Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two | No. 2 CA-CV 2015-0069
In Tucson Estates POA v. McGovern, the Arizona Court of Appeals addressed whether unilateral attorney fee provisions in HOA covenants require reciprocal awards to prevailing homeowners. While fees remain discretionary, the court ruled that recovery of litigation costs is mandatory under A.R.S. § 12-341.
Last updated July 15, 2026. Case: Tucson Estates Property Owners Association, Inc. v. McGovern, Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division Two, No. 2 CA-CV 2015-0069, Filed January 15, 2016; Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Scope note: This page summarizes the court’s decision in Tucson Estates Property Owners Association, Inc. v. McGovern regarding unilateral fee clauses in CC&Rs and mandatory litigation costs under Arizona law. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The takeaway
A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A) permits but does not mandate an award of attorney fees to a prevailing party when the contract contains a unilateral fee provision favoring only the other party. However, A.R.S. § 12-341 mandatorily requires that the successful party in a civil action recover their costs.
Case Participants
Respondent Side
- Holly A. McGovern (Defendant / Appellant)
Tucson Estates homeowner - Tucson Estates Property Owners Association, Inc. v. McGovern, Sines (Defendant / Appellant)
Tucson Estates homeowner who replaced the shed
Neutral Parties
- Judge Miller (Appellate Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two
Author of the appellate opinion - Presiding Judge Vásquez (Appellate Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two
Concurred in the appellate opinion - Chief Judge Eckerstrom (Appellate Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two
Concurred in the appellate opinion - Richard S. Fields (Trial Judge)
Superior Court in Pima County
Presided over the trial court proceedings
What happened
In 2012, McGovern and Sines purchased property in Tucson Estates with an existing 35-year-old shed.
Sines submitted a change request to replace the shed and received verbal approval from a TEPOA inspector; TEPOA failed to send their written denial form.
Sines completed the shed, and more than a year later TEPOA sent a letter alleging a violation of the CC&Rs.
Sines corresponded with TEPOA and ultimately moved the shed to the cement pad where the original shed had stood.
TEPOA sued the homeowners seeking an injunction, liquidated damages, and attorney fees for breach of contract.
The trial court denied TEPOA’s injunction, vacated the fines, and ordered both sides to bear their own fees and costs.
The homeowners appealed the denial of attorney fees under A.R.S. § 12-341.01 and sanctions under A.R.S. § 12-349, and the denial of costs under A.R.S. § 12-341.
The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of attorney fees but reversed the denial of trial court costs.
Video overview of the case record
An AI-generated video overview of Tucson Estates Property Owners Association, Inc. v. McGovern (2 CA-CV 2015-0069 (Ariz. Ct. App.)). Unilateral CC&R fee provisions do not mandate reciprocal fee awards under A.R.S. 12-341.01(A). This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own records control.
Listen: audio deep dive on the case record
An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the case record in Tucson Estates Property Owners Association, Inc. v. McGovern. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked records below.
Procedural timeline
Complete uploaded source-document index
This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/tucson-estates-property-owners-association-inc-v-mcgovern-sines/raw/: 1 PDF, 1 other source file. Files are ordered by the date/sequence embedded in the normalized filename; non-court review materials, when present, are labeled separately from court filings.
Undated 001 Courtlistener Opinion 3170150
Type: Decision or judgment
Decision document; read it to understand the controlling result before moving to later filings.
Undated 002 Courtlistener Opinion 3170150
Type: Decision or judgment
Decision document; read it to understand the controlling result before moving to later filings.
FAQ
Are reciprocal attorney fees mandatory when CC&Rs contain a unilateral fee provision?
No. The Arizona Court of Appeals held that A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A) permits but does not mandate an award of attorney fees to a prevailing homeowner when the CC&Rs unilaterally grant fees only to the association.
Is a trial court required to award litigation costs to the successful party under Arizona law?
Yes. Under A.R.S. § 12-341, the successful party to a civil action is entitled to recover all expended or incurred costs, and the court has no discretion to deny costs once the successful party is identified.
What was the core dispute in the Tucson Estates case?
The dispute began when homeowners replaced and relocated a 35-year-old shed after receiving verbal approval. The HOA later sued for an injunction to remove the shed, alleging a violation of the CC&Rs, and sought fines and attorney fees.
Why did the HOA lose its claims in the trial court?
The trial court found that the homeowners relied on actual or implicit approval to build. The court denied the injunction because the HOA delayed over a year in giving notice of violation and failed to send its written rejection form.
Were sanctions awarded against the HOA for bringing the lawsuit?
No. The homeowners sought attorney fees as a sanction under A.R.S. § 12-349, but the court denied them because there was conflicting evidence regarding notice of plan denial, showing the claim was not groundless or in bad faith.
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 | 2 CA-CV 2015-0069 (Ariz. Ct. App.) |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Court of Appeals |
| Decision / key date | January 15, 2016 |
| Judge / panel | Judge Miller, Presiding Judge Vásquez, Chief Judge Eckerstrom |
| Parties | Plaintiff/Appellee Tucson Estates Property Owners Association, Inc. v. Defendants/Appellants Holly A. McGovern and Tucson Estates Property Owners Association, Inc. v. McGovern, Sines |
| Governing law |
|
| Topics | CC&RsArchitectural ReviewAttorney FeesFines |
| Outcome / holding | A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A) permits but does not mandate an award of attorney fees to a prevailing party when the contract contains a unilateral fee provision favoring only the other party. However, A.R.S. § 12-341 mandatorily requires that the successful party in a civil action recover their costs. |
| Primary public source | View source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Uploaded source package | 1 PDF, 1 other source file |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 1 roadmap entry |
| Video overview | Tucson Estates Property Owners Association, Inc. v. McGovern |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 5 questions |
| Curated download aliases | 0 download links |
Key Issues & Findings
Tucson Estates Property Owners Association (TEPOA) sued homeowners Holly McGovern and Donald Sines after they replaced a 35-year-old shed, seeking an injunction, fines, and attorney fees. The trial court found the homeowners relied on verbal or implicit approval, denied TEPOA’s requests, and vacated all fines, but ordered each party to bear their own fees and costs. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of attorney fees under A.R.S. § 12-341.01, ruling that unilateral contractual fee clauses do not mandate reciprocal fee awards for prevailing homeowners. However, the court reversed the denial of costs, holding that costs under A.R.S. § 12-341 are mandatory for the successful party.
The court analyzed A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A) and found that its plain language states courts ‘may’ award fees in contract actions, but does not mandate equity or reciprocity where the contract’s unilateral terms favor only one party. Any correction to asymmetrical statutory treatment of parties must come from the legislature. For litigation costs, the court found that A.R.S. § 12-341 uses mandatory language (‘shall recover’), and because the homeowners completely defeated all of TEPOA’s claims, they were the sole successful party and were entitled to costs as a matter of law.
This case clarifies that unilateral attorney fees provisions in HOA CC&Rs do not establish a mandatory right to reciprocal fees for homeowners under A.R.S. § 12-341.01, keeping such awards discretionary. Importantly, it emphasizes that trial courts have no discretion to deny litigation costs to a fully successful party under A.R.S. § 12-341.