The rule in one sentence

Case Participants

What happened and why it matters

Casita de Castilian, Inc., the non-profit corporation serving as the Council of Co-owners for a condominium (horizontal property regime) created under A.R.S. Section 33-551 et seq., sued unit owners Kenneth and Mary Elizabeth Kamrath to recover $4,397 in unpaid assessments plus $765 in late-payment penalties. The Kamraths counterclaimed, asserting that the association was obligated to repair and maintain the roof over their units, a general common element, and was liable for the roughly $2,393 cost of the needed repairs. The case was tried to the court on stipulated facts. The association’s original 1970 bylaws had made the corporation responsible for maintaining all common elements, but a 1975 amendment, adopted by a 92-to-14 vote of the membership and recorded, shifted roof-maintenance responsibility to the individual unit owners. The trial court ruled for the association on both its complaint and the counterclaim and awarded assessments, penalties, and attorney fees; the owners appealed only the counterclaim ruling. The Court of Appeals, Division Two, affirmed. It held that bylaws are a proper instrument for allocating maintenance responsibility, that only a majority (not unanimous) vote was required, and that assigning roof upkeep to individual owners satisfied A.R.S. Section 33-561’s requirement that the council ‘make provisions for’ maintenance. Finding no inequitable or disproportionate burden, the court denied the owners’ claimed setoff.

The Court of Appeals framed three questions: whether the corporation’s bylaws are a proper instrument for providing for maintenance of common elements; if so, whether all co-owners must agree to such a provision; and whether requiring each owner to maintain his own roof satisfies A.R.S. Section 33-561. On the first question, the court observed that A.R.S. Section 33-551(6)(b) makes roofs ‘general common elements’ unless the recorded declaration provides otherwise, and that A.R.S. Section 33-553(4) requires the declaration to describe the common elements. Here the declaration described the common elements as all real property except the individual units, so the roofs were common elements, but neither the statutes nor the declaration fixed responsibility for maintaining them. The articles of incorporation were likewise silent. The bylaws, however, did fix responsibility: the original 1970 bylaws made the corporation responsible, and the amended 1975 bylaws made each member liable for the roof covering of the apartment owned. Rejecting the owners’ argument that Article IV(A) of the declaration (which obligates owners to pay assessments to meet common-element expenses) required the association to perform the work, the court held that the provision merely obligated owners to pay assessments and did not impose a maintenance duty on the council. It therefore held the bylaws were a proper instrument.

On unanimity, the court found nothing in the statute requiring agreement of all co-owners; the only statutory unanimity requirement (A.R.S. Section 33-556) concerns withdrawing property from the regime. The court distinguished Makeever v. Lyle, then the only reported Arizona decision interpreting the condominium law, in which a majority could not convert general common elements to one owner’s exclusive use because that amounted to a taking of the other co-owners’ interests. Reallocating upkeep of a single common element was not such a taking. Reading the declaration (which called for majority approval of decisions), the articles (which let a majority change bylaws), and the statute together, the court concluded a simple majority could adopt or amend maintenance bylaws.

On the third question, the court emphasized that A.R.S. Section 33-561 requires only that the council ‘make provisions for’ maintenance and does not itself make the council responsible for the work. Surveying the 1962 FHA Model Act, the 1977 Uniform Condominium Act (which Arizona did not adopt), and comparative state statutes, the court found nothing supporting the owners’ reading. It distinguished the Florida case Thiess v. Island House Association, where an amendment shifted a disproportionate repair burden onto a minority of owners; here the owners raised no claim that the amendment was unfair, disproportionate, or inequitable. Accordingly, absent such an inequitable result, the majority could place maintenance of a common element on the individual owners, and the counterclaim failed.

This 1981 published decision is one of the earliest Arizona appellate opinions interpreting the state’s condominium (horizontal property regime) statute, and it remains instructive on how maintenance duties are allocated within a community association. The key lesson is that, under Arizona’s particular statutory language, the law does not automatically make the association responsible for maintaining every common element. A.R.S. Section 33-561 requires only that the council of co-owners ‘make provisions for’ maintenance, and the court read that phrasing to permit an association to place upkeep of a specific common element, such as each unit’s roof, on the individual owners through the governing documents. Owners and boards reviewing who is responsible for a repair should therefore look closely at the declaration, articles, and especially the bylaws rather than assuming the association must perform all common-element work.

The decision also illustrates two recurring themes in association governance disputes. First, governing documents can generally be amended by the vote specified in those documents and the statute (here a simple majority), and unanimity is required only in narrow circumstances such as withdrawing property from the regime; a maintenance reallocation is not treated as a ‘taking’ of the other owners’ interests the way converting common area to one owner’s exclusive use would be. Second, the court signaled an equitable limit: an amendment that shifts a disproportionate or unfair burden onto a minority of owners (as in the Florida Thiess case) could be vulnerable, even though the reallocation here was upheld because no such inequity was shown. Because this is a published opinion in which the Arizona Supreme Court denied review, it is binding precedent for how these older condominium instruments and statutes are construed.

Step-by-step litigation record

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

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Key Issues & Findings