Reviewing the grant of summary judgment de novo and viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Huffman, the court restated the elements of a private nuisance under Arizona law. A private nuisance is a nontrespassory invasion of another’s interest in the private use and enjoyment of land, and while the rules of a civilized society require neighbors to keep their activities within tolerable limits, what is reasonably tolerable must be tolerated. The law does not concern itself with trifles or seek to remedy the petty annoyances of everyday life, even when those annoyances are known to result. To prevail, a plaintiff must show conduct that substantially, intentionally, and unreasonably interfered with the use and enjoyment of property and caused significant harm.

Applying that standard, the court concluded that Huffman’s catalogued complaints — slamming mailbox doors, blaring stereos, slammed vehicle doors, idling and vehicle smells, headlights shining into his window, people yelling, talking, meeting, and smoking, and trash from unwanted mail — described the activities and consequences of daily life among people living together in a neighborhood. Although potentially annoying or inconvenient, these behaviors by fellow homeowners were not illegal and did not rise to the level of a substantial, intentional, and unreasonable interference or cause significant harm. The superior court therefore correctly granted summary judgment on the nuisance claim.

Because the nuisance claim failed, the court did not need to decide whether the alleged nuisance was permanent or continuous or whether it was time-barred. The court further held that punitive damages require an underlying tort and actual damages flowing from it; with the only tort claim properly dismissed, the punitive-damages claim necessarily failed as a matter of law. The judgment was affirmed, and the association was awarded its appellate costs under A.R.S. § 12-341.