Arizona HOA Open Meetings • A.R.S. § 33-1804 • Court of Appeals Decision
A Z N H Revocable Trust v. Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association is now the central Arizona case on closed planned-community board meetings, executive-session voting, and what an association must disclose on closed-meeting agendas.
Last updated May 5, 2026. Case: A Z N H Revocable Trust v. Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, No. 1 CA-CV 25-0424; Superior Court No. CV2023-096192.
Scope note: This page focuses on Arizona planned communities governed by A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 16. The decision directly interprets A.R.S. § 33-1804, Arizona’s planned-community open-meeting statute. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The rule in one sentence
An Arizona planned-community board may privately consider the limited topics allowed by A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), but it must vote and take formal action in an open meeting, and closed-meeting agendas must give members more than a bare statutory paragraph.
Case snapshot
Case nameA Z N H Revocable Trust v. Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association.
Appellate docketArizona Court of Appeals, Division One, No. 1 CA-CV 25-0424.
Decision dateFiled April 28, 2026; affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Statute interpretedA.R.S. § 33-1804, Arizona’s open-meeting statute for planned communities.
Why this case matters
For years, some Arizona HOA boards treated executive session as a place where directors could not only discuss confidential subjects, but also approve, authorize, ratify, or direct action away from the membership. This case draws a clean line between private deliberation and public action.
The Court of Appeals focused on the statute’s structure. A.R.S. § 33-1804 lets boards close part of a meeting only for the consideration of five narrow categories. The court held that consideration means thought, reflection, discussion, and formulation. Voting is different because it is the formal expression of a final decision.
The practical effect is significant. A board can still receive legal advice privately, discuss pending litigation privately, handle protected personal or financial information privately, address employment issues privately, and hear a violation appeal privately when the statute allows. But the board cannot hide the vote itself inside executive-session minutes.
What the Arizona Court of Appeals decided
The court also held that Sunland Springs’ meeting notices satisfied the statute when they listed the date, time, place, and paragraph of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) authorizing closure. The problem was not the basic notice. The problem was the agenda content and the closed-session voting. Opinion ¶¶ 19, 23.
1. Closed-session voting is not allowedThe court affirmed the superior court’s ruling that all voting or formal actions of an association board must occur during open meetings. Opinion ¶¶ 10-14, 23.
2. Consideration does not include the voteThe court rejected the argument that the statutory authority to privately consider a topic also authorizes the final vote on that topic. Opinion ¶¶ 10-14.
3. Closed-meeting agendas need useful informationThe court reversed on agenda adequacy because a closed-meeting agenda must provide information reasonably necessary to advise members about the business being addressed. Opinion ¶¶ 18, 21-24.
4. Statutory identification was remandedThe board may delegate the task of identifying the statutory paragraph for closure, but the record was unclear whether Sunland Springs had formally delegated that responsibility. Opinion ¶¶ 15-16, 23.
What this decision does not eliminate
AZNH does not eliminate executive session. Boards may still privately consider the limited topics listed in A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), including legal advice, pending or contemplated litigation, protected personal, health, or financial information, certain employment matters, and violation appeals when the statute allows closure.
The decision also does not require agendas to disclose attorney-client advice, litigation strategy, personally identifying information, or protected private information. The rule is narrower and more practical: the agenda must give enough nonprivileged information to reasonably advise members what business is being addressed, and any vote or formal action must occur in an open meeting. Opinion ¶ 22.
Video overview: Arizona HOA boards cannot vote in executive session
Watch this overview for the central holding in AZNH v. Sunland Springs: Arizona planned-community boards may use executive session for protected statutory consideration, but the vote and formal action must happen in an open meeting.
The facts that made this case impossible to ignore
The published opinion identifies several examples of formal business conducted during closed meetings. Sunland Springs’ board had approved a $917,000 budget item, granted its community manager up to $7,000 in discretionary spending authority, addressed 13 waivers of the minimum-age requirement for residents, and authorized foreclosures against two homeowners.
Those examples show why the open-meeting statute matters. The dispute was not about minor housekeeping. It involved money, enforcement, age-restricted-community eligibility, and foreclosure authority. Those are exactly the kinds of decisions owners have a statutory interest in seeing before the vote is taken.
For homeowners: how to use this decision
If you suspect your Arizona planned-community HOA has been voting in executive session, the cleanest first step is not a speech at a board meeting. It is a targeted records request. You want existing records showing whether a quorum of the board voted, approved, authorized, ratified, delegated, or directed action in a closed meeting, closed portion of a meeting, informal board meeting, workshop, written consent, or action without a meeting.
Video guide for Arizona homeowners
Start here if you suspect your Arizona planned-community HOA has been voting, approving, authorizing, ratifying, or directing action in executive session. This video explains the AZNH v. Sunland Springs decision from the homeowner perspective and pairs with the downloadable records-request template below.
Copy/paste email cover note
Subject: Records Request Under A.R.S. § 33-1805 – Executive-Session Votes and Formal Actions
Dear Board and Community Manager,
Attached is my formal records request under A.R.S. § 33-1805. Please produce the existing responsive records electronically within the statutory ten-business-day period.
Thank you.
Download the records request template
This PDF is drafted for Arizona planned-community homeowners. It requests existing association records showing executive-session votes and formal actions for the two-year period before the request date. It also includes the appellate opinion as Attachment A so the board and management company can see the rule in context.
Use your own name and email. Send it to the association board and community manager. Preserve a copy of the sent email and any response.
Suggested homeowner workflow
- Save the case name and docket number. Use A Z N H Revocable Trust v. Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association, No. 1 CA-CV 25-0424.
- Download and send the records request. Keep the request narrow: existing records showing votes or formal actions in closed meetings.
- Do not ask the association to create a new spreadsheet. Ask for existing minutes, agenda materials, resolutions, written consents, approvals, authorizations, ratifications, and delegation records.
- Expect lawful redactions. The association may redact privileged legal advice, protected personal information, and other protected substance. But the existence of a motion, second, vote tally, approval, authorization, or formal directive is the critical issue.
- Compare the records to open-meeting minutes. If the board took action in closed session, check whether that action was later re-voted in open session after members had a chance to speak.
- Document the timeline. Preserve notices, agendas, minutes, emails, board packets, and management responses.
For HOA boards and community managers: the compliance reset
The safest operational response is to redesign the executive-session workflow. Treat executive session as a place for protected consideration, not final action. The vote belongs in an open meeting.
Video guide for HOA boards, managers, and counsel
This video explains the compliance reset after AZNH v. Sunland Springs: executive session may be used for protected statutory consideration, but votes, approvals, authorizations, ratifications, directives, and other formal actions must occur in open meetings.
Compliance reset checklist
Do this now- Move every vote, authorization, ratification, approval, directive, and formal action to open session.
- Let members speak after board discussion of the agenda item and before formal action.
- Use closed session only for the five statutory categories in A.R.S. § 33-1804(A).
- Write closed-meeting agendas with enough nonprivileged detail to inform members about the matter.
- Preserve privileged and personal details through careful redaction, not through vague agenda descriptions.
- If the board delegates statutory-identification duties to a president, manager, or officer, document the delegation formally.
Stop doing this- Do not vote in executive session and later treat the vote as valid because it appears in closed-session minutes.
- Do not use legal advice, litigation, or personal information as a catch-all label for unrelated association business.
- Do not give closed-meeting agendas that say only A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1) or executive session.
- Do not assume that a management-company custom is enough. The statute controls.
- Do not rely on attorney-client privilege to shield the existence of board action.
A.R.S. § 33-1804 in plain English
A.R.S. § 33-1804 starts from a strong transparency baseline: meetings of the members’ association, the board of directors, and regularly scheduled committees are open to members or their designated representatives. The board may impose reasonable speaking limits, but it must allow a member to speak after discussion of a specific agenda item and before formal action on that item.
A board may close a portion of a meeting only when the closed portion is limited to one or more statutory categories:
- Legal advice from an attorney for the board or association.
- Pending or contemplated litigation.
- Personal, health, or financial information about an individual member, employee, or contractor employee.
- Job performance, compensation, health records, or specific complaints concerning an individual employee or contractor employee working under association direction.
- A member’s appeal of a violation or penalty, unless the affected member requests an open session.
What a compliant closed-meeting agenda should look like after AZNH
A closed-meeting agenda does not have to reveal attorney-client advice, litigation strategy, personally identifying information, health information, financial information, or protected employment details. But it must do more than cite a paragraph number. The goal is to reasonably advise members about what business is being addressed so they can speak meaningfully before the board takes formal action in open session.
| Weak agenda wording | Stronger nonprivileged wording | Why it is better |
|---|
| Executive session – A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1) | Attorney consultation regarding proposed settlement structure for pending covenant-enforcement matter; no member names listed. | It identifies the legal-advice category while giving the general business context without revealing privileged advice. |
| Executive session – A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(3) | Review of owner financial-hardship request related to assessment payment plan; identifying details withheld. | It tells members what kind of personal or financial matter is being addressed without exposing private owner information. |
| Executive session – violation appeal | Member appeal of architectural violation fine; affected member requested closed session. | It identifies the type of enforcement issue and keeps the affected owner’s identity protected. |
Timeline of the case
| Date | Event | Why it mattered |
|---|
| December 2023 | Declaratory-judgment complaint filed in Maricopa County Superior Court. | Started the lawsuit challenging closed-session voting and agenda practices under A.R.S. § 33-1804. |
| June 9, 2025 | Court of Appeals record opened for No. 1 CA-CV 25-0424. | Moved the dispute into the appellate court after the superior-court judgment. |
| February 18, 2026 | Oral argument before the Arizona Court of Appeals. | The panel heard the statutory interpretation dispute. |
| April 28, 2026 | Court of Appeals opinion filed. | Affirmed open voting, reversed on agenda adequacy, and remanded on delegation and identification issues. |
Step-by-step litigation record and downloads
This roadmap links all 110 PDF files in the available AZNH/Sunland Springs litigation record: what was filed, when it happened, who filed it, and why that step mattered.
Step 1
2023-12-18
Complaint filed
Filed by: Sullivan / AZNH Trust
This started the lawsuit. Sullivan asked the Superior Court to declare what Arizona planned-community open-meeting law requires.
Step 2
2023-12-18
Civil cover sheet and summons filed
Filed by: Sullivan / AZNH Trust
These are startup documents: the cover sheet classifies the case and the summons lets the HOA be formally served.
Step 3
2023-12-18
Plaintiff arbitration certificate filed
Filed by: Sullivan / AZNH Trust
This is the plaintiff-side certificate addressing compulsory arbitration.
Step 4
2024-01-17
Application for default
Filed by: Sullivan / AZNH Trust
Sullivan tried to move quickly when the HOA had not yet answered. The case did not end by default because the HOA later appeared and answered.
Step 5
2024-01-24 to 2024-03-04
Early court orders
Filed by: Superior Court
The court began managing the case procedurally.
Step 6
2024-01-25
Answer and HOA arbitration certificate filed
Filed by: HOA
The HOA denied liability, raised defenses, and certified arbitration status. This turned the case into a contested lawsuit.
Step 7
2024-02-23 to 2024-03-04
Joint report and scheduling order
Filed by: Both sides / court
The parties gave the court case-management information and the court put the case on a litigation schedule.
Step 8
2024-03-04 to 2024-04-03
Early discovery dispute and first under-advisement ruling
Filed by: Court / parties
The parties started building the factual record and resolving discovery-management issues.
Step 9
2024-04-18 to 2024-07-30
Schedule modifications, appearances, status conferences, and updated discovery record
Filed by: Court / parties / counsel
This was procedural record-building: deadlines, appearances, status conferences, and discovery materials were being set up for dispositive briefing.
Step 10
2024-08-15
Plaintiff hearing materials and exhibits filed
Filed by: Sullivan / AZNH Trust
Sullivan put hearing materials and supporting documents into the record before the summary-judgment phase.
Step 11
2024-09-24
Motion for summary judgment
Filed by: Sullivan / AZNH Trust
This was the major trial-court move. Sullivan argued there were no material factual disputes and the court could decide the open-meeting issues as a matter of law.
Step 12
2024-10-24
Opposition to summary judgment
Filed by: HOA
The HOA defended its interpretation of the statute and its closed-meeting practices.
Step 13
2024-10-28
Reply and corrected facts
Filed by: Sullivan / AZNH Trust
Sullivan answered the HOA’s opposition and refined the factual record supporting summary judgment.
Step 14
2024-12-12 to 2025-02-11
Oral argument set/reset and taken under advisement
Filed by: Superior Court
The court prepared to hear or decide the summary-judgment dispute and then took the matter under advisement.
Step 15
2025-02-24
Summary-judgment ruling
Filed by: Superior Court
Sullivan got a partial win. The court agreed votes and formal action had to occur in open meeting, but rejected or limited other parts of his theory.
Step 16
2025-02-26
Motion for reconsideration
Filed by: Sullivan / AZNH Trust
Sullivan asked the trial court to reconsider the parts of the ruling he lost.
Step 17
2025-03-11
Reconsideration denied
Filed by: Superior Court
The trial court refused to change its ruling. Appeal became the next logical step.
Step 18
2025-03-23 to 2025-04-17
Costs, objection to proposed judgment, and final judgment
Filed by: Sullivan / court
The trial-court case was wrapped into an appealable judgment and Sullivan preserved issues for appeal.
Step 19
2025-05-11
Notice of appeal and transcript filings
Filed by: Sullivan / AZNH Trust
Sullivan appealed the parts he lost and worked to make sure the appellate court had the needed record.
Step 20
2025-05-30
Cross-appeal
Filed by: HOA
The HOA appealed the part Sullivan had won: the ruling that votes and formal action must occur in open meetings.
Step 21
2025-06-09 to 2025-07-14
Appeal opened, case-management statements filed, and appellate appearances handled
Filed by: Court / parties / counsel
The Court of Appeals opened the case, set deadlines, recognized the appeal/cross-appeal structure, and handled early appellate administration.
Step 22
2025-07-11
Opening appellate brief
Filed by: Sullivan / AZNH Trust
Sullivan explained to the appellate judges why the trial court should have gone further on open-meeting transparency.
Step 23
2025-08-01
HOA gets more time
Filed by: HOA / Court
The HOA requested and received extra time to file its answering brief and cross-opening brief.
Step 24
2025-08-15
Administrative appellate correspondence
Filed by: Court / parties
This is part of the appellate case-administration record around briefing and record handling.
Step 25
2025-09-02
Answering brief and opening cross-appeal brief
Filed by: HOA
The HOA defended the parts it won and attacked Sullivan’s open-voting victory.
Step 26
2025-09-08
Combined reply and answering brief on cross-appeal
Filed by: Sullivan / AZNH Trust
Sullivan replied on his own appeal and defended the open-voting win against the HOA’s cross-appeal.
Step 27
2025-09-08
Request for oral argument
Filed by: Sullivan / AZNH Trust
Sullivan asked for live oral argument, emphasizing the importance and likely statewide impact of the issues.
Step 28
2025-09-29
Reply brief on cross-appeal
Filed by: HOA
The HOA got the last word on its cross-appeal trying to undo Sullivan’s open-voting win.
Step 29
2025-10-28 to 2025-11-07
Oral argument granted and record supplemented
Filed by: Court
The appellate court agreed to hear oral argument and made sure the record was complete enough for decision.
Step 30
2025-12-10 to 2025-12-17
Oral argument continued and reset
Filed by: HOA / Court
The HOA asked to move the hearing date; the court reset oral argument to February 18, 2026.
Step 31
2026-02-02 to 2026-02-18
Oral argument notices and hearing
Filed by: Court / parties
The parties acknowledged the hearing, oral argument occurred, and the panel took the case under advisement.
Step 32
2026-04-28
Opinion issued
Filed by: Court of Appeals
Sullivan achieved a meaningful appellate win: open-session voting survived, agenda adequacy was reversed, and one issue was remanded for more factual development.
Frequently asked questions
Can an Arizona planned-community HOA board vote in executive session?
No. Under this decision, all voting or formal actions of an association board must occur during open meetings. Executive session can be used for statutory consideration of protected matters, not the final vote.
Can a board still meet privately with its attorney?
Yes. A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1) still allows a closed portion of a meeting for legal advice from an attorney for the board or association. The legal advice can remain confidential. The formal vote or action following that advice must occur in open session unless another valid legal rule applies.
Does the agenda have to disclose private owner names or privileged legal advice?
No. The court made clear that A.R.S. § 33-1804(F) does not require disclosure of personally identifying information or attorney-client privileged information discussed in closed meetings. The agenda must still give enough nonprivileged information to reasonably advise members what business is being addressed.
Is a notice that cites only A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1) enough?
For the basic notice requirement, the court held that a notice with date, time, place, and the paragraph authorizing closure can be sufficient. For the agenda, however, a bare paragraph citation is not enough.
What records should a homeowner request?
Ask for existing portions of minutes, closed-session records, written consents, resolutions, ratifications, approvals, delegations, agenda materials, and other association records showing any motion, second, vote tally, authorization, ratification, approval, directive, or formal action taken by a board quorum outside an open meeting.
What should a board do if it previously voted in executive session?
The board should consult qualified Arizona community-association counsel, identify any closed-session votes or formal actions, preserve the original records, and consider corrective open-meeting action with proper notice, agenda detail, and member speaking opportunities.
Related Arizona HOA resources
Review note and disclaimer
Reviewed against the Arizona Court of Appeals opinion filed April 28, 2026, A Z N H v. Sunland Springs, No. 1 CA-CV 25-0424, and A.R.S. §§ 33-1804 and 33-1805.
This page is educational information for Arizona planned-community homeowners, board members, managers, and advocates. It is not legal advice for any specific dispute.
Primary sources and useful links
