Decker v. Hendricks
At a Glance
| Parties | Subdivision owners sued a lot owner who built a warehouse in a residential-only restricted area. |
|---|---|
| Panel | Justice Struckmeyer |
Summary
In Decker, the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed a mandatory injunction ordering removal of a warehouse built in violation of residential subdivision restrictions. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs waited too long, that nearby commercial development had changed the neighborhood, and that the hardship of tearing down the building outweighed any benefit of enforcement. The court rejected those defenses. It found no unreasonable delay after the defendants resumed construction, no radical change within the restricted area that defeated the purpose of the plan, and no basis for an intentional violator to ask equity for special mercy. The opinion is especially important because it shows Arizona courts will grant strong injunctive relief, including removal, when an owner knowingly builds against clear restrictions. In HOA litigation, Decker is still cited on laches, changed conditions, and the limited value of a hardship defense when the violator proceeded with notice.
Holding
Arizona courts may order removal of a knowingly noncompliant structure, and defenses based on delay, outside-area change, or relative hardship fail when the violation was intentional and the restricted plan remains viable.
Reasoning
The court treated each equitable defense separately. On laches, it found the plaintiffs’ delay was not unreasonable because construction had first stopped and only later resumed in a form that clearly violated the restrictions. On changed conditions, the court focused on the restricted tract itself and required a fundamental change that defeated the restriction’s original purpose.
The court was most direct on hardship. Equity does not favor a party who knowingly builds in violation of covenants and then argues that compliance is now too expensive. Because the defendants had actual notice and forged ahead anyway, the trial court acted within its discretion in granting a mandatory injunction.
Why This Matters for HOAs
Decker is one of Arizona’s strongest pro-enforcement covenant cases. It warns owners and builders that charging ahead after notice can lead to demolition-type remedies, not just damages.
For boards and counsel, the case is useful when a violator argues that the surrounding area has become more commercial or that tearing out the improvement would be too harsh. In Arizona, those arguments are weak when the community’s basic restrictive plan still works and the violation was deliberate.
