CC&R Amendments & Parking Rules | Kalway v. Calabria Ranch | CV2023-002424
In this Maricopa County Superior Court case, homeowners challenged a board-adopted amendment restricting overnight driveway parking to a single vehicle. The court held the amendment failed the foreseeability test of Kalway v. Calabria Ranch HOA, LLC, 252 Ariz. 532 (2022): the community’s existing parking restrictions addressed parking locations, not the number of vehicles or parking hours, and a board’s general power to amend does not by itself make new restrictions foreseeable. The court also held the homeowners could challenge the ultra vires act directly, without a derivative action under A.R.S. § 10-3304.
Last updated July 1, 2026. Case: Richard Rudner v. Bellasera Community Association, Inc., Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2023-002424.
Scope note: This page covers Richard Rudner v. Bellasera Community Association, Inc. (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2023-002424) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s own filed minute entries, including the September 6, 2023 under-advisement ruling on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: the collected minutes end with a stipulated Order and Judgment and Permanent Injunction entered September 26, 2023, which concluded the case in the trial court; no appeal appears in the collected record. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The takeaway
The superior court granted the homeowners summary judgment and denied the Association’s cross-motion as moot. Applying Kalway v. Calabria Ranch HOA, LLC, 252 Ariz. 532 (2022), the court held that the board’s September 22, 2022 amendment limiting overnight driveway parking to one vehicle was not foreseeable: the CC&Rs and use restrictions did not give the homeowners sufficient notice, because the subject and character of the previous parking restrictions pertained to parking locations, not the number of vehicles or parking hours, and a board’s general power to amend does not create foreseeability. The court found the new restriction unreasonable and an unauthorized restriction on the use of private property. It also held A.R.S. § 10-3304 inapplicable — the homeowners had standing to challenge an ultra vires corporate act directly, making a derivative action unnecessary.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Richard Rudner (Plaintiff)
Homeowner in the Bellasera community, where the Rudners have resided since 2005; challenged the one-vehicle overnight driveway-parking amendment. - Darlene Rudner (Plaintiff)
Homeowner in the Bellasera community and co-plaintiff with Richard Rudner. - Charles W. Wirken (Counsel)
Counsel for Plaintiffs Richard and Darlene Rudner throughout the case. The court’s ruling noted he was also the prevailing party’s counsel in Kalway v. Calabria Ranch HOA, LLC, the Arizona Supreme Court decision the ruling applied.
Respondent Side
- Bellasera Community Association, Inc. (Defendant)
Homeowners’ association responsible for monitoring and supervising the Bellasera community under its governing CC&Rs; its board adopted the challenged parking amendment on September 22, 2022. - Joseph A. Cada (Counsel)
Counsel of record for the Association at the March 2023 motion-to-dismiss stage, per the minute-entry caption. - Marcus R. Martinez (Counsel)
Counsel of record for the Association from the summary-judgment briefing through entry of judgment. - Scott Carpenter (Counsel)
Counsel appearing for the Association at the July 12, 2023 oral argument on behalf of Marcus R. Martinez.
Neutral Parties
- Timothy J. Ryan (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court judge who presided over the case, heard the July 2023 oral argument, and issued the September 6, 2023 under-advisement ruling.
What happened
Bellasera is an Arizona community governed by CC&Rs, with Bellasera Community Association, Inc. responsible for monitoring and supervising the community consistent with those documents. Richard and Darlene Rudner are homeowners in Bellasera, where they have resided since 2005. The Original and Amended CC&Rs authorize the Association’s board to “adopt rules which modify, cancel, limit, create exceptions to, or expand the Use Restrictions” attached to and incorporated in the CC&Rs.
On September 22, 2022, the Bellasera board amended the “Vehicles and Parking” use restriction set forth in subparagraph (g) of Exhibit C to the Amended CC&Rs. As relevant here, the amendment provided: “Except as specifically provided in subsections 3 and 8 below, no more than one (1) passenger vehicle, SUV or pickup truck may be parked on a driveway of a home in Bellasera overnight,” with “overnight” defined as midnight to 6:00 a.m. The Rudners demanded that the Association rescind the change; the Association refused, and this lawsuit followed. The Rudners did not challenge the amendment’s language on overnight street parking — only the prohibition on parking more than one vehicle on a private driveway.
The case’s early procedural steps were brief. The Association filed a motion to dismiss on March 9, 2023, then withdrew it by notice filed March 27, 2023, and the court formally withdrew the motion on March 30, 2023. The parties then moved directly to cross-motions for summary judgment: the Rudners filed their motion on April 17, 2023, the Association filed its response and cross-motion on May 22, 2023, and briefing closed with the Association’s reply on June 26, 2023. Judge Timothy J. Ryan heard oral argument on July 12, 2023 via the Court Connect remote platform and took the matter under advisement.
In an under-advisement ruling dated September 6, 2023, the court granted the Rudners summary judgment. It noted the parties did not dispute the relevant facts and found the case controlled by the principles of Kalway v. Calabria Ranch HOA, LLC, 252 Ariz. 532 (2022), which the court described as substantially briefed and explained in the Rudners’ motion papers, incorporated by reference. Applying Kalway, the court held the September 22, 2022 change regarding the number of vehicles on a private driveway “was not foreseeable”: the CC&Rs and use restrictions did not give the Rudners sufficient notice, because “[t]he subject and character of the previous parking restrictions pertains to parking locations, not number of vehicles or parking hours.” The mere fact that the board holds a general power to amend, the court explained, does not create foreseeability. The court concluded the new restriction was unreasonable and “an unauthorized restriction on the use of private property.”
The court also rejected a threshold procedural defense, holding A.R.S. § 10-3304 inapplicable: the Rudners had standing to challenge an ultra vires corporate act, making a derivative action unnecessary. The court granted the Rudners’ motion for summary judgment and denied the Association’s cross-motion as moot. In a footnote, the court observed that the Rudners’ counsel had been the prevailing party’s counsel in Kalway itself.
The case then concluded by agreement on the form of relief. The parties submitted a Stipulation for Entry of Order and Judgment and Permanent Injunction, and the court signed the formal Order and Judgment and Permanent Injunction, which the Clerk entered on September 26, 2023; a September 27, 2023 minute entry approved and settled the judgment. No appeal appears in the collected minute entries.
Procedural timeline
Complete uploaded source-document index
This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/richard-rudner-v-bellasera-community-association/raw/: 5 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.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Oral Argument Set
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Under Advisement Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Judgment Entered
Type: Decision or judgment
Decision document; read it to understand the controlling result before moving to later filings.
FAQ
What did the challenged parking amendment say?
Adopted by the Bellasera board on September 22, 2022, the amendment to the “Vehicles and Parking” use restriction provided that, except as specifically allowed in two subsections, “no more than one (1) passenger vehicle, SUV or pickup truck may be parked on a driveway of a home in Bellasera overnight,” with “overnight” defined as midnight to 6:00 a.m. The Rudners challenged only this one-vehicle driveway limit, not the amendment’s language on overnight street parking.
Why did the court strike down the new driveway-parking rule?
The court applied the foreseeability framework of Kalway v. Calabria Ranch HOA, LLC, 252 Ariz. 532 (2022). It held the change was not foreseeable because the CC&Rs and use restrictions did not give the homeowners sufficient notice: the subject and character of the previous parking restrictions pertained to parking locations, not the number of vehicles or parking hours. The court concluded the new restriction was unreasonable and an unauthorized restriction on the use of private property.
Doesn’t a board’s general power to amend the rules cover a change like this?
Not by itself. The Bellasera CC&Rs authorize the board to “adopt rules which modify, cancel, limit, create exceptions to, or expand the Use Restrictions,” but the court held that the mere fact that a board has a general power to amend does not create foreseeability. Under the Kalway framework the court applied, existing documents must give owners sufficient notice of the subject and character of a future restriction.
Did the homeowners have to bring a derivative action under A.R.S. § 10-3304?
No. The court held A.R.S. § 10-3304 inapplicable and found the Rudners had standing to challenge an ultra vires corporate act directly, making a derivative action unnecessary.
How did the case end?
After the September 6, 2023 under-advisement ruling granted the Rudners summary judgment and denied the Association’s cross-motion as moot, the parties stipulated to the form of judgment. The court signed a formal Order and Judgment and Permanent Injunction, entered by the Clerk on September 26, 2023, and approved it by minute entry the next day. No appeal appears in the collected minute entries.
Is this decision binding on other Arizona HOA disputes?
No. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties to the case and are not precedent. The case is still useful reading because it shows a trial court applying the Arizona Supreme Court’s Kalway foreseeability test to a board-adopted rule change — asking whether the existing CC&Rs gave owners sufficient notice of the subject and character of the new restriction — and confirming that owners may challenge an ultra vires association act directly rather than through a derivative action.
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 | CV2023-002424 (Maricopa County Superior Court) |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Superior Court |
| Decision / key date | September 6, 2023 |
| Judge / panel | Hon. Timothy J. Ryan |
| Parties | Richard Rudner and Darlene Rudner (Plaintiffs, homeowners) v. Bellasera Community Association, Inc. (Defendant) |
| Governing law | |
| Topics | cc-and-rsboard-governanceprocedure |
| Outcome / holding | The superior court granted the homeowners summary judgment, holding under Kalway v. Calabria Ranch HOA, LLC that the board’s amendment limiting overnight driveway parking to one vehicle was not foreseeable from the existing CC&Rs and use restrictions — whose parking provisions addressed locations, not vehicle counts or hours — was unreasonable, and was an unauthorized restriction on the use of private property; the court also held A.R.S. § 10-3304 inapplicable because the homeowners had standing to challenge an ultra vires corporate act directly, without a derivative action. |
| Primary public source | View source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Uploaded source package | 5 PDFs |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 9 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
Richard and Darlene Rudner, homeowners in the Bellasera community, where they have resided since 2005, sued their association after its board amended the community’s “Vehicles and Parking” use restriction on September 22, 2022 to provide that, with limited exceptions, “no more than one (1) passenger vehicle, SUV or pickup truck may be parked on a driveway of a home in Bellasera overnight,” with overnight defined as midnight to 6:00 a.m. The Rudners demanded rescission, the association refused, and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on undisputed facts. In a September 6, 2023 under-advisement ruling, the court applied Kalway v. Calabria Ranch HOA, LLC, 252 Ariz. 532 (2022), and held the new driveway limit was not foreseeable from the existing CC&Rs — the previous parking restrictions addressed parking locations, not the number of vehicles or parking hours — and that the board’s general power to amend did not create foreseeability. The court found the restriction unreasonable and an unauthorized restriction on the use of private property, granted the homeowners summary judgment, and denied the association’s cross-motion as moot. A stipulated Order and Judgment and Permanent Injunction was entered September 26, 2023.
The material facts were undisputed. The Bellasera CC&Rs authorize the board to “adopt rules which modify, cancel, limit, create exceptions to, or expand the Use Restrictions” incorporated in the CC&Rs, and on September 22, 2022 the board amended the “Vehicles and Parking” use restriction in subparagraph (g) of Exhibit C to the Amended CC&Rs to prohibit more than one passenger vehicle, SUV, or pickup truck from parking on a home’s driveway between midnight and 6:00 a.m. The Rudners challenged only that driveway limit, not the amendment’s street-parking language.
The court found the case governed by the principles of Kalway v. Calabria Ranch HOA, LLC, 252 Ariz. 532 (2022), which it described as substantially briefed in the Rudners’ motion papers and incorporated by reference. Applying Kalway, the court held the change regarding the number of vehicles on a private driveway was not foreseeable: the CC&Rs and use restrictions did not give the Rudners sufficient notice, because the subject and character of the previous parking restrictions pertained to parking locations, not the number of vehicles or parking hours. The mere fact that the board holds a general power to amend does not create foreseeability. On that basis the court concluded the new restriction was unreasonable and an unauthorized restriction on the use of private property. In a footnote, the court noted that the Rudners’ counsel had been the prevailing party’s counsel in Kalway itself.
The court also disposed of a threshold procedural argument, finding A.R.S. § 10-3304 inapplicable: the homeowners had standing to challenge an ultra vires corporate act, making a derivative action unnecessary. The court granted the Rudners’ motion for summary judgment and denied the association’s cross-motion as moot. The parties then stipulated to the form of relief, and the court signed a formal Order and Judgment and Permanent Injunction entered by the Clerk on September 26, 2023.
This case is a Maricopa County application of the Arizona Supreme Court’s Kalway foreseeability framework to a board amendment of a community’s use restrictions. It shows a trial court asking the Kalway questions concretely: did the existing documents give owners notice of the subject and character of the new restriction? Here, prior parking rules governed where vehicles could park, so a new rule limiting how many vehicles could park on an owner’s own driveway — and during what hours — was not foreseeable, and the board’s broad reserved power to modify use restrictions could not fill that gap.
The ruling also addresses a procedural point that recurs in owner-versus-association litigation: the court held A.R.S. § 10-3304 inapplicable and allowed the owners to challenge the board’s ultra vires act directly, without bringing a derivative action. And the endgame is instructive — after losing on summary judgment, the association stipulated to entry of a permanent injunction, and no appeal appears in the collected minute entries. As a superior-court decision, the ruling binds only these parties and is not precedent.