2026-04-21 — Everett Huffman v. Magic Ranch Estates Homeowners' Association, an Arizona Non-Profit Corporation ↑ top

Source

huffman-v-magic-ranch-estates.pdf

IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION TWO

EVERETT HUFFMAN,
Plaintiff/Appellant,

v.

MAGIC RANCH ESTATES HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, AN ARIZONA
NON-PROFIT CORPORATION,
Defendant/Appellee.

No. 2 CA-CV 2025-0008
Filed April 21, 2026

THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND
MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 28(a)(1), (f).

Appeal from the Superior Court in Pinal County
No. S1100CV202100976
The Honorable Robert Carter Olson, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Everett Huffman, Florence
In Propria Persona

Hill, Hall, Stark, & Ferraro PLC, Scottsdale
By R. Corey Hill and Christopher Robbins
Counsel for Defendant/Appellee

HUFFMAN v. MAGIC RANCH ESTS. HOMEOWNERS’ ASS’N
Decision of the Court
2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Kelly authored the decision of the Court, in which
Judge Sklar and Judge Gard concurred.

K E L L Y, Presiding Judge:

¶1
Everett Huffman appeals from the superior court’s grant of
summary judgment in favor of Magic Ranch Estates Homeowners’
Association (“Magic Ranch”) on his claims for nuisance and punitive
damages related to the proximity of community mailboxes, benches, and a
bulletin board to his house. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Factual and Procedural Background
¶2
In 2015, in a separate proceeding, Magic Ranch asserted a
breach-of-contract claim against Huffman, requesting injunctive relief for
alleged violations of Magic Ranch’s declaration of covenants, conditions,
and restrictions. Huffman counterclaimed and alleged intentional infliction
of emotional distress. The superior court granted Magic Ranch’s motion to
dismiss Huffman’s counterclaim, finding that it “fail[ed] to state an
actionable claim.” On appeal, we agreed that Huffman had failed to state
any claim upon which relief could be granted. Magic Ranch Ests.
Homeowners Ass’n v. Huffman, No. 2 CA-CV 2018-0142, ¶ 34 (Ariz. App.
Nov. 22, 2019) (mem. decision).
¶3
In 2016, Huffman filed an action against Magic Ranch and
other parties, alleging claims of nuisance and breach of quiet enjoyment
related to the relocation of mailboxes within the community, intentional
infliction of emotional distress, fraud and misrepresentation, negligent
infliction of emotional distress, violations of the Fair Debt Collect Practices
Act, and “derivative action” claims. He then amended his complaint and
removed his claim of nuisance. Huffman later asserted he had omitted his
nuisance claim by mistake, but he did not request leave to again amend his
complaint. Ultimately, the amended complaint was involuntarily
dismissed with prejudice in a final judgment. We affirmed. Huffman v.
Jackson, No. 2 CA-CV 2018-0181, ¶ 21 (Ariz. App. Oct. 17, 2019) (mem.
decision).
¶4
In 2021, Huffman initiated another action against Magic
Ranch alleging claims of nuisance and breach of quiet enjoyment,

HUFFMAN v. MAGIC RANCH ESTS. HOMEOWNERS’ ASS’N
Decision of the Court
3
negligence, and wrongful initiation of civil proceedings. Magic Ranch
moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), Ariz. R. Civ. P., for failure to state a
claim, arguing that Huffman could have asserted his claims in the earlier
suits and that, because the current claims arose from the “same nucleus of
facts” as the 2015 and 2016 litigations, the action was barred by the doctrine
of claim preclusion. Magic Ranch also asserted that Huffman’s tort claims
were barred by a two-year statute of limitations and that his statutory
causes of action were barred by a one-year statute of limitations. The
superior court determined that Huffman was precluded from asserting his
nuisance claim and that he had failed to state a claim for either negligence
or wrongful initiation of civil proceedings. The court thus dismissed his
complaint with prejudice. On appeal, we affirmed the superior court’s
dismissal of Huffman’s claims for negligence and wrongful initiation of
civil proceedings, but we vacated the dismissal of his nuisance claim,
holding that the 2016 judgment did not have preclusive effect as to that
claim. Huffman v. Magic Ranch Est. Homeowners Ass’n, No. 2 CA-CV 2022-
0055, ¶¶ 16, 29 (Ariz. App. Apr. 19, 2023) (mem. decision).
¶5
In 2023, after our mandate issued, Huffman filed his second
amended complaint with leave from the superior court, alleging that Magic
Ranch’s placement of community mailboxes, benches, and a bulletin board
to “beneath his master bedroom window” in 2014 and 2015 had constituted
a nuisance and interfered with his quiet enjoyment of his property. He also
made a claim for punitive damages, alleging that Magic Ranch’s actions
were “malicious, [i]ntentional, and/or grossly negligent.” Magic Ranch
moved for summary judgment, asserting that Huffman’s allegations failed
to establish a legal cause of action for nuisance and that his claims were
barred by the applicable statutes of limitations.
¶6
The superior court concluded that the “statute of limitations
time period is limited to two years prior to the filing of the complaint,”
which occurred on May 7, 2021, and “therefore, the earliest damages
available are May 7, 2019.” The court determined that “approval by [Magic
Ranch] and the construction of the mailboxes is outside of the statute of the
limitations and is not part of a continuing tort.” It further found that
Huffman’s “claim of nuisance rests primarily on arguments of mischief in
the original decision to relocate the mailboxes, but he has shown no
substantial, intentional and unreasonable interference under the
circumstances in the continuing presence of the mailboxes in its current
location or design.” The court thus concluded, “viewing the evidence in
the light most favorable to [Huffman], he has not shown specific evidence
necessary to support his claim and has not demonstrated a genuine dispute

HUFFMAN v. MAGIC RANCH ESTS. HOMEOWNERS’ ASS’N
Decision of the Court
4
as to any material fact.” It therefore granted summary judgment in favor
of Magic Ranch as to all claims. Huffman timely appealed. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1) and 12-2101(A)(1).
Discussion
¶7
On appeal, Huffman asserts that the superior court “erred in
its statement that [he] has not shown specific evidence necessary to support
his claim” for “nuisance/quiet enjoyment.”1 He further contends the
nuisance “started in 2014 is continuing and has not been abated.” Magic
Ranch counters that Huffman’s nuisance claim is barred by the applicable
statute of limitations, that its action in moving the mailboxes did not
substantially or unreasonably interfere with Huffman’s use and enjoyment
of his property, and that his claim for punitive damages fails “as a matter
of law and undisputed fact.” We review “a grant of summary judgment de
novo, viewing the facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable
to the party opposing the motion and will affirm for any reason supported
by the record, even if not explicitly considered by the superior court.” CK
Fam. Irrevocable Tr. No. 1 v. My Home Grp. Real Est. LLC, 249 Ariz. 506, ¶ 6
(App. 2020).
¶8
A private nuisance is the “nontrespassory invasion of
another’s interest in the private use and enjoyment of land.” Armory Park
Neighborhood Ass’n v. Episcopal Cmty. Servs. in Ariz., 148 Ariz. 1, 4 (1985)
(quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 821D (1979)); see also Graber v. City
of Peoria, 156 Ariz. 553, 555 (App. 1988) (“[A] nuisance is a condition which
represents an unreasonable interference with another person’s use and
enjoyment of his property and causes damage.”). While the “rules of a
civilized society require us to tolerate our neighbors,” the “law requires our
neighbors to keep their activities within the limits of what is tolerable by a
reasonable person.” Armory Park Neighborhood Ass’n, 148 Ariz. at 7.
¶9
However, “what is reasonably tolerable must be tolerated,”
and not all inconveniences, annoyances, interferences, or obstructions are
nuisances. See id. “[T]he law does not concern itself with trifles, or seek to
remedy all of the petty annoyances and disturbances of everyday life in a
civilized community even from conduct committed with knowledge that

1Throughout his opening brief, Huffman describes his claim as one
for “nuisance/quiet enjoyment” and does not articulate more than one
claim related to the location of the mailboxes, benches, and bulletin board.
Accordingly, we treat his claim as one for private nuisance.

HUFFMAN v. MAGIC RANCH ESTS. HOMEOWNERS’ ASS’N
Decision of the Court
5
annoyance and inconvenience will result.” Id. (quoting W. Page Keeton et
al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts, § 88, at 643 (5th ed. 1984)). As such,
to establish a claim of private nuisance, a plaintiff must show that a
defendant’s conduct substantially, intentionally, and unreasonably under
the circumstances, interfered with the use and enjoyment of his property,
causing significant harm. See Nolan v. Starlight Pines Homeowners Ass’n, 216
Ariz. 482, ¶ 32 (App. 2007).
¶10
Huffman’s opening brief restates the evidence as to the
location of the mailboxes, two park benches, and a bulletin board, and
reiterates his complaints of “slamming mailbox doors, blaring vehicle
stereos, vehicle doors being slammed shut, vehicles idling, vehicle smells,
headlights shining into his bedroom window, people yelling, talking,
meeting and smoking, trash and garbage from unwanted mail,” with “these
activities occurring at all hours of the night making it impossible to enjoy
his master bedroom.” Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to
Huffman, these allegations of behaviors by his fellow homeowners do not
rise to the level of a tortious nuisance, as the superior court correctly
concluded. While any or all of these activities might certainly be annoying
or inconvenient, they are not illegal, and they represent the activities and
consequences of daily life amongst people living together in a
neighborhood. Accordingly, they do not rise to the level of conduct that
would substantially, intentionally, and unreasonably interfere with a
homeowner’s use and enjoyment of his property, or cause “significant
harm.” See Nolan, 216 Ariz. 482, ¶ 32. Thus, the court did not err in granting
summary judgment in favor of Magic Ranch on Huffman’s nuisance claim.
¶11
Given our conclusion that Huffman has failed to allege facts
necessary to establish a claim for nuisance against Magic Ranch, and that
summary judgment was properly granted on that basis, we need not reach
whether the alleged nuisance was permanent or continuous in nature, or
whether it was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Additionally,
a claim for punitive damages requires proof of an underlying tort. See Swift
Transp. Co. of Ariz. L.L.C. v. Carman ex rel Yavapai, 253 Ariz. 499, ¶ 11 (2022)
(“something more than the mere commission of a tort is always required
for punitive damages”); see also Saucedo ex rel. Sinaloa v. Salvation Army, 200
Ariz. 179, ¶ 21 (App. 2001) (plaintiff must suffer actual damages as a result
of underlying tort before punitive damages may be entertained). Because
the superior court properly granted summary judgment dismissing
Huffman’s tort claim for nuisance, his claim for punitive damages must also
fail as a matter of law.

HUFFMAN v. MAGIC RANCH ESTS. HOMEOWNERS’ ASS’N
Decision of the Court
6
Disposition
¶12
We affirm the superior court’s grant of summary judgment
and dismissal of Huffman’s second amended complaint. As the prevailing
party, Magic Ranch is entitled to recover its costs on appeal upon
compliance with Rule 21, Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. See A.R.S. § 12-341.