CC&Rs & Short-Term Rentals | A.R.S. §§ 33-1806.01, 33-1817 | 1 CA-CV 22-0761
An unpublished Division One decision holding that a planned community’s short-term rental amendment was a foreseeable extension of its original CC&Rs, and thus valid and enforceable.
Last updated June 30, 2026. Case: Colin Preston, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Las Sendas Community Association, Inc., Defendant/Appellee, 1 CA-CV 22-0761.
Scope note: This page covers Colin Preston, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Las Sendas Community Association, Inc., Defendant/Appellee (1 CA-CV 22-0761) as a public Arizona Court of Appeals HOA case guide. The source decision came from Division One. The downloadable source-document index below is generated from local raw source files when a PDF opinion is available. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The takeaway
The 1995 CC&Rs, read in their entirety, provided sufficient notice that a durational limit on leases could be imposed by amendment; the 2022 short-term rental amendment is therefore valid and enforceable, and the superior court properly denied the homeowners’ requests for injunctive relief. Affirmed.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Colin Preston (Appellant)
Named homeowner-plaintiff who, with several other single-family owners (“et al.”), challenged the amendment and sought injunctive relief. - Brian Locker (Counsel)
Fowler St. Clair, PLLC (Scottsdale)
Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants (the homeowners).
Respondent Side
- Las Sendas Community Association, Inc. (Appellee)
Planned-community HOA (Defendant below) that adopted and recorded the short-term rental amendment; prevailing party. - Curtis S. Ekmark (Counsel)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP (Tempe)
Counsel for Defendant/Appellee (the HOA).
Neutral Parties
- D. Steven Williams (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Presiding Judge; authored the memorandum decision. - Samuel A. Thumma (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Panel member who joined the decision. - Paul J. McMurdie (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Panel member who joined the decision. - John R. Hannah (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court
Trial judge who granted summary judgment for the HOA and denied injunctive relief.
What happened
Las Sendas is a planned community in Maricopa County governed by CC&Rs, recorded in 1995, that restrict all residential units to residential use by a single family and impose broad restrictions on business and trade within residential units, while exempting an owner’s leasing of a unit from the definition of “trade or business.” Each plaintiff owns a single-family home subject to those CC&Rs.
In 2009 the HOA Board adopted a rule barring leases of fewer than six months. After the legislature enacted A.R.S. § 33-1806.01(A) in 2014 (allowing owners to use property as rental property unless prohibited in the CC&Rs, subject to CC&R rental-time-period restrictions), the Board grew concerned the statute might invalidate the six-months rule and, in July 2021, proposed an amendment prohibiting leases of 31 days or fewer and advertising units as vacation rentals.
Voting opened in November 2021, and in June 2022 the HOA declared the amendment approved with 2,604 of 3,090 votes (84.3%), exceeding the 75% threshold in CC&Rs Section 9.3.1. The HOA recorded the short-term rental amendment in June 2022.
The homeowners sued the HOA, alleging the amendment lessened the value and marketability of their properties, and sought both a preliminary injunction and a permanent injunction barring enforcement. The HOA moved for summary judgment, arguing the amendment was valid; the plaintiffs cross-moved for partial summary judgment on their permanent-injunction claim.
The superior court (Judge John R. Hannah) denied the preliminary injunction, denied the plaintiffs’ partial summary judgment motion, and granted summary judgment for the HOA on the permanent-injunction claim. The plaintiffs appealed.
The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, affirmed. It held that, viewed in their entirety, the original CC&Rs gave sufficient notice under Kalway that a durational limit on leases could be imposed, so the amendment was valid and enforceable and injunctive relief was properly denied. As the prevailing party, the HOA was awarded its reasonable appellate attorneys’ fees and costs.
Procedural timeline
Complete uploaded source-document index
This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/preston-v-las-sendas-community-association/raw/: 1 PDF. 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.
Memorandum Decision
Type: Decision or judgment
Memorandum decision holding that the 1995 CC&Rs, read in their entirety, provided sufficient notice that a durational limit on leases could be imposed by amendment; the 2022 short-term rental amendment is therefore valid and enforceable, and the superior court properly denied the homeowners’ requests for injunctive relief.
FAQ
Who won Preston v. Las Sendas?
The HOA. Division One affirmed summary judgment for Las Sendas Community Association, upheld the 2022 short-term rental amendment, and affirmed the denial of the homeowners’ injunctions. As the prevailing party, the HOA was awarded its reasonable appellate attorneys’ fees and costs.
What was the dispute about?
Homeowners challenged a 2022 amendment to the Las Sendas CC&Rs that prohibited leasing units for 31 days or fewer and advertising them as vacation rentals. They argued the original CC&Rs did not give them sufficient notice that such a durational rental restriction could be imposed.
What legal test did the court apply?
The court applied the reasonable-expectations / sufficient-notice framework from Kalway v. Calabria Ranch HOA, LLC. Even an amendment properly adopted under A.R.S. § 33-1817(A) and the CC&Rs’ amendment procedure is unenforceable unless the original CC&Rs, objectively viewed at the time of purchase, foreshadowed the possibility of the amendment.
Why did the homeowners lose?
The court read the CC&Rs as a whole rather than the lease exemption in isolation. The original CC&Rs limited units to single-family residential use, broadly restricted business and trade subject to Board discretion, and already barred apartment units from hotel or transient use, language that tracked the amendment. Together these gave sufficient notice that a durational lease limit could be added.
Does A.R.S. § 33-1806.01 let HOAs restrict rentals?
The statute allows owners to use their property as rental property unless prohibited in the governing CC&Rs, and requires owners to abide by the CC&Rs’ rental time-period restrictions. Here, the court held the amendment validly imposed such a durational restriction under the CC&Rs.
Is this decision precedential?
No. It is an unpublished memorandum decision under Arizona Supreme Court Rule 111(c). It is not precedential and may be cited only as authorized by rule.
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 22-0761 |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Court of Appeals |
| Decision / key date | October 31, 2023 |
| Judge / panel | D. Steven Williams, Samuel A. Thumma, Paul J. McMurdie |
| Parties | Colin Preston, et al. (homeowners / Plaintiffs-Appellants) v. Las Sendas Community Association, Inc. (HOA / Defendant-Appellee) |
| Governing law | |
| Topics | cc-and-rsboard-governancevoting-and-electionsattorneys-fees |
| Outcome / holding | The 1995 CC&Rs, read in their entirety, provided sufficient notice that a durational limit on leases could be imposed by amendment; the 2022 short-term rental amendment is therefore valid and enforceable, and the superior court properly denied the homeowners’ requests for injunctive relief. Affirmed. |
| Primary public source | View source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Uploaded source package | 1 PDF |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 10 roadmap entries |
| Video overview | No video embed currently configured |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 6 questions |
| Curated download aliases | 1 download link |
Key Issues & Findings
Las Sendas is a Maricopa County planned community whose CC&Rs, recorded in 1995, restrict residential units to single-family residential use and limit business or trade activity while exempting owner leasing. In 2009 the Board adopted a rule barring leases of fewer than six months. After Arizona enacted A.R.S. § 33-1806.01(A) in 2014, the Board proposed a 2021 amendment prohibiting rentals of 31 days or fewer and vacation-rental advertising; owners approved it by 84.3% (well above the 75% threshold), and the HOA recorded it in June 2022. Several homeowners sued, seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions to block enforcement and arguing the original CC&Rs gave insufficient notice under Kalway v. Calabria Ranch that such a restriction could be added. The superior court granted summary judgment to the HOA and denied injunctive relief. Division One affirmed, holding the original CC&Rs, read as a whole, gave sufficient notice that a durational lease limit could be imposed.
The court reviewed the denial of injunctive relief for abuse of discretion but interpreted the CC&Rs and reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo. Under Kalway v. Calabria Ranch HOA, LLC, even an amendment adopted in compliance with A.R.S. § 33-1817(A) and the CC&Rs’ own amendment procedure will not be enforced unless the original CC&Rs “provided sufficient notice” of the possibility of the amendment; courts strike down “unforeseen” amendments that would alter the nature of the covenants homeowners originally agreed to. The test is objective and measured against a purchaser’s reasonable expectations at the time of purchase: the original CC&Rs need not state the precise details of a later amendment, but must make clear that a restriction exists and could be refined or extended, and neither a general-purpose statement nor a general-amendment provision alone suffices.
Applying that standard, the court held the lease exemption in Section 3.12 could not be read in isolation. It is only an exception to Section 3.12’s broad prohibition on commercial activity in residential units and has meaning only in the context of the CC&Rs as a whole. The CC&Rs limit units to residential use by a single family who “maintain” a common household, language the court read to imply continuing rather than transient occupancy, and impose extensive restrictions on business and trade subject to the Board’s “sole discretion,” reasonably placing purchasers on notice that their use could be substantially regulated and even curtailed by future amendment.
The court also relied on the original CC&Rs’ treatment of apartment units, which barred the Las Sendas “Rental Apartments” from being used as a hotel or on a transient basis, language that largely tracks the short-term rental amendment. A prospective purchaser could reasonably have anticipated the HOA extending a comparable durational restriction to residential units. Viewed in their entirety, the CC&Rs foreshadowed the amendment, so upholding it did not alter the covenants in a substantial or unforeseen way. The court declined the homeowners’ footnote arguments drawn from A.R.S. § 9-500.39 and later online-lodging statutes, did not reach whether the 2009 six-months rule supplied additional notice, and treated the HOA’s first-on-appeal standing argument as waived.
This is a board-favorable short-term-rental outcome: the homeowners’ Kalway challenge failed because the original CC&Rs, read as a whole, foreshadowed a durational lease restriction. It illustrates that Kalway’s notice-and-foreseeability test cuts both ways, and that not every Kalway or short-term-rental challenge succeeds. Where the original governing documents already contain robust single-family use and commercial-activity restrictions and an analogous transient-use limit (here, on apartment units), a later amendment adding a rental durational cap can be deemed a foreseeable extension rather than an “entirely new and different” restriction, and thus enforceable even against owners who purchased before it was recorded.
As a counterweight to owner-favorable amendment decisions, the case shows the fact-specific nature of the analysis: the enforceability of a short-term-rental amendment turns on the text and structure of the specific CC&Rs, not on a categorical rule. Because it is an unpublished memorandum decision, it is not precedential and may be cited only as authorized by rule.