a standard ‘For Sale’ sign on their lot to market their home. Citing the CC&R restriction, PC Village personnel entered the lot on two consecutive days and removed the sign.

In response, the Hawks filed a complaint in Coconino County Superior Court for declaratory and injunctive relief, asserting that the sign prohibition was invalid under A.R.S. § 33-441 and § 33-1808(F). The Association counterclaimed and asserted that retroactive application of the statutes would violate the Contract Clauses of the Arizona and United States Constitutions. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Hawks, enjoining the Association from removing compliant signs and awarding the Hawks $21,820 in fees and costs. The Association appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment on all grounds.

Video overview: HOA Sign Preemption

An investigative case study of how a Flagstaff couple successfully challenged their homeowners association’s restrictive sign ban under Arizona state law.

Procedural timeline

Step 2009-08-25 Robert and Cecilia Hawk purchase Lot 197 in the Pine Canyon Subdivision.
Step 2011-08-16 Robert Hawk places a standard ‘For Sale’ sign on Lot 197.
Step 2011-08-17 PC Village Association personnel remove the sign and send a courtesy violation notice citing CC&R Section 12.3.
Step 2011-09-15 Plaintiffs Robert and Cecilia Hawk file their Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief in Coconino County Superior Court (Case No. CV2011-00775) and file a Certificate Regarding Arbitration.
Step 2011-09-27 Summons and Complaint are formally served on defendant PC Village Association, Inc.
Step 2011-11-01 Defendant PC Village Association, Inc. files its Answer, Counterclaim, Demand for Jury Trial, and Certificate of Compulsory Arbitration.
Step 2011-11-04 Plaintiffs file their Answer to Defendant’s Counterclaim.
Step 2011-11-10 Superior Court issues initial and amended orders setting a Case Management Conference.
Step 2011-11-15 Plaintiffs file their Motion for Summary Judgment.
Step 2011-12-16 Parties file a Stipulation to Extend Deadline to Respond to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment.
Step 2011-12-19 Parties file an Amended Stipulation to Extend Deadline to Respond.
Step 2011-12-20 Parties file a Stipulated Motion to Continue Case Management Conference.
Step 2011-12-28 Superior Court issues an Order granting stipulation to continue the Case Management Conference.
Step 2012-01-03 Defendant files Response to summary judgment, Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment challenging constitutionality of sign statutes, Notice of Claim of Unconstitutionality, and Statement of Facts.
Step 2012-01-17 Superior Court holds Case Management Conference and schedules oral argument.
Step 2012-01-25 Plaintiffs file Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment and Response to Cross-Motion.
Step 2012-02-03 Defendant files Reply in Support of its Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and service affidavits.
Step 2012-02-28 Superior Court holds Oral Argument on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment and takes the matter under advisement.
Step 2012-03-26 Superior Court issues Under-Advisement Ruling granting summary judgment in favor of the Hawks.
Step 2012-03-30 Hawks file Affidavit of Attorney Fees and Statement of Costs.
Step 2012-04-18 Defendant files Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Affidavit of Attorney’s Fees and Costs.
Step 2012-04-20 Hawks file Reply to Opposition, Supplemental Affidavit of Attorney’s Fees and Costs, and Notice of Lodging Proposed Judgment.
Step 2012-04-23 Defendant PC Village Association, Inc. files Notice of Appeal in Coconino County Superior Court.
Step 2012-04-24 Superior Court Clerk issues Notice of Bond Posted for Costs ($500 cash bond) and Notice Re: Notice of Appeal Filed.
Step 2012-04-30 Superior Court holds Status Conference regarding attorney’s fees hearing.
Step 2012-05-11 Process server files Declaration of Service of subpoena duces tecum on defense counsel.
Step 2012-05-24 Hawks file Second Supplemental Affidavit of Attorney’s Fees and Costs.
Step 2012-05-24 Superior Court enters Judgment in favor of the Hawks for $21,820 in attorney’s fees and costs.
Step 2012-05-24 Superior Court holds hearing, hears oral argument on attorney’s fees and Defendant’s Rule 62(C) Motion to Stay/Suspend Enforcement, and takes Rule 62(C) under advisement.
Step 2012-05-24 Superior Court issues Under-Advisement Ruling denying Defendant’s request to stay the injunction.
Step 2012-06-04 Court of Appeals Division One issues Civil Notice to Counsel regarding appeal filing fees and appellant opening brief deadlines.
Step 2012-06-13 PC Village Association, Inc. files Amended Notice of Appeal.
Step 2012-06-14 Appellant files Civil Appeals Docketing Statement and certificates of service for reporter’s transcripts.
Step 2012-06-28 Court of Appeals issues Notice to Counsel confirming appellant filing fee payment and reminding of brief deadlines.
Step 2012-07-10 PC Village Association, Inc. files Notice of Posting Supersedeas Bond ($23,211.04) in Coconino County Superior Court.
Step 2012-07-11 PC Village Association, Inc. files Unopposed First Motion for Extension of Time to File Opening Brief.
Step 2012-08-15 PC Village Association, Inc. files Appellant’s Opening Brief and Certificate of Compliance.
Step 2012-09-28 Hawks file Appellees’ Answering Brief and Motion for Oral Argument.
Step 2012-10-01 Court of Appeals Division One enters Order for transmission of Coconino County Superior Court record.
Step 2012-10-02 Arizona Association of REALTORS® (AAR) files Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief.
Step 2012-10-22 Appellant PC Village Association, Inc. files Response in Opposition to Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief.
Step 2012-11-05 AAR files Reply in Support of Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief.
Step 2012-11-06 Appellant PC Village Association, Inc. files Appellant’s Reply Brief and Certificate of Compliance.
Step 2012-11-15 AAR files its Amicus Curiae Brief.
Step 2012-11-28 Appellant PC Village Association, Inc. files Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Amicus Curiae Brief.
Step 2012-12-17 PC Village Association, Inc. files Appellant’s Response to Amicus Curiae Brief.
Step 2013-01-07 Amicus counsel files Notice of Firm Name Change to Mack, Watson & Stratman, P.L.C.
Step 2013-02-07 Court of Appeals issues Notice of Oral Argument setting arguments for March 19, 2013.
Step 2013-02-25 Parties file Joint Request to Reschedule Oral Argument.
Step 2013-02-27 Court of Appeals issues Order resetting oral argument to April 16, 2013 at 9:30 a.m.
Step 2013-03-01 Parties file Joint Request to Reschedule Oral Argument (Second Request).
Step 2013-03-06 Court of Appeals issues Order resetting oral argument to April 16, 2013 at 2:00 p.m.
Step 2013-03-13 Court of Appeals Division One issues Notice and Amended Notice of Oral Argument.
Step 2013-04-16 Oral Argument held before Panel of Presiding Judge Orozco, Judge Swann, and Judge Cattani; case taken under advisement.
Step 2013-09-03 Court of Appeals Division One files its Opinion affirming the trial court’s summary judgment and attorney’s fee award.
Step 2013-09-13 Appellees Robert and Cecilia Hawk file Application and Affidavit of Attorney’s Fees and Costs on Appeal.
Step 2013-10-29 Appellees file Notice of Withdrawal of Application and Affidavit of Attorney’s Fees and Costs.
Step 2013-12-13 Court of Appeals Division One issues Civil Mandate returning jurisdiction to Coconino County Superior Court.

Complete uploaded source-document index

This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/robert-and-cecilia-hawk-v-pc-village-association/raw/: 113 PDFs. 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.

Source 1 2012-05-30

0000 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.

Download source file
2012-05-30_001_0000-index-of-record.pdf
Source 2 2012-05-30

0001 Complaint

Type: Opening pleading

Starts or reframes the case and identifies the claims or relief requested.

Download source file
2012-05-30_002_0001-complaint.pdf
Source 4 2012-05-30

0003 Service Certificate

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2012-05-30_004_0003-service-certificate.pdf
Source 5 2012-05-30

0004 Answer

Type: Responsive pleading

Responding party’s first substantive response to the complaint or petition.

Download source file
2012-05-30_005_0004-answer.pdf
Source 7 2012-05-30

0006 Demand For Jury Trial

Type: Court/source PDF

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file
2012-05-30_007_0006-demand-for-jury-trial.pdf
Source 11 2012-05-30

0010 Motion For Summary Judgment

Type: Decision or judgment

A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.

Download source file
2012-05-30_011_0010-motion-for-summary-judgment.pdf
Source 15 2012-05-30

0014 Proposed Order

Type: Court order/minute entry

Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.

Download source file
2012-05-30_015_0014-proposed-order.pdf
Source 22 2012-05-30

0021 Service Affidavit

Type: Procedural/service filing

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file
2012-05-30_022_0021-service-affidavit.pdf
Source 25 2012-05-30

0024 Under Advisement Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.

Download source file
2012-05-30_025_0024-under-advisement-ruling.pdf
Source 29 2012-05-30

0028 Supplemental Affidavit Of Attorne

Type: Procedural/service filing

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file
2012-05-30_029_0028-supplemental-affidavit-of-attorne.pdf
Source 31 2012-05-30

0030 Notice Of Appeal

Type: Procedural/service filing

Moves the dispute into appellate or judicial-review procedure; use it to track the next forum.

Download source file
2012-05-30_031_0030-notice-of-appeal.pdf
Source 35 2012-05-30

0034 Service Affidavit

Type: Procedural/service filing

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file
2012-05-30_035_0034-service-affidavit.pdf
Source 37 2012-05-30

0036 Under Advisement Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.

Download source file
2012-05-30_037_0036-under-advisement-ruling.pdf
Source 38 2012-05-30

0037 Judgment

Type: Decision or judgment

Decision document; read it to understand the controlling result before moving to later filings.

Download source file
2012-05-30_038_0037-judgment.pdf
Source 41 2012-05-30

0040 List Of Exhibit

Type: Court/source PDF

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file
2012-05-30_041_0040-list-of-exhibit.pdf
Source 46 2012-06-14

0001 Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2012-06-14_046_0001-certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 47 2012-06-14

0001 Certificate Of Service 2

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2012-06-14_047_0001-certificate-of-service-2.pdf
Source 48 2012-06-14

0001 Certificate Of Service 3

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2012-06-14_048_0001-certificate-of-service-3.pdf
Source 52 2012-06-15

0041 Amended Notice Of Appeal

Type: Procedural/service filing

Moves the dispute into appellate or judicial-review procedure; use it to track the next forum.

Download source file
2012-06-15_052_0041-amended-notice-of-appeal.pdf
Source 55 2012-07-11

0001 Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2012-07-11_055_0001-certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 56 2012-08-15

0000 Opening Brief

Type: Briefing paper

Opening merits brief; this is where the appellant or moving party frames the legal argument.

Download source file
2012-08-15_056_0000-opening-brief.pdf
Source 57 2012-08-15

0001 Certificate Of Compliance

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2012-08-15_057_0001-certificate-of-compliance.pdf
Source 58 2012-08-15

0002 Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2012-08-15_058_0002-certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 60 2012-09-28

0000 Motion For Oral Argument

Type: Motion/application

A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.

Download source file
2012-09-28_060_0000-motion-for-oral-argument.pdf
Source 61 2012-09-28

0001 Certificate Of Compliance

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2012-09-28_061_0001-certificate-of-compliance.pdf
Source 62 2012-09-28

0001 Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2012-09-28_062_0001-certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 63 2012-09-28

0002 Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2012-09-28_063_0002-certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 66 2012-10-02

0001 Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2012-10-02_066_0001-certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 67 2012-10-02

0002 Amicus Curiae Brief

Type: Briefing paper

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file
2012-10-02_067_0002-amicus-curiae-brief.pdf
Source 71 2012-10-18

0001 Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2012-10-18_071_0001-certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 73 2012-10-22

0001 Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2012-10-22_073_0001-certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 75 2012-11-05

0001 Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2012-11-05_075_0001-certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 76 2012-11-06

0000 Reply Brief

Type: Briefing paper

Reply paper; usually the final written response before the court takes the issue under advisement.

Download source file
2012-11-06_076_0000-reply-brief.pdf
Source 77 2012-11-06

0001 Certificate Of Compliance

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2012-11-06_077_0001-certificate-of-compliance.pdf
Source 78 2012-11-06

0002 Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2012-11-06_078_0002-certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 79 2012-11-15

0000 Amicus Curiae Brief

Type: Briefing paper

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file
2012-11-15_079_0000-amicus-curiae-brief.pdf
Source 80 2012-11-15

0001 Certificate Of Compliance

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2012-11-15_080_0001-certificate-of-compliance.pdf
Source 81 2012-11-15

0002 Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2012-11-15_081_0002-certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 83 2012-11-28

0001 Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2012-11-28_083_0001-certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 85 2012-12-17

0001 Certificate Of Compliance

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2012-12-17_085_0001-certificate-of-compliance.pdf
Source 86 2012-12-17

0002 Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2012-12-17_086_0002-certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 87 2013-01-07

0000 Notice Of Firm Name Change

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2013-01-07_087_0000-notice-of-firm-name-change.pdf
Source 88 2013-01-07

0001 Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2013-01-07_088_0001-certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 89 2013-02-07

0000 Notice Of Oa Or Conference

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2013-02-07_089_0000-notice-of-oa-or-conference.pdf
Source 93 2013-02-25

0001 Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2013-02-25_093_0001-certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 96 2013-03-01

0001 Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2013-03-01_096_0001-certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 99 2013-03-13

0000 Notice Of Oa Or Conference

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2013-03-13_099_0000-notice-of-oa-or-conference.pdf
Source 102 2013-03-20

0001 Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2013-03-20_102_0001-certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 105 2013-09-03

0000 Enotification Of Opinion

Type: Decision or judgment

Decision document; read it to understand the controlling result before moving to later filings.

Download source file
2013-09-03_105_0000-enotification-of-opinion.pdf
Source 106 2013-09-03

0000 Opinion

Type: Decision or judgment

Opinion holding that A.R.S. § 33-441 applies prospectively to prohibit the enforcement of pre-existing covenants, conditions, and restrictions that restrict the display of ‘for sale’ signs, and such application does not violate the Contract Clause of the United States or Arizona Constitutions.

Download source file
2013-09-03_106_0000-opinion.pdf
Source 108 2013-09-13

0001 Certificate Of Mailing

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2013-09-13_108_0001-certificate-of-mailing.pdf
Source 109 2013-09-13

0002 Exhibit 1

Type: Court/source PDF

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file
2013-09-13_109_0002-exhibit-1.pdf
Source 110 2013-09-13

0003 Exhibit 2

Type: Court/source PDF

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file
2013-09-13_110_0003-exhibit-2.pdf
Source 112 2013-10-29

0001 Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2013-10-29_112_0001-certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 113 2013-12-13

0000 Civil Mandate Package

Type: Decision or judgment

Decision document; read it to understand the controlling result before moving to later filings.

Download source file
2013-12-13_113_0000-civil-mandate-package.pdf

FAQ

Can an Arizona HOA enforce a complete ban on ‘For Sale’ signs if the CC&Rs were recorded before the state laws were passed?

No. The Arizona Court of Appeals held that A.R.S. § 33-441 applies prospectively to prohibit the enforcement of pre-existing CC&R bans on ‘For Sale’ signs. HOA boards cannot rely on the recording date of their covenants to bypass state laws protecting a homeowner’s right to market their property.

Does the state law preventing HOAs from banning ‘For Sale’ signs violate the constitutional protection against impairing contracts?

No. The court ruled that the sign statutes do not unconstitutionally impair CC&R agreements. Because HOAs are highly regulated and CC&Rs typically contain clauses acknowledging that community rules must comply with changing laws, homeowners have no reasonable expectation that a sign ban will remain enforceable indefinitely.

What are the size limits for ‘For Sale’ signs that an Arizona homeowner can display?

Under A.R.S. § 33-441, homeowners are permitted to display industry-standard signs and sign riders. The sign itself must not exceed 18 by 24 inches, and any sign rider must not exceed 6 by 24 inches.

Can an HOA still regulate how and where ‘For Sale’ signs are displayed?

Yes. While an HOA cannot ban ‘For Sale’ signs entirely or require the use of a specific, proprietary sign, it retains the authority to establish reasonable regulations regarding the placement and number of signs displayed, provided those rules conform to state statutory guidelines.

Is the ruling in Hawk v. PC Village Association binding precedent for all Arizona HOAs?

Yes. Because this decision was issued as a published, precedential opinion by the Arizona Court of Appeals, it establishes binding legal precedent that applies to all planned communities and condominiums throughout the state of Arizona.

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 / citation1 CA-CV 12-0362
Court / tribunalCourt of Appeals
Decision / key dateSeptember 3, 2013
Judge / panelHon. Peter B. Swann, Hon. Patricia A. Orozco, Hon. Kent E. Cattani, Hon. Mark R. Moran
PartiesRobert R. Hawk and Cecilia J. Hawk (homeowners/plaintiffs) vs. PC Village Association, Inc. (homeowners association/defendant)
Governing law
Topics
cc-and-rsattorneys-fees
Outcome / holding

A.R.S. § 33-441 applies prospectively to prohibit the enforcement of pre-existing covenants, conditions, and restrictions that restrict the display of ‘for sale’ signs, and such application does not violate the Contract Clause of the United States or Arizona Constitutions.

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package113 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap58 roadmap entries
Video overviewHawk: HOA Sign Preemption
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Curated download aliases3 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Robert and Cecilia Hawk, owners of a lot in the Pine Canyon master-planned community in Flagstaff, Arizona, filed a lawsuit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against their homeowners association, PC Village Association, Inc. The dispute arose in August 2011 when the Hawks displayed a “For Sale” sign on their property to market their home, and the Association removed it twice, citing Section 12.3 of the community’s CC&Rs, which prohibited such signage. The Hawks argued that A.R.S. § 33-441, enacted in 2009, and A.R.S. § 33-1808(F), enacted in 2007, superseded and invalidated the CC&R restriction. The Association contended that the statutes were inapplicable because the CC&Rs were recorded prior to their enactment and that retroactive application would unconstitutionally impair their contractual rights. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Hawks and awarded them $21,820 in attorney’s fees and costs. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that A.R.S. § 33-441 prospectively applied to render the pre-existing CC&R restriction unenforceable, and that this did not violate the Contract Clauses of the federal or state constitutions.

Key Issues & Findings

The Court of Appeals held that A.R.S. § 33-441 operates prospectively because it regulates future acts-specifically, the enforcement of a restriction after the statute’s effective date-rather than past transactions. Although the CC&Rs were recorded in 2002, the Association’s right to enforce the sign ban was contingent upon a resident actually displaying a sign. Since the Hawks posted their sign in 2011, several years after A.R.S. § 33-441 became effective in 2009, applying the statute to this future conduct did not constitute retroactive legislation.

Under the Contract Clause analysis, the court determined that the Association failed to show that A.R.S. § 33-441 substantially impaired any contractual relationship. The CC&Rs themselves expressly contemplated that the community rules might change or be affected by future laws, meaning the residents had no reasonable expectation that the sign ban would remain in effect indefinitely. Because the threshold of substantial impairment was not met, the court concluded there was no constitutional violation and declined to evaluate if the impairment was justified under the state’s police power.

Additionally, the court affirmed the award of attorney’s fees to the Hawks under A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A). It rejected the Association’s argument that the trial court abused its discretion, finding a reasonable basis for the fees as the Hawks were the prevailing party in an action arising out of contract (the CC&Rs), and the complexity and novelty of the constitutional and statutory issues justified the billing records.

Why It Matters

For Arizona homeowners and HOA boards, this decision establishes that state laws overriding community covenants apply to pre-existing CC&Rs, preventing HOAs from enforcing outdated restrictions on property owners’ rights. Specifically, associations cannot rely on the date of their CC&R recordation to bypass statutory protections regarding the display of ‘for sale’ signs or other legislative carve-outs.

For legal counsel, the case reinforces the principle that CC&Rs constitute contract-based rights where enforcement expectations are subject to statutory changes, meaning they do not easily qualify for Contract Clause protection. It also emphasizes that under A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A), prevailing parties in CC&R disputes are highly likely to recover substantial attorney’s fees, raising the financial risks for HOAs that engage in litigation to enforce invalidated rules.

← Back to Court of Appeals cases

Facebook Comments Box