Author Archives: [email protected]

Sierra Verde Ranch Property Owners Association, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Scott B. McLaren, Defendant/Appellant: HOA Court Case Guide

Posted on by

Assessments | A.R.S. §§ 33-1256, 33-1807 | 1 CA-CV 25-0384

A Sierra Verde Ranch owner argued the POA’s failure to maintain roads and a well excused his assessments. Division One explained why the payment obligation is independent and affirmed foreclosure of the lien.

Last updated July 1, 2026. Case: Sierra Verde Ranch Property Owners Association, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Scott B. McLaren, Defendant/Appellant; 1 CA-CV 25-0384; S1300CV202400347.

Download the ruling PDF

Scope note: This educational case page summarizes a court ruling for Arizona HOA homeowners, boards, and counsel. It is not legal advice.

The rule in one sentence

An owner who accepts a deed subject to recorded CC&Rs is contractually bound to pay HOA assessments, and that payment obligation is independent of the association’s duty to maintain common areas. An owner’s allegation that the association failed to maintain roads or a well therefore neither excuses nonpayment nor creates a genuine fact dispute precluding summary judgment and lien foreclosure. Affirmed.

Case Participants

Neutral Parties

  • Sierra Verde Ranch Property Owners Association (Appellee)
    Plaintiff below and appellee; the property owners association that sued McLaren for unpaid assessments and to foreclose its lien, and prevailed at trial and on appeal.
  • Scott B. McLaren (Appellant)
    Defendant below and appellant; self-represented (of Seligman) owner of Tract 174 who refused to pay assessments and appealed the summary judgment and foreclosure.
  • Danny M. Ford (Counsel)
    Goodman Law Group, LLP
    Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee Sierra Verde Ranch Property Owners Association (Goodman Law Group, LLP, Mesa).
  • Samuel A. Thumma (Judge)
    Court of Appeals judge who authored the memorandum decision.
  • Paul J. McMurdie (Judge)
    Presiding Judge of the Court of Appeals panel; joined the decision.
  • Kent E. Cattani (Judge)
    Court of Appeals judge; joined the decision.
  • Kristyne Marie Schaaf-Olson (Judge)
    Judge Pro Tempore (Retired) of the Yavapai County Superior Court whose judgment was reviewed on appeal.

What happened and why it matters

Scott McLaren bought Tract 174 in the Sierra Verde Ranch subdivision in Seligman (Yavapai County) in April 2020, taking title by a warranty deed that expressly made the parcel subject to recorded CC&Rs. Those CC&Rs created the Sierra Verde Ranch Property Owners Association, made every parcel owner an automatic member, and obligated each owner to pay annual assessments secured by a lien enforceable through foreclosure. After McLaren paid the 2021 and 2022 assessments late and then refused to pay the 2023 and 2024 assessments, the POA sued for breach of contract and to foreclose its assessment lien. The superior court granted the POA summary judgment on the contract claim and, on reconsideration, on the foreclosure claim, entering a judgment awarding roughly $848 in unpaid assessments and fees, $1,022 in collection costs, and $12,545 in attorneys’ fees. McLaren appealed, arguing lack of mutual assent to the CC&Rs, the POA’s prior material breach for failing to maintain access roads and a water well, denial of his right to a jury trial, and various procedural and evidentiary errors. The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, affirmed. It held that a deed taken subject to recorded CC&Rs binds the owner as a contract, and that the obligation to pay assessments is independent of the association’s maintenance duties, so alleged non-maintenance neither excused payment nor raised a triable issue. The court also rejected McLaren’s jury-trial, affirmative-defense, and additional-evidence arguments and awarded the POA its reasonable appellate fees and costs.

Reviewing the grant of summary judgment de novo and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to McLaren, the court asked whether the POA showed there was no genuine dispute of material fact and that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 56(a), noting it would affirm if the ruling was correct for any reason.

On contract formation, the court rejected McLaren’s claim that he never assented because he misunderstood whether the POA was an “association” or a “corporation.” His warranty deed expressly stated that he took the parcel subject to recorded CC&Rs, and those CC&Rs, recorded before he bought, provide that every owner “in accepting a deed . . . automatically becomes a member of the Association” and agrees to be bound. Citing ACEMA v. Turner and Powell v. Washburn, the court reiterated that a covenant running with the land is a contract between the association and the owners, and that the CC&R obligations, including annual assessments, are enforceable as a contract against owners like McLaren; the POA’s precise legal status did not affect the validity or applicability of the CC&Rs.

The core of the decision addressed McLaren’s prior-material-breach theory — that the POA’s alleged failure to maintain roads and its closure of a well excused his duty to pay. The court observed that McLaren had neither sued nor counterclaimed to enforce the CC&Rs, and had not shown a material breach that would suspend his own performance under Zancanaro v. Cross. More fundamentally, the court applied the independent-covenant doctrine: the obligation to pay assessments arises from ownership of property subject to the CC&Rs and does not depend on the association’s performance of maintenance. Quoting Mountain View Condos. Homeowners Ass’n v. Scott (“the obligation to pay assessments arises from unit ownership and is not dependent upon completion of improvements”) and Casita de Castilian, Inc. v. Kamrath, the court explained that the duty to pay and the association’s maintenance duties are distinct. It distinguished the out-of-state Rivers Edge decision as non-binding, and held that even though these CC&Rs were silent on the point, the payment obligation was independent of the POA’s responsibility to maintain common areas. McLaren’s failure to allege he could not use his parcel, or to identify any CC&R duty to maintain a specific road or well, left no triable issue.

The court then dispatched McLaren’s remaining arguments. Under National Bank of Arizona v. Thruston, the POA as movant was not required to negate McLaren’s affirmative defenses; the proponent of an affirmative defense bears the burden of proving it. Summary judgment did not deprive McLaren of a jury trial because there were no genuine fact issues to try (Cagle v. Carlson). The denial of his motion to submit additional evidence was reviewed only for abuse of discretion, and McLaren showed none; a party opposing summary judgment may not rest on the allegations of its pleadings but must set forth specific facts. Finally, arguments not asserted below — including his point that he declined to seek damages that would fall on his neighbors — were not a valid defense to summary judgment. The court affirmed and awarded the POA its reasonable appellate attorneys’ fees and costs under the CC&Rs and A.R.S. §§ 12-341 and 12-341.01, contingent on ARCAP 21 compliance.

This decision restates a durable principle of Arizona community-association law: when a deed takes property subject to recorded CC&Rs, those covenants operate as a contract, and an owner’s duty to pay assessments is generally treated as independent of whatever the association does or fails to do with common areas. Owners who are dissatisfied with maintenance — here, roads and a well — cannot ordinarily self-help by withholding assessments; the court pointed out that the proper route is to enforce the CC&Rs affirmatively (by suit or counterclaim), not to raise non-maintenance as a defense to a collection action. The opinion also shows how the planned-community statutes, A.R.S. §§ 33-1256(A) and 33-1807(A), gate lien foreclosure: the trial court initially denied foreclosure until the POA demonstrated the owner owed at least $1,200 or was delinquent for more than a year.

The case is also a cautionary illustration of fee exposure. Because the CC&Rs and A.R.S. §§ 12-341 and 12-341.01 authorize a fee award to the prevailing party, a relatively small assessment dispute — a few hundred dollars in unpaid dues — grew into a judgment that included more than $12,500 in trial attorneys’ fees plus collection costs, with additional fees awarded on appeal. As an unpublished memorandum decision under Arizona Supreme Court Rule 111(c), it is not precedential and may be cited only as the rule allows, but it usefully synthesizes the settled authorities (Scott and Casita de Castilian) that owners and boards alike rely on when disputes over assessments and maintenance arise.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Sierra Verde Ranch Property Owners Association, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Scott B. McLaren, Defendant/Appellant (1 CA-CV 25-0384). An owner who accepts a deed subject to recorded CC&Rs is contractually bound to pay HOA assessments, and that… This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own ruling controls.

Listen: audio deep dive on the ruling

An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the court’s reasoning and disposition in Sierra Verde Ranch Property Owners Association, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Scott B. McLaren, Defendant/Appellant. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

Audio overview generated with Google NotebookLM from the case’s court filings.

Step-by-step litigation record

March 1996: The CC&Rs for Sierra Verde Ranch Units I and II are recorded with the Yavapai County Recorder, establishing the POA; Unit III (including McLaren’s parcel) is annexed in August 1996.
April 2020: McLaren purchases Tract 174, Sierra Verde Ranch Unit III, by a warranty deed that takes the property subject to the recorded CC&Rs.
2021-2022: McLaren pays the annual assessments, but late, incurring late fees and collection costs ($205.40 in 2021 and $140.40 in 2022).
2023-2024: McLaren refuses to pay the annual assessments ($150.48 for 2023 and $180.50 for 2024).
April 2024: The POA sues McLaren for breach of contract and to foreclose its assessment lien (Yavapai County Superior Court No. S1300CV202400347).
January 2025: After oral argument, the superior court grants the POA summary judgment on the contract claim but denies it on foreclosure under A.R.S. §§ 33-1256(A) and 33-1807(A).
April 2025: On reconsideration, the superior court grants the POA’s foreclosure claim (finding delinquency for more than a year) and denies McLaren’s motion.
July 2025: The superior court enters judgment foreclosing the lien and awarding the POA $848.48 in unpaid assessments and fees, $1,022.14 in collection costs, and $12,545 in attorneys’ fees.
Step 2025-12-18 The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, files its memorandum decision affirming the judgment.

Complete uploaded source-document index

This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/sierra-verde-ranch-poa-v-mclaren/raw/: 1 PDF. 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.

Source 1 2025-12-18

Opinion

Type: Decision or judgment

Opinion holding that an owner who accepts a deed subject to recorded CC&Rs is contractually bound to pay HOA assessments, and that payment obligation is independent of the association’s duty to maintain common areas.

Download source file
2025-12-18_001_opinion.pdf

FAQ

What was this case about?

Scott McLaren bought a parcel in the Sierra Verde Ranch subdivision near Seligman subject to recorded CC&Rs that obligated owners to pay annual assessments to the property owners association (POA). After he paid late in 2021-2022 and refused to pay in 2023 and 2024, the POA sued for breach of contract and to foreclose its assessment lien. The superior court granted summary judgment and foreclosure, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Why did McLaren argue he did not have to pay assessments?

McLaren argued he never truly assented to the CC&Rs (claiming the POA did not disclose its corporate status) and that the POA had first materially breached the CC&Rs by failing to maintain access roads and by closing a water well, which he said excused his duty to pay. He also raised jury-trial and various procedural and evidentiary objections.

Why did the court hold that McLaren was bound by the CC&Rs?

His warranty deed expressly stated that he took the property subject to recorded CC&Rs, and those CC&Rs — recorded before he bought — provide that every owner automatically becomes a member and agrees to be bound. Citing ACEMA v. Turner and Powell v. Washburn, the court reiterated that CC&Rs are a contract between the association and owners, enforceable against owners like McLaren regardless of the POA’s precise legal form.

Does an association’s failure to maintain common areas excuse paying assessments?

Generally no. Applying the independent-covenant doctrine, the court held that the duty to pay assessments arises from ownership of property subject to the CC&Rs and is independent of the association’s maintenance duties. Quoting Mountain View Condominiums v. Scott and Casita de Castilian v. Kamrath, the court explained that alleged non-maintenance is not a defense to a collection action; the proper remedy is to enforce the CC&Rs, which McLaren never did by suit or counterclaim.

How much did the owner ultimately owe, and were attorneys’ fees awarded?

The July 2025 judgment awarded the POA $848.48 in unpaid assessments and related fees, $1,022.14 in collection costs, and $12,545 in attorneys’ fees, and foreclosed the assessment lien. On appeal, the court awarded the POA additional reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs under the CC&Rs and A.R.S. §§ 12-341 and 12-341.01, subject to compliance with ARCAP 21.

Is this decision binding precedent?

No. It is an unpublished memorandum decision of the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One. Under Arizona Supreme Court Rule 111(c), it is not precedential and may be cited only as authorized by the rule.

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 / citation1 CA-CV 25-0384
Court / tribunalCourt of Appeals
Decision / key dateDecember 18, 2025
Judge / panelSamuel A. Thumma, Paul J. McMurdie, Kent E. Cattani
PartiesSierra Verde Ranch Property Owners Association (Plaintiff/Appellee) v. Scott B. McLaren (Defendant/Appellant, self-represented)
Governing law
Topics
AssessmentsCC&RsForeclosureAttorney FeesProcedure
Outcome / holding

An owner who accepts a deed subject to recorded CC&Rs is contractually bound to pay HOA assessments, and that payment obligation is independent of the association’s duty to maintain common areas. An owner’s allegation that the association failed to maintain roads or a well therefore neither excuses nonpayment nor creates a genuine fact dispute precluding summary judgment and lien foreclosure. Affirmed.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package1 PDF
Step-by-step docket roadmap9 roadmap entries
Video overviewSierra Verde Ranch Property Owners Association, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Scott B. McLaren, Defendant/A
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions6 questions
Curated download aliases1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Scott McLaren bought Tract 174 in the Sierra Verde Ranch subdivision in Seligman (Yavapai County) in April 2020, taking title by a warranty deed that expressly made the parcel subject to recorded CC&Rs. Those CC&Rs created the Sierra Verde Ranch Property Owners Association, made every parcel owner an automatic member, and obligated each owner to pay annual assessments secured by a lien enforceable through foreclosure. After McLaren paid the 2021 and 2022 assessments late and then refused to pay the 2023 and 2024 assessments, the POA sued for breach of contract and to foreclose its assessment lien. The superior court granted the POA summary judgment on the contract claim and, on reconsideration, on the foreclosure claim, entering a judgment awarding roughly $848 in unpaid assessments and fees, $1,022 in collection costs, and $12,545 in attorneys’ fees. McLaren appealed, arguing lack of mutual assent to the CC&Rs, the POA’s prior material breach for failing to maintain access roads and a water well, denial of his right to a jury trial, and various procedural and evidentiary errors. The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, affirmed. It held that a deed taken subject to recorded CC&Rs binds the owner as a contract, and that the obligation to pay assessments is independent of the association’s maintenance duties, so alleged non-maintenance neither excused payment nor raised a triable issue. The court also rejected McLaren’s jury-trial, affirmative-defense, and additional-evidence arguments and awarded the POA its reasonable appellate fees and costs.

Key Issues & Findings

Reviewing the grant of summary judgment de novo and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to McLaren, the court asked whether the POA showed there was no genuine dispute of material fact and that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 56(a), noting it would affirm if the ruling was correct for any reason.

On contract formation, the court rejected McLaren’s claim that he never assented because he misunderstood whether the POA was an “association” or a “corporation.” His warranty deed expressly stated that he took the parcel subject to recorded CC&Rs, and those CC&Rs, recorded before he bought, provide that every owner “in accepting a deed . . . automatically becomes a member of the Association” and agrees to be bound. Citing ACEMA v. Turner and Powell v. Washburn, the court reiterated that a covenant running with the land is a contract between the association and the owners, and that the CC&R obligations, including annual assessments, are enforceable as a contract against owners like McLaren; the POA’s precise legal status did not affect the validity or applicability of the CC&Rs.

The core of the decision addressed McLaren’s prior-material-breach theory — that the POA’s alleged failure to maintain roads and its closure of a well excused his duty to pay. The court observed that McLaren had neither sued nor counterclaimed to enforce the CC&Rs, and had not shown a material breach that would suspend his own performance under Zancanaro v. Cross. More fundamentally, the court applied the independent-covenant doctrine: the obligation to pay assessments arises from ownership of property subject to the CC&Rs and does not depend on the association’s performance of maintenance. Quoting Mountain View Condos. Homeowners Ass’n v. Scott (“the obligation to pay assessments arises from unit ownership and is not dependent upon completion of improvements”) and Casita de Castilian, Inc. v. Kamrath, the court explained that the duty to pay and the association’s maintenance duties are distinct. It distinguished the out-of-state Rivers Edge decision as non-binding, and held that even though these CC&Rs were silent on the point, the payment obligation was independent of the POA’s responsibility to maintain common areas. McLaren’s failure to allege he could not use his parcel, or to identify any CC&R duty to maintain a specific road or well, left no triable issue.

The court then dispatched McLaren’s remaining arguments. Under National Bank of Arizona v. Thruston, the POA as movant was not required to negate McLaren’s affirmative defenses; the proponent of an affirmative defense bears the burden of proving it. Summary judgment did not deprive McLaren of a jury trial because there were no genuine fact issues to try (Cagle v. Carlson). The denial of his motion to submit additional evidence was reviewed only for abuse of discretion, and McLaren showed none; a party opposing summary judgment may not rest on the allegations of its pleadings but must set forth specific facts. Finally, arguments not asserted below — including his point that he declined to seek damages that would fall on his neighbors — were not a valid defense to summary judgment. The court affirmed and awarded the POA its reasonable appellate attorneys’ fees and costs under the CC&Rs and A.R.S. §§ 12-341 and 12-341.01, contingent on ARCAP 21 compliance.

Why It Matters

This decision restates a durable principle of Arizona community-association law: when a deed takes property subject to recorded CC&Rs, those covenants operate as a contract, and an owner’s duty to pay assessments is generally treated as independent of whatever the association does or fails to do with common areas. Owners who are dissatisfied with maintenance — here, roads and a well — cannot ordinarily self-help by withholding assessments; the court pointed out that the proper route is to enforce the CC&Rs affirmatively (by suit or counterclaim), not to raise non-maintenance as a defense to a collection action. The opinion also shows how the planned-community statutes, A.R.S. §§ 33-1256(A) and 33-1807(A), gate lien foreclosure: the trial court initially denied foreclosure until the POA demonstrated the owner owed at least $1,200 or was delinquent for more than a year.

The case is also a cautionary illustration of fee exposure. Because the CC&Rs and A.R.S. §§ 12-341 and 12-341.01 authorize a fee award to the prevailing party, a relatively small assessment dispute — a few hundred dollars in unpaid dues — grew into a judgment that included more than $12,500 in trial attorneys’ fees plus collection costs, with additional fees awarded on appeal. As an unpublished memorandum decision under Arizona Supreme Court Rule 111(c), it is not precedential and may be cited only as the rule allows, but it usefully synthesizes the settled authorities (Scott and Casita de Castilian) that owners and boards alike rely on when disputes over assessments and maintenance arise.

← Back to Court of Appeals cases

Diana R. Shaffer, et al. v. Procaccianti AZ II, L.P., et al. (Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners) (consolidated with Whitmer and London): HOA Court Case Guide

Posted on by

CC&Rs & Assessments | A.R.S. §§ 10-3704, 12-341.01 | 1 CA-CV 16-0628 (Consolidated)

In this 2018 unpublished decision, Division One affirmed judgments for a Scottsdale resort and its homeowners association in a long-running ground-rent dispute over 29 casitas, holding a prior stipulated judgment did not bar the HOA from re-approving the amendment and that a statutory “vote by pen” validly bound the owners.

Last updated July 1, 2026. Case: Diana R. Shaffer, et al. v. Procaccianti AZ II, L.P., et al. (Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners) (consolidated with Whitmer and London); 1 CA-CV 16-0628 (consolidated with 1 CA-CV 16-0629 and 1 CA-CV 16-0654); CV2012-000363 & CV2012-051066 (Consolidated); CV2015-053091; CV2016-050379 (Maricopa County Superior Court, Hon. John R. Hannah).

Download the ruling PDF

Scope note: This educational case page summarizes a court ruling for Arizona HOA homeowners, boards, and counsel. It is not legal advice.

The rule in one sentence

The Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court in all three consolidated appeals, holding that the 2011 Willett Judgment had no preclusive effect on and did not resolve the HOA’s status and authority or the validity of the 2006 Amendment; that the HOA validly obtained approval of the 2006 Amendment (including through a statutory written “vote by pen” under A.R.S. § 10-3704) and could bind the owners under the 1999 Amendment; and that the owners’ remaining challenges failed. It awarded the Hotel and the HOA their reasonable attorneys’ fees and taxable costs on appeal as prevailing parties.

Case Participants

Neutral Parties

  • Diana R. Shaffer (Appellant)
    Casita owner; a plaintiff/appellant challenging the HOA’s authority and the ground-rent allocation.
  • LPM Holdings, LLC (Appellant)
    Casita owner entity; plaintiff/appellant among the Shaffer appellants.
  • Zadock and Hana Eli (the Elis) (Appellant)
    Casita owners; plaintiffs/appellants whose separate damages claim was struck under Rule 26.1.
  • R.L. Whitmer (Appellant)
    Casita owner; plaintiff/appellant who sought appointment of a receiver over the HOA.
  • Colleen London (Appellant)
    Casita owner; plaintiff/appellant in the receiver and HOA-identity suits.
  • DRL Enterprises, Inc. (Appellant)
    Casita owner entity; separately appealed being held jointly and severally liable for the Hotel’s fee award.
  • Procaccianti AZ II, L.P. (the Hotel) (Appellee)
    Resort owner and ground lessor; defendant/appellee and intervenor; awarded fees below and on appeal.
  • Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners / Council of Co-Owners (the HOA) (Appellee)
    The casitas’ homeowners association; defendant/appellee whose authority, corporate status, and 2006 vote were challenged.
  • Robert S. Porter (Counsel)
    Porter Law Firm, Phoenix
    Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants Diana R. Shaffer, LPM Holdings, LLC, the Elis, Colleen London, and R.L. Whitmer.
  • Andrew M. Federhar (Counsel)
    Spencer Fane, LLP, Phoenix
    Counsel for Defendant/Appellee/Intervenor Procaccianti AZ II, L.P. (the Hotel).
  • Jessica Anne Gale (Counsel)
    Spencer Fane, LLP, Phoenix
    Counsel for Defendant/Appellee/Intervenor Procaccianti AZ II, L.P. (the Hotel).
  • R. Corey Hill (Counsel)
    Hill, Hall & DeCiancio, PLC, Phoenix
    Counsel for Defendant/Appellee Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners (the HOA).
  • Ginette M. Hill (Counsel)
    Hill, Hall & DeCiancio, PLC, Phoenix
    Counsel for Defendant/Appellee Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners (the HOA).
  • Christopher Robbins (Counsel)
    Hill, Hall & DeCiancio, PLC, Phoenix
    Counsel for Defendant/Appellee Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners (the HOA).
  • David E. Shein (Counsel)
    Chester & Shein, P.C., Scottsdale
    Co-counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant DRL Enterprises, Inc.
  • Sonia M. Phanse (Counsel)
    Chester & Shein, P.C., Scottsdale
    Co-counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant DRL Enterprises, Inc.
  • Charles S. Bergen (Counsel)
    Roeser Bucheit & Graham, LLC, Chicago, Illinois
    Co-counsel (pro hac vice) for Plaintiff/Appellant DRL Enterprises, Inc.
  • John E. Bucheit (Counsel)
    Roeser Bucheit & Graham, LLC, Chicago, Illinois
    Co-counsel (pro hac vice) for Plaintiff/Appellant DRL Enterprises, Inc.
  • Lawrence F. Winthrop (Judge)
    Judge of the Court of Appeals, Division One; authored the memorandum decision.
  • James B. Morse Jr. (Judge)
    Presiding Judge of the Court of Appeals, Division One; joined the decision.
  • Kent E. Cattani (Judge)
    Judge of the Court of Appeals, Division One; joined the decision.
  • John R. Hannah (Judge)
    Maricopa County Superior Court judge whose rulings in the 2012, 2015, and 2016 cases were affirmed on appeal.
  • Eileen Willett (Judge)
    Maricopa County Superior Court judge who entered the 2011 stipulated final judgment (the Willett Judgment).

What happened and why it matters

This consolidated appeal grew out of a decades-long dispute over ground rent for 29 casitas built on land subleased from a Scottsdale resort. In 1970 the resort’s predecessor leased twenty acres, later dividing it into a twelve-acre resort and an eight-acre condominium complex of 29 casitas. A 1972 sublease set the casita owners’ ground rent, and a 1999 amendment fixed the rent at $323 per month while authorizing the homeowners association (the HOA) to represent the owners in future rent negotiations and to use an appraiser if the HOA and the resort owner, Procaccianti AZ II, L.P. (the Hotel), could not agree. After a 2005 arbitration between the Hotel and the landowner, the Hotel and the HOA agreed the owners would pay 40% of the total ground rent, or $708.50 per unit per month, and 24 of 29 owners approved that allocation at a January 2006 special meeting and again through a mailed written amendment. A 2011 stipulated judgment (the Willett Judgment) had voided the 2006 special meeting for lack of a quorum. Various owner groups then sued the Hotel and the HOA, contesting the HOA’s authority, the validity of the 2006 amendment, the identity of the incorporated HOA, the denial of a receiver, a stricken damages claim, and joint-and-several liability for a roughly $459,000 fee award. In an unpublished memorandum decision, Division One of the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court across all three consolidated appeals and awarded the Hotel and the HOA their fees and costs on appeal.

The court addressed each argument in turn. On issue preclusion, it reviewed de novo and applied the five-element test, holding that Appellants failed the first element because the status of the incorporated HOA and the validity of the 2006 Amendment were never “actually litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment.” The 2011 Willett Judgment was a stipulated judgment that addressed only the narrow question whether the January 12, 2006 special meeting and vote were valid; stipulated judgments generally lack preclusive effect, and its narrow findings did not bar the later courts from deciding the HOA’s status and authority or the validity of the 2006 Amendment. Interpreting the Willett Judgment de novo as a contract, the court found its plain terms voided only the actions taken at the January 2006 meeting for lack of a quorum; it made no findings about the validity of future amendments and did not extinguish the owners’ ground-rent obligations. On the HOA’s status, the court noted the question—whether the post-1994 incorporated entity succeeded the pre-1994 unincorporated association—had already been decided against Appellants, including in London v. Karatz, and declined to revisit it. On the “vote by pen,” the court held A.R.S. § 10-3704(A) permits nonprofit-corporation members to approve action by signed written consent absent contrary governing documents, that nothing showed the HOA’s documents forbade it, and that a jury on sufficient evidence implicitly found the owners validly approved the 2006 Amendment. It found no abuse of discretion in striking the Elis’ undisclosed damages under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 26.1, and affirmed summary judgment for the Hotel because the owners’ 2011 settlement—barring the HOA from negotiating their ground rent—breached the 1999 Amendment’s grant of exclusive negotiating authority to the HOA. The court upheld the denial of a receiver because the HOA had a properly elected board and valid bylaws and was not incapacitated, and, alternatively, the declaration’s remedy was for the Hotel to assume control. It held DRL waived its challenge to joint-and-several fee liability by not raising it below, and awarded the Hotel and the HOA their fees and costs on appeal as prevailing parties under A.R.S. § 12-341.01.

For Arizona associations and owners, this decision illustrates how governing-document amendment and voting rules interact with the Arizona Nonprofit Corporation Act. The court confirmed that a nonprofit HOA may obtain member approval through a written “vote by pen” under A.R.S. § 10-3704(A) when the governing documents do not prohibit it, and that whether owners actually approved an amendment can be a fact question for a jury. It also shows that an association’s authority, once conferred in the governing documents, can bind owners: because the 1999 Amendment gave the HOA exclusive authority to negotiate ground rent, individual owners who sidestepped that authority through a private settlement were found to have breached the sublease.

The opinion is also a caution about the limits of a favorable earlier ruling and about preserving arguments. A 2011 stipulated judgment that voided a defective 2006 meeting did not, by its narrow terms, permanently free the owners from ground rent or bar the association from later re-approving the amendment. And DRL’s challenge to being held jointly and severally liable for a roughly $459,000 fee award was waived because it was not raised in the trial court. Because the decision is an unpublished memorandum decision under Arizona Rule of the Supreme Court 111(c), it is not precedential and may be cited only as authorized by rule.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Diana R. Shaffer, et al. v. Procaccianti AZ II, L.P., et al. (Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners) (consolidated with Whitmer and London) (1 CA-CV 16-0628 (consolidated with 1 CA-CV 16-0629 and 1 CA-CV 16-0654)). Prior judgment did not preclude later litigation over the HOA status, authority, and assessment claims. This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own ruling controls.

Listen: audio deep dive on the ruling

An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the court’s reasoning and disposition in Diana R. Shaffer, et al. v. Procaccianti AZ II, L.P., et al. (Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners) (consolidated with Whitmer and London). Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

Audio overview generated with Google NotebookLM from the case’s court filings.

Step-by-step litigation record

Step 1970 The Hotel’s predecessor and the Small Family Trust enter a ground lease and sublease of twenty acres; the property is later divided into a resort and 29 casitas.
Step 1972 Casita owners enter the Sublease with the Hotel; ground rent is calculated on the consumer price index and recalculated every five years after 1975.
Step 1999 The 1999 Amendment fixes ground rent at $323 per month and authorizes the HOA to represent the owners in ground-rent negotiations, with an appraiser to set rent if no agreement.
Step 2003-10-01 The first scheduled rent adjustment does not take effect because the Hotel and the Small Family Trust continue to dispute the total ground rent.
Step 2005 Arbitration between the Hotel and the Small Family Trust sets total ground rent and allocates 52.7% to the Hotel and 47.3% to the owners; the Hotel and HOA later agree on a 60/40 split.
Step 2006-01-12 At an HOA special meeting, 24 of 29 casita owners vote to approve the new $708.50 monthly ground-rent allocation; owners later sign a mailed Second Amendment (the 2006 Amendment).
Step 2011-08-22 A stipulated final judgment (the Willett Judgment) voids the January 2006 special meeting for lack of a quorum; no appeal is taken.
Step 2012-01 Shaffer appellants sue the Hotel (CV2012-051066) and the Elis file a separate suit against the Hotel and HOA (CV2012-000363); the cases are consolidated.
Step 2015-08 Whitmer, London, and Shaffer sue the HOA (CV2015-053091) seeking appointment of a receiver; the Hotel intervenes.
Step 2016-01 Whitmer and London sue (CV2016-050379) seeking a declaration that the incorporated HOA did not replace the 1972 Council of Co-Owners.
Step 2016-02 A jury finds for the Hotel, sets monthly ground rent at $708.50 (implicitly upholding the 2006 Amendment), and awards back-rent damages.
Step 2016-06-08 The superior court enters judgment holding DRL jointly and severally liable for the Hotel’s attorneys’ fees.
Step 2018-05-22 The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, files its memorandum decision affirming the superior court in all three consolidated appeals and awarding the Hotel and HOA fees and costs.

Complete uploaded source-document index

This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/shaffer-v-hilton-casitas/raw/: 1 PDF. 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.

Source 1 2018-05-22

Opinion

Type: Decision or judgment

Opinion holding that the Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court in all three consolidated appeals, holding that the 2011 Willett Judgment had no preclusive effect on and did not resolve the HOA’s status and authority or the validity of the 2006 Amendment; that the HOA validly obtained approval of the 2006 Amendment (including through a statutory written “vote by pen” under A.R.S. § 10-3704) and could bind the owners under the 1999 Amendment; and that the owners’ remaining challenges failed.

Download source file
2018-05-22_001_opinion.pdf

FAQ

What was this consolidated case about?

It concerned ground rent for 29 casitas built on land subleased from a Scottsdale resort (owned by Procaccianti AZ II, L.P., the “Hotel”). A 1999 amendment authorized the homeowners association (HOA) to negotiate ground rent for the owners, and after a 2005 arbitration the Hotel and HOA agreed on a $708.50 per-unit monthly ground rent, which 24 of 29 owners approved. Several owner groups sued the Hotel and the HOA over the HOA’s authority, the validity of the amendment, and related rulings.

Did the 2011 Willett Judgment prevent the HOA from charging the higher ground rent?

No. The Court of Appeals held the Willett Judgment was a stipulated judgment that voided only the January 12, 2006 special meeting for lack of a quorum. By its plain terms it made no findings about future amendments and did not extinguish the owners’ ground-rent obligations, so it neither had preclusive effect nor barred the HOA from later obtaining a valid approval.

What is a “vote by pen” and why did it matter?

A “vote by pen” is member approval by signed written consent without a meeting. The court held that A.R.S. § 10-3704(A) allows a nonprofit corporation’s members to approve action this way when the governing documents do not prohibit it. Because nothing showed the HOA’s documents forbade it, and a jury found on sufficient evidence that the owners approved the 2006 Amendment, the approval was valid.

Why did the owners lose on summary judgment about the Hotel?

The 1999 Amendment gave the HOA exclusive authority to negotiate the casita owners’ ground rent. When some owners settled with the HOA in 2011 on terms barring the HOA from negotiating on their behalf, the court found they breached that contractual commitment, entitling the Hotel to summary judgment on its breach-of-contract claim.

Why was DRL’s challenge to the $459,000 fee award rejected?

DRL argued it should not be jointly and severally liable for the Hotel’s roughly $459,000 attorneys’ fee award, but it conceded it had not raised that argument in the superior court. The Court of Appeals held the argument was waived and did not present a sufficient question of public interest to excuse the waiver.

Is this decision binding precedent?

No. It is an unpublished memorandum decision of the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One. Under Arizona Rule of the Supreme Court 111(c) it is not precedential and may be cited only as authorized by rule.

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 / citation1 CA-CV 16-0628 (consolidated with 1 CA-CV 16-0629 and 1 CA-CV 16-0654)
Court / tribunalCourt of Appeals
Decision / key dateMay 22, 2018
Judge / panelWinthrop, Morse, Cattani
PartiesDiana R. Shaffer and other casita owners (Plaintiffs/Appellants) v. Procaccianti AZ II, L.P. (the Hotel; Defendant/Appellee/Intervenor) and Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners / Council of Co-Owners (the HOA; Defendant/Appellee)
Governing law
Topics
CC&RsElectionsAssessmentsAttorney FeesProcedure
Outcome / holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court in all three consolidated appeals, holding that the 2011 Willett Judgment had no preclusive effect on and did not resolve the HOA’s status and authority or the validity of the 2006 Amendment; that the HOA validly obtained approval of the 2006 Amendment (including through a statutory written “vote by pen” under A.R.S. § 10-3704) and could bind the owners under the 1999 Amendment; and that the owners’ remaining challenges failed. It awarded the Hotel and the HOA their reasonable attorneys’ fees and taxable costs on appeal as prevailing parties.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package1 PDF
Step-by-step docket roadmap13 roadmap entries
Video overviewDiana R. Shaffer, et al. v. Procaccianti AZ II, L.P., et al. (Hilton Casitas Council of Homeowners)
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions6 questions
Curated download aliases1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

This consolidated appeal grew out of a decades-long dispute over ground rent for 29 casitas built on land subleased from a Scottsdale resort. In 1970 the resort’s predecessor leased twenty acres, later dividing it into a twelve-acre resort and an eight-acre condominium complex of 29 casitas. A 1972 sublease set the casita owners’ ground rent, and a 1999 amendment fixed the rent at $323 per month while authorizing the homeowners association (the HOA) to represent the owners in future rent negotiations and to use an appraiser if the HOA and the resort owner, Procaccianti AZ II, L.P. (the Hotel), could not agree. After a 2005 arbitration between the Hotel and the landowner, the Hotel and the HOA agreed the owners would pay 40% of the total ground rent, or $708.50 per unit per month, and 24 of 29 owners approved that allocation at a January 2006 special meeting and again through a mailed written amendment. A 2011 stipulated judgment (the Willett Judgment) had voided the 2006 special meeting for lack of a quorum. Various owner groups then sued the Hotel and the HOA, contesting the HOA’s authority, the validity of the 2006 amendment, the identity of the incorporated HOA, the denial of a receiver, a stricken damages claim, and joint-and-several liability for a roughly $459,000 fee award. In an unpublished memorandum decision, Division One of the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court across all three consolidated appeals and awarded the Hotel and the HOA their fees and costs on appeal.

Key Issues & Findings

The court addressed each argument in turn. On issue preclusion, it reviewed de novo and applied the five-element test, holding that Appellants failed the first element because the status of the incorporated HOA and the validity of the 2006 Amendment were never “actually litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment.” The 2011 Willett Judgment was a stipulated judgment that addressed only the narrow question whether the January 12, 2006 special meeting and vote were valid; stipulated judgments generally lack preclusive effect, and its narrow findings did not bar the later courts from deciding the HOA’s status and authority or the validity of the 2006 Amendment. Interpreting the Willett Judgment de novo as a contract, the court found its plain terms voided only the actions taken at the January 2006 meeting for lack of a quorum; it made no findings about the validity of future amendments and did not extinguish the owners’ ground-rent obligations. On the HOA’s status, the court noted the question—whether the post-1994 incorporated entity succeeded the pre-1994 unincorporated association—had already been decided against Appellants, including in London v. Karatz, and declined to revisit it. On the “vote by pen,” the court held A.R.S. § 10-3704(A) permits nonprofit-corporation members to approve action by signed written consent absent contrary governing documents, that nothing showed the HOA’s documents forbade it, and that a jury on sufficient evidence implicitly found the owners validly approved the 2006 Amendment. It found no abuse of discretion in striking the Elis’ undisclosed damages under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 26.1, and affirmed summary judgment for the Hotel because the owners’ 2011 settlement—barring the HOA from negotiating their ground rent—breached the 1999 Amendment’s grant of exclusive negotiating authority to the HOA. The court upheld the denial of a receiver because the HOA had a properly elected board and valid bylaws and was not incapacitated, and, alternatively, the declaration’s remedy was for the Hotel to assume control. It held DRL waived its challenge to joint-and-several fee liability by not raising it below, and awarded the Hotel and the HOA their fees and costs on appeal as prevailing parties under A.R.S. § 12-341.01.

Why It Matters

For Arizona associations and owners, this decision illustrates how governing-document amendment and voting rules interact with the Arizona Nonprofit Corporation Act. The court confirmed that a nonprofit HOA may obtain member approval through a written “vote by pen” under A.R.S. § 10-3704(A) when the governing documents do not prohibit it, and that whether owners actually approved an amendment can be a fact question for a jury. It also shows that an association’s authority, once conferred in the governing documents, can bind owners: because the 1999 Amendment gave the HOA exclusive authority to negotiate ground rent, individual owners who sidestepped that authority through a private settlement were found to have breached the sublease.

The opinion is also a caution about the limits of a favorable earlier ruling and about preserving arguments. A 2011 stipulated judgment that voided a defective 2006 meeting did not, by its narrow terms, permanently free the owners from ground rent or bar the association from later re-approving the amendment. And DRL’s challenge to being held jointly and severally liable for a roughly $459,000 fee award was waived because it was not raised in the trial court. Because the decision is an unpublished memorandum decision under Arizona Rule of the Supreme Court 111(c), it is not precedential and may be cited only as authorized by rule.

← Back to Court of Appeals cases

Santa Fe Ridge Homeowners’ Association v. Bartschi: HOA Court Case Guide

Posted on by

Lis Pendens & CC&Rs | A.R.S. §§ 12-1191, 33-420 | 219 Ariz. 391

In this published 2008 decision, Division One held that an association’s action merely to enforce existing CC&Rs does not ‘affect title to real property,’ so its recorded lis pendens was groundless, and it vacated the fee award to limit recovery to the wrongful-recordation counterclaim.

Last updated July 1, 2026. Case: Santa Fe Ridge Homeowners’ Association v. Bartschi; 219 Ariz. 391, 199 P.3d 646.

Scope note: This educational case page summarizes a court ruling for Arizona HOA homeowners, boards, and counsel. It is not legal advice.

The rule in one sentence

A homeowners’ association’s lawsuit to compel a homeowner’s compliance with existing, already-recorded CC&Rs is not an action ‘affecting title to real property’ under A.R.S. § 12-1191(A); any compliance injunction would be personal to the homeowner and would not run with the land, and any lien for future self-help expenses was not yet ripe. The recorded lis pendens was therefore groundless, exposing the association to statutory damages and fees under A.R.S. § 33-420(A). The court affirmed liability and the $5,000 statutory-damages award but vacated the attorneys’-fee award and remanded so that only fees attributable to the wrongful-recordation counterclaim—not the defense of the separate CC&R enforcement complaint—are recovered.

Case Participants

Neutral Parties

  • Santa Fe Ridge Homeowners’ Association (Appellant)
    Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant/Appellant; an Arizona non-profit corporation that sued to enforce the community’s CC&Rs and recorded the lis pendens later found groundless.
  • Carla Bartschi (Appellee)
    Defendant/Counter-Claimant/Appellee; a Santa Fe Ridge homeowner who counterclaimed for wrongful recordation under A.R.S. § 33-420(A) and prevailed.
  • Curtis S. Ekmark (Counsel)
    Ekmark & Ekmark, L.L.C.
    Counsel for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant/Appellant Santa Fe Ridge HOA (Scottsdale).
  • Penny L. Koepke (Counsel)
    Ekmark & Ekmark, L.L.C.
    Counsel for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant/Appellant Santa Fe Ridge HOA (Scottsdale).
  • Quentin T. Phillips (Counsel)
    Ekmark & Ekmark, L.L.C.
    Counsel for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant/Appellant Santa Fe Ridge HOA (Scottsdale).
  • John Friedeman (Counsel)
    John Friedeman, PC
    Counsel for Defendant/Counter-Claimant/Appellee Carla Bartschi (Phoenix).
  • Ann A. Timmer (Judge)
    Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
    Authored the opinion of the court.
  • Diane M. Johnsen (Judge)
    Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
    Presiding Judge; concurred in the opinion.
  • Jon W. Thompson (Judge)
    Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
    Judge; concurred in the opinion.

What happened and why it matters

Carla Bartschi owned a home in the Santa Fe Ridge planned community in Glendale, Arizona, subject to the community’s recorded Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). In November 2006, the Santa Fe Ridge Homeowners’ Association sued her for breach of contract and injunctive relief, alleging she had failed to maintain her landscaping, remove trash and debris from her front yard, and remove a large crate from her lot. Four days after filing, the association recorded a notice of lis pendens against her property under A.R.S. § 12-1191(A). Bartschi counterclaimed for wrongful recordation under A.R.S. § 33-420(A) and moved for partial summary judgment, arguing the lawsuit did not ‘affect title to real property.’ The trial court ultimately agreed, granted her summary judgment, ordered the lis pendens removed, and awarded $5,000 in statutory damages plus $11,110 in attorneys’ fees and $422.20 in costs; it later dismissed the association’s complaint after Bartschi corrected the maintenance issues. The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, affirmed that the lis pendens was groundless, holding that a suit merely to compel compliance with already-recorded CC&Rs does not affect title, because any injunction would be personal to the owner and would not run with the land. The court vacated the fee award, however, holding fees under § 33-420(A) could be awarded only for the wrongful-recordation counterclaim, not for defending the association’s separate, arguably meritorious enforcement complaint.

Reviewing the summary judgment de novo, the court first addressed timing. It agreed with the association that A.R.S. § 12-1191(A) plainly permits a lis pendens to be recorded when a complaint is filed, and it read the trial court’s remarks not as requiring a prior judgment or lien but as observing that the relief sought would not affect title unless a monetary judgment or lien was later obtained on future events. The dispositive question, therefore, was whether the underlying action was one ‘affecting title to real property.’

Guided by Evergreen West, Inc. v. Boyd, the court explained that a lis pendens is groundless only when the claim that the action affects title has no arguable basis or is unsupported by any credible evidence, and that this inquiry does not turn on the merits of the underlying claim. Applying Tucson Estates, Inc. v. Superior Court, the court accepted that an action affecting rights ‘incident to’ title falls within the statute, but read that principle narrowly: a lawsuit affects a right incident to title only if a judgment would expand, restrict, or burden the owner’s rights as bestowed by that title. In Tucson Estates the plaintiffs sought to establish and enforce an implied covenant that would bind future owners; here, by contrast, the association sought only to enforce existing CC&Rs whose validity Bartschi did not dispute. Any injunction would be personal to Bartschi, would not run with the land, and would not alter rights already burdened by the recorded CC&Rs. The court also found the purposes of § 12-1191 unserved, because future purchasers took subject to the recorded CC&Rs and could not defeat the association’s ability to obtain relief.

The court then rejected the association’s lien theory under Coventry Homes, Inc. v. Scottscom Partnership. Merely requesting a lien does not make an action one affecting title; there must be a basis to conclude a lien would actually be imposed. Because the association’s lien depended on future events—Bartschi’s noncompliance with an injunction, the association’s incurring self-help expenses, and her refusal to reimburse them—the claim was anticipatory and not ripe, so the recordation was groundless and premature. The court further held the association waived, and in any event could not show error on, the scienter element of § 33-420(A): the situation was readily distinguishable from Tucson Estates, and because the association’s president signed the notice of lis pendens, counsel’s knowledge that the recording was groundless was imputed to the association. Finally, applying Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc., the court held the CC&R enforcement complaint was separate and distinct from the wrongful-recordation counterclaim, so § 33-420(A) fees were limited to the counterclaim; it vacated the fee award and remanded, denied the association’s request for appellate fees, and awarded Bartschi her reasonable fees on appeal.

This published 2008 decision is a leading Arizona authority on when a homeowners’ association may record a lis pendens against a member’s property during a governing-documents dispute. It draws a clear line: a routine action to enforce existing, already-recorded CC&Rs—demanding that an owner maintain landscaping, clear debris, or remove an object—does not ‘affect title to real property’ and therefore does not authorize a lis pendens. Because the recorded CC&Rs already burden the land and any compliance injunction is personal to the current owner, recording a lis pendens in that setting is groundless and can trigger mandatory statutory damages of at least $5,000, plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, under A.R.S. § 33-420(A).

For associations and their counsel, the decision is a caution against reflexively clouding an owner’s title during a CC&R dispute; a lis pendens generally becomes appropriate only once the association has a ripe basis for a lien or a judgment that actually affects title, not while relief remains anticipatory. For owners, it confirms a powerful remedy against improperly recorded documents. The opinion also refines fee awards under § 33-420(A): even a homeowner who defeats an improper lis pendens cannot recover fees for defending the association’s separate, arguably meritorious enforcement claim, because unrelated claims that could have been litigated separately must be parsed under Schweiger v. China Doll.

Step-by-step litigation record

Step 2006-11-09 Santa Fe Ridge HOA files a complaint for breach of contract and injunctive relief, alleging Bartschi failed to maintain landscaping, remove trash/debris, and remove a large crate.
Step 2006-11-13 The association records a notice of lis pendens against Bartschi’s property under A.R.S. § 12-1191(A).
Step 2006-12-22 Bartschi answers and counterclaims for wrongful recordation under A.R.S. § 33-420(A), seeking statutory damages, fees, and costs.
Step 2007-03-30 Bartschi moves for partial summary judgment on her counterclaim, arguing the suit does not affect title to real property.
Step 2007-07-09 At a hearing that becomes a settlement conference, the trial court initially denies the motion, calling the lis pendens appropriate.
Step 2007-07-13 The trial court reconsiders and grants Bartschi summary judgment, ordering the lis pendens removed.
Step 2007-07-24 The court indicates it will award $5,000 in statutory damages plus fees and costs under § 33-420(A).
Step 2007-09-12 The court dismisses the complaint and enters judgment: $5,000 damages, $11,110 attorneys’ fees, and $422.20 costs.
Step 2008-07-29 The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, affirms the groundless-recordation finding, vacates the fee award, and remands.
Step 2009-01-06 The Arizona Supreme Court denies review.

FAQ

Can an HOA record a lis pendens when it sues to enforce CC&Rs?

Generally no. The Court of Appeals held that a lawsuit merely to compel a homeowner’s compliance with existing, already-recorded CC&Rs is not an action ‘affecting title to real property’ under A.R.S. § 12-1191(A). Because the CC&Rs already burden the land and any compliance injunction is personal to the current owner, recording a lis pendens in that situation is groundless.

What is a lis pendens, and when may it be recorded?

A lis pendens is a recorded notice that gives prospective purchasers and lenders constructive notice of a pending lawsuit that may affect title to real property. It may be recorded when the complaint is filed, but only if the underlying action actually affects title or a right incident to title—meaning a judgment would expand, restrict, or burden the owner’s rights as bestowed by that title.

Why didn’t the association’s request for a lien make the case one ‘affecting title’?

The court, following Coventry Homes v. Scottscom Partnership, explained that merely asking for a lien does not make an action one affecting title; there must be a basis to conclude a lien would actually be imposed. Here the potential lien depended on future events—Bartschi failing to obey an injunction, the association incurring self-help expenses, and her refusing to reimburse them—so the claim was anticipatory and not yet ripe.

What happens if an HOA records a groundless lis pendens?

Under A.R.S. § 33-420(A), a party who records a document claiming an interest, lien, or encumbrance while knowing or having reason to know it is groundless or invalid is liable to the property owner for statutory damages of at least $5,000 plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. The association was ordered to pay Bartschi $5,000 in statutory damages.

Why did the Court of Appeals vacate the attorneys’ fee award?

Applying Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, the court held the association’s CC&R enforcement complaint was separate and distinct from Bartschi’s wrongful-recordation counterclaim. Fees under § 33-420(A) could be awarded only for the counterclaim, not for defending the separate, arguably meritorious enforcement complaint, so the fee award was vacated and remanded for recalculation.

Is this decision binding precedent in Arizona?

Yes. This is a published opinion of the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, reported at 219 Ariz. 391, 199 P.3d 646 (App. 2008); the Arizona Supreme Court denied review on January 6, 2009. As a published opinion, it is precedential authority.

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 / citation219 Ariz. 391, 199 P.3d 646
Court / tribunalCourt of Appeals
Decision / key dateJuly 29, 2008
Judge / panelAnn A. Timmer (Judge, author), Diane M. Johnsen (Presiding Judge, concurring), Jon W. Thompson (Judge, concurring)
PartiesSanta Fe Ridge Homeowners’ Association (Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant/Appellant) v. Carla Bartschi (Defendant/Counter-Claimant/Appellee)
Governing law
Topics
CC&RsLiensAttorney FeesProcedure
Outcome / holding

A homeowners’ association’s lawsuit to compel a homeowner’s compliance with existing, already-recorded CC&Rs is not an action ‘affecting title to real property’ under A.R.S. § 12-1191(A); any compliance injunction would be personal to the homeowner and would not run with the land, and any lien for future self-help expenses was not yet ripe. The recorded lis pendens was therefore groundless, exposing the association to statutory damages and fees under A.R.S. § 33-420(A). The court affirmed liability and the $5,000 statutory-damages award but vacated the attorneys’-fee award and remanded so that only fees attributable to the wrongful-recordation counterclaim—not the defense of the separate CC&R enforcement complaint—are recovered.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source packageNo raw source-folder files found for this slug
Step-by-step docket roadmap10 roadmap entries
Video overviewNo video embed currently configured
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions6 questions
Curated download aliases0 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Carla Bartschi owned a home in the Santa Fe Ridge planned community in Glendale, Arizona, subject to the community’s recorded Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). In November 2006, the Santa Fe Ridge Homeowners’ Association sued her for breach of contract and injunctive relief, alleging she had failed to maintain her landscaping, remove trash and debris from her front yard, and remove a large crate from her lot. Four days after filing, the association recorded a notice of lis pendens against her property under A.R.S. § 12-1191(A). Bartschi counterclaimed for wrongful recordation under A.R.S. § 33-420(A) and moved for partial summary judgment, arguing the lawsuit did not ‘affect title to real property.’ The trial court ultimately agreed, granted her summary judgment, ordered the lis pendens removed, and awarded $5,000 in statutory damages plus $11,110 in attorneys’ fees and $422.20 in costs; it later dismissed the association’s complaint after Bartschi corrected the maintenance issues. The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, affirmed that the lis pendens was groundless, holding that a suit merely to compel compliance with already-recorded CC&Rs does not affect title, because any injunction would be personal to the owner and would not run with the land. The court vacated the fee award, however, holding fees under § 33-420(A) could be awarded only for the wrongful-recordation counterclaim, not for defending the association’s separate, arguably meritorious enforcement complaint.

Key Issues & Findings

Reviewing the summary judgment de novo, the court first addressed timing. It agreed with the association that A.R.S. § 12-1191(A) plainly permits a lis pendens to be recorded when a complaint is filed, and it read the trial court’s remarks not as requiring a prior judgment or lien but as observing that the relief sought would not affect title unless a monetary judgment or lien was later obtained on future events. The dispositive question, therefore, was whether the underlying action was one ‘affecting title to real property.’

Guided by Evergreen West, Inc. v. Boyd, the court explained that a lis pendens is groundless only when the claim that the action affects title has no arguable basis or is unsupported by any credible evidence, and that this inquiry does not turn on the merits of the underlying claim. Applying Tucson Estates, Inc. v. Superior Court, the court accepted that an action affecting rights ‘incident to’ title falls within the statute, but read that principle narrowly: a lawsuit affects a right incident to title only if a judgment would expand, restrict, or burden the owner’s rights as bestowed by that title. In Tucson Estates the plaintiffs sought to establish and enforce an implied covenant that would bind future owners; here, by contrast, the association sought only to enforce existing CC&Rs whose validity Bartschi did not dispute. Any injunction would be personal to Bartschi, would not run with the land, and would not alter rights already burdened by the recorded CC&Rs. The court also found the purposes of § 12-1191 unserved, because future purchasers took subject to the recorded CC&Rs and could not defeat the association’s ability to obtain relief.

The court then rejected the association’s lien theory under Coventry Homes, Inc. v. Scottscom Partnership. Merely requesting a lien does not make an action one affecting title; there must be a basis to conclude a lien would actually be imposed. Because the association’s lien depended on future events—Bartschi’s noncompliance with an injunction, the association’s incurring self-help expenses, and her refusal to reimburse them—the claim was anticipatory and not ripe, so the recordation was groundless and premature. The court further held the association waived, and in any event could not show error on, the scienter element of § 33-420(A): the situation was readily distinguishable from Tucson Estates, and because the association’s president signed the notice of lis pendens, counsel’s knowledge that the recording was groundless was imputed to the association. Finally, applying Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc., the court held the CC&R enforcement complaint was separate and distinct from the wrongful-recordation counterclaim, so § 33-420(A) fees were limited to the counterclaim; it vacated the fee award and remanded, denied the association’s request for appellate fees, and awarded Bartschi her reasonable fees on appeal.

Why It Matters

This published 2008 decision is a leading Arizona authority on when a homeowners’ association may record a lis pendens against a member’s property during a governing-documents dispute. It draws a clear line: a routine action to enforce existing, already-recorded CC&Rs—demanding that an owner maintain landscaping, clear debris, or remove an object—does not ‘affect title to real property’ and therefore does not authorize a lis pendens. Because the recorded CC&Rs already burden the land and any compliance injunction is personal to the current owner, recording a lis pendens in that setting is groundless and can trigger mandatory statutory damages of at least $5,000, plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, under A.R.S. § 33-420(A).

For associations and their counsel, the decision is a caution against reflexively clouding an owner’s title during a CC&R dispute; a lis pendens generally becomes appropriate only once the association has a ripe basis for a lien or a judgment that actually affects title, not while relief remains anticipatory. For owners, it confirms a powerful remedy against improperly recorded documents. The opinion also refines fee awards under § 33-420(A): even a homeowner who defeats an improper lis pendens cannot recover fees for defending the association’s separate, arguably meritorious enforcement claim, because unrelated claims that could have been litigated separately must be parsed under Schweiger v. China Doll.

← Back to Court of Appeals cases

Nickerson v. Green Valley Recreation, Inc.: HOA Court Case Guide

Posted on by

CC&Rs & Covenants | A.R.S. §§ 33-440, 33-442, 12-341.01 | 2 CA-CV 2010-0197

In this 2011 published opinion, the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two, addressed a novel question and held that covenants requiring membership in and payment of dues to a recreational association touch and concern the land, are enforceable as real covenants, and are not unconscionable.

Last updated July 1, 2026. Case: Nickerson v. Green Valley Recreation, Inc.; 228 Ariz. 528, 269 P.3d 1179 (App. 2011) (2 CA-CV 2010-0197); Pima County Superior Court No. C20090082 (Hon. Paul E. Tang).

Download the ruling PDF

Scope note: This educational case page summarizes a court ruling for Arizona HOA homeowners, boards, and counsel. It is not legal advice.

The rule in one sentence

Covenants requiring homeowners to maintain membership in, and pay dues and assessments to, a recreational association touch and concern the burdened land and are enforceable as real covenants or equitable servitudes running with the land. Such covenants are not procedurally or substantively unconscionable, nor illusory or lacking mutuality, where members retain voting rights and the association must perform for their benefit under its articles and bylaws. The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the association and affirmed the discretionary denial of the association’s trial-court attorney fees.

Case Participants

Neutral Parties

  • William G. Nickerson, et al. (Green Valley homeowners) (Appellants/Cross-Appellees)
    Group of Green Valley homeowners, most subject to the Master Deed Restriction, who challenged the enforceability of the GVR membership covenants and the new-member fee; plaintiffs below.
  • Green Valley Recreation, Inc. (GVR) (Appellee/Cross-Appellant)
    Nonprofit recreational association formed by a 1978 merger; defendant below that obtained summary judgment and cross-appealed the denial of its attorney fees.
  • Brian A. Laird (Counsel)
    Law Office of Brian Laird, PLLC
    Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants/Cross-Appellees (homeowners), Tucson.
  • Stephen M. Weeks (Counsel)
    Weeks Law Firm, PLLC
    Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants/Cross-Appellees (homeowners), Tucson.
  • Robert Mackenzie (Counsel)
    The Shiaras Law Firm, PC
    Counsel for Defendant/Appellee/Cross-Appellant Green Valley Recreation, Inc., Scottsdale.
  • John E. Droeger (Amicus Curiae)
    In Propria Persona
    Green Valley resident who is not a GVR member; appeared as amicus curiae in propria persona. The court declined to reach his horizontal-privity argument because it was not raised by the parties below.
  • Philip G. Espinosa (Judge)
    Judge of the Court of Appeals, Division Two (Department B); authored the opinion.
  • Garye L. Vásquez (Judge)
    Presiding Judge of the Court of Appeals, Division Two; concurred.
  • Peter J. Eckerstrom (Judge)
    Presiding Judge of the Court of Appeals, Division Two; concurred.
  • Paul E. Tang (Judge)
    Pima County Superior Court judge who granted summary judgment for GVR and denied both parties’ fee/post-trial requests (Cause No. C20090082).

What happened and why it matters

Homeowners across the unincorporated retirement community of Green Valley sued Green Valley Recreation, Inc. (GVR), a nonprofit recreational association formed in 1978, seeking to quiet title, obtain declaratory relief, and recover damages. They contended that recorded Master Deed Restrictions (MDR), private membership agreements, and CC&Rs compelling them to maintain GVR membership and pay its dues and assessments—including a 2000 ‘new member capital fee’—were unenforceable. The homeowners argued the covenants did not touch and concern the land, were unconscionable, and lacked mutuality of obligation. The Pima County Superior Court granted summary judgment to GVR and denied both the homeowners’ post-judgment motions and GVR’s request for attorney fees. The homeowners appealed and GVR cross-appealed the fee denial. Addressing what it described as a novel Arizona issue, the Court of Appeals, Division Two, held that covenants requiring membership in a recreational association touch and concern the burdened land and are enforceable as real covenants running with the land. The court rejected the homeowners’ unconscionability and mutuality arguments and declined to apply A.R.S. §§ 33-440 and 33-442 retroactively to covenants created before those statutes took effect. It affirmed summary judgment for GVR and, reviewing for abuse of discretion, affirmed the discretionary denial of GVR’s trial-court attorney fees, while awarding GVR its reasonable attorney fees on appeal under A.R.S. § 12-341.01.

The court first addressed the trial court’s use of its preliminary-injunction findings as ‘law of the case.’ Citing Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch, the court reaffirmed that legal conclusions reached at the preliminary-injunction stage do not constitute law of the case and do not bind the court at summary judgment. It held, however, that the homeowners had waived the point by not objecting until their motion for new trial, and that any error was harmless because the servitudes were valid on other grounds, so the trial court reached the correct result.

Turning to the central issue, the court applied the traditional four elements of a real covenant from Choisser v. Eyman and Federoff v. Pioneer Title & Trust: a writing satisfying the Statute of Frauds, intent that the covenant run with the land, a covenant that touches and concerns the land, and privity of estate. GVR urged that the touch-and-concern element had been superseded by the Restatement (Third) of Property (Servitudes) and by A.R.S. §§ 33-440 and 33-442. The court declined to resolve that question, holding those statutes could not be applied retroactively under A.R.S. § 1-244 because eliminating touch-and-concern would affect substantive rights established when the covenants were created (§ 33-440 effective September 2008; § 33-442 enacted 2010).

Applying the traditional test, the court concluded the GVR covenants do touch and concern the land: each burdened owner is entitled to the benefit of recreational facilities and services, and the homeowners offered no evidence any of them was denied those benefits. The court rejected the argument that ‘benefit’ and ‘value’ should be measured subjectively, analogized GVR membership to a community pool, and relied on out-of-state authority (Lowry, Streams Sports Club, Regency Homes, Four Seasons, Homsey) holding that mandatory recreational-association membership satisfies touch-and-concern. Because GVR offers full membership and access to owners throughout its vicinity, the absence of a single common subdivision scheme was inconsequential so long as access is not unreasonably impeded by distance. The recorded agreements and CC&Rs also showed clear intent to bind the land permanently, and the writing and privity elements were undisputed; even homeowner Guldan, whose restriction was unrecorded, was bound because he had actual notice under Federoff and A.R.S. § 33-412(B).

On unconscionability—a question of law under Maxwell v. Fidelity Financial Services—the court found neither procedural nor substantive unconscionability. There was no evidence of unfair surprise or bargaining defects; the recorded documents provided notice, and the homeowners’ claims of unequal bargaining power lacked factual support. Substantively, there was no evidence of a significant cost-price disparity, and GVR’s amendment power was tempered by its articles and bylaws, members’ voting rights, and the rule that an association may not unreasonably alter the nature of its covenants (Dreamland Villa; Shamrock). The court also rejected the illusory/mutuality argument under Gates and Carroll v. Lee, holding GVR provided consideration by being obligated to perform for its members. Finally, reviewing the fee ruling for abuse of discretion, the court upheld the trial court’s denial of GVR’s fees because it had a reasonable basis—the novel, close nature of the claims and the risk of chilling future servitude litigation—while awarding GVR its fees on appeal under A.R.S. § 12-341.01.

Nickerson is a published, precedential Division Two decision that answered what the court called a novel Arizona question: whether a recorded covenant requiring membership in, and payment of dues to, a recreational association ‘touches and concerns’ the land so that it runs with the land and binds successive owners. The court held that it does, aligning Arizona with courts in several other states and confirming that mandatory recreational-association membership can be a valid, enforceable real covenant even where the burdened homes are not all within a single subdivision and the facilities are dispersed throughout the community. The key consideration is reasonable access to the facilities from the burdened property, not a common platted scheme.

The decision also matters for how associations structure and defend their governing documents and assessments. It reinforces that unconscionability is a legal question examined at contract formation, that recorded CC&Rs and deed restrictions provide the notice needed to defeat an ‘unfair surprise’ claim, and that an association’s power to amend is not ‘unfettered’ because it is checked by its articles, bylaws, members’ voting rights, and the limit against unreasonably altering the nature of the covenants. At the same time, the court’s affirmance of the trial court’s discretionary refusal to award the prevailing association its trial-court fees—because the homeowners raised novel, close questions and fee-shifting could chill legitimate servitude litigation—illustrates that prevailing on the merits does not guarantee a fee award under A.R.S. § 12-341.01.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Nickerson v. Green Valley Recreation, Inc. (228 Ariz. 528, 269 P.3d 1179 (App. 2011) (2 CA-CV 2010-0197)). Covenants requiring homeowners to maintain membership in, and pay dues and assessments to, a recreational… This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own ruling controls.

Listen: audio deep dive on the ruling

An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the court’s reasoning and disposition in Nickerson v. Green Valley Recreation, Inc.. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

Audio overview generated with Google NotebookLM from the case’s court filings.

Step-by-step litigation record

Step 1978 Two nonprofit corporations merge to form Green Valley Recreation, Inc. (GVR).
Step 2000 After a member vote, GVR’s board amends the bylaws to impose a ‘new member capital fee’; the MDR is modified to mandate the assessment for owners of membership properties and their successors.
Step 2009-01 Homeowners sue GVR seeking to quiet title, damages, and declaratory relief, and apply for a preliminary injunction against collection and liens.
The trial court denies the preliminary injunction, ruling the MDR and agreements enforceable as equitable servitudes.
GVR moves for summary judgment on all six counts; the plaintiffs move for partial summary judgment; the court grants GVR’s motion and denies the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration/new trial and GVR’s request for attorney fees.
Step 2011-11-30 The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two, files its opinion affirming on both the appeal and the cross-appeal and awarding GVR its fees on appeal.

Complete uploaded source-document index

This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/nickerson-v-green-valley-recreation/raw/: 1 PDF. 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.

Source 1 2011-11-30

Opinion

Type: Decision or judgment

Opinion holding that covenants requiring homeowners to maintain membership in, and pay dues and assessments to, a recreational association touch and concern the burdened land and are enforceable as real covenants or equitable servitudes running with the land.

Download source file
2011-11-30_001_opinion.pdf

FAQ

What was Nickerson v. Green Valley Recreation about?

Green Valley homeowners sued Green Valley Recreation, Inc. (GVR), a nonprofit recreational association, seeking to quiet title, obtain declaratory relief, and recover damages. They argued that recorded Master Deed Restrictions, private membership agreements, and CC&Rs requiring them to maintain GVR membership and pay its dues and assessments—including a 2000 new-member capital fee—were unenforceable. The trial court granted summary judgment to GVR, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

What does ‘touch and concern the land’ mean, and why did it matter here?

‘Touch and concern the land’ is one of the traditional requirements for a covenant to run with the land and bind future owners; it asks whether the covenant makes the land itself more useful or valuable. The court held that requiring membership in a recreational association like GVR does touch and concern the land because each burdened owner is entitled to the benefit of the recreational facilities and services, so the covenants run with the land as enforceable real covenants.

Did A.R.S. §§ 33-440 and 33-442 decide the case?

No. GVR argued those statutes had eliminated the touch-and-concern requirement, but the court declined to decide that because the statutes could not be applied retroactively. Under A.R.S. § 1-244, statutes are not retroactive unless the legislature says so, and eliminating touch-and-concern would affect substantive rights established when the covenants were created. The covenants here predated both statutes, so the court applied the traditional common-law test instead.

Were the GVR covenants unconscionable or illusory?

No. Unconscionability is a legal question examined at contract formation. The court found no procedural unconscionability because the recorded documents gave notice and there was no evidence of unfair surprise or a bargaining defect, and no substantive unconscionability because there was no proof of a significant cost-price disparity and GVR’s amendment power was limited by its articles, bylaws, and members’ voting rights. The court also rejected the argument that the contracts were illusory or lacked mutuality, holding GVR provided consideration by being obligated to perform for its members.

Why didn’t GVR get its attorney fees for the trial-court proceedings?

GVR won on the merits but the trial court denied its request for trial-court attorney fees, and the Court of Appeals affirmed that denial as within the trial court’s discretion. The trial court reasoned that the homeowners raised novel claims with the appearance of merit, the case was close, and awarding fees could chill future litigation to determine rights in servitudes. The Court of Appeals did, however, award GVR its reasonable attorney fees on appeal under A.R.S. § 12-341.01.

Is this decision binding precedent in Arizona?

Yes. Nickerson v. Green Valley Recreation, Inc. is a published opinion of the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two, reported at 228 Ariz. 528, 269 P.3d 1179 (App. 2011). As a published opinion, it is precedential and may be cited as authority in Arizona.

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 / citation228 Ariz. 528, 269 P.3d 1179 (App. 2011) (2 CA-CV 2010-0197)
Court / tribunalCourt of Appeals
Decision / key dateNovember 30, 2011
Judge / panelEspinosa, Vásquez, Eckerstrom
PartiesWilliam G. Nickerson, et al. — Green Valley homeowners (Plaintiffs/Appellants/Cross-Appellees) v. Green Valley Recreation, Inc. (Defendant/Appellee/Cross-Appellant)
Governing law
  • A.R.S. § 33-440
  • A.R.S. § 33-442
  • A.R.S. § 33-412(B)
  • A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A)
  • A.R.S. § 12-120.21(A)
  • A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)
  • A.R.S. § 1-244
Topics
CC&RsCovenantsAssessmentsAttorney FeesProcedure
Outcome / holding

Covenants requiring homeowners to maintain membership in, and pay dues and assessments to, a recreational association touch and concern the burdened land and are enforceable as real covenants or equitable servitudes running with the land. Such covenants are not procedurally or substantively unconscionable, nor illusory or lacking mutuality, where members retain voting rights and the association must perform for their benefit under its articles and bylaws. The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the association and affirmed the discretionary denial of the association’s trial-court attorney fees.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package1 PDF
Step-by-step docket roadmap6 roadmap entries
Video overviewNickerson v. Green Valley Recreation, Inc.
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions6 questions
Curated download aliases1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Homeowners across the unincorporated retirement community of Green Valley sued Green Valley Recreation, Inc. (GVR), a nonprofit recreational association formed in 1978, seeking to quiet title, obtain declaratory relief, and recover damages. They contended that recorded Master Deed Restrictions (MDR), private membership agreements, and CC&Rs compelling them to maintain GVR membership and pay its dues and assessments—including a 2000 ‘new member capital fee’—were unenforceable. The homeowners argued the covenants did not touch and concern the land, were unconscionable, and lacked mutuality of obligation. The Pima County Superior Court granted summary judgment to GVR and denied both the homeowners’ post-judgment motions and GVR’s request for attorney fees. The homeowners appealed and GVR cross-appealed the fee denial. Addressing what it described as a novel Arizona issue, the Court of Appeals, Division Two, held that covenants requiring membership in a recreational association touch and concern the burdened land and are enforceable as real covenants running with the land. The court rejected the homeowners’ unconscionability and mutuality arguments and declined to apply A.R.S. §§ 33-440 and 33-442 retroactively to covenants created before those statutes took effect. It affirmed summary judgment for GVR and, reviewing for abuse of discretion, affirmed the discretionary denial of GVR’s trial-court attorney fees, while awarding GVR its reasonable attorney fees on appeal under A.R.S. § 12-341.01.

Key Issues & Findings

The court first addressed the trial court’s use of its preliminary-injunction findings as ‘law of the case.’ Citing Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch, the court reaffirmed that legal conclusions reached at the preliminary-injunction stage do not constitute law of the case and do not bind the court at summary judgment. It held, however, that the homeowners had waived the point by not objecting until their motion for new trial, and that any error was harmless because the servitudes were valid on other grounds, so the trial court reached the correct result.

Turning to the central issue, the court applied the traditional four elements of a real covenant from Choisser v. Eyman and Federoff v. Pioneer Title & Trust: a writing satisfying the Statute of Frauds, intent that the covenant run with the land, a covenant that touches and concerns the land, and privity of estate. GVR urged that the touch-and-concern element had been superseded by the Restatement (Third) of Property (Servitudes) and by A.R.S. §§ 33-440 and 33-442. The court declined to resolve that question, holding those statutes could not be applied retroactively under A.R.S. § 1-244 because eliminating touch-and-concern would affect substantive rights established when the covenants were created (§ 33-440 effective September 2008; § 33-442 enacted 2010).

Applying the traditional test, the court concluded the GVR covenants do touch and concern the land: each burdened owner is entitled to the benefit of recreational facilities and services, and the homeowners offered no evidence any of them was denied those benefits. The court rejected the argument that ‘benefit’ and ‘value’ should be measured subjectively, analogized GVR membership to a community pool, and relied on out-of-state authority (Lowry, Streams Sports Club, Regency Homes, Four Seasons, Homsey) holding that mandatory recreational-association membership satisfies touch-and-concern. Because GVR offers full membership and access to owners throughout its vicinity, the absence of a single common subdivision scheme was inconsequential so long as access is not unreasonably impeded by distance. The recorded agreements and CC&Rs also showed clear intent to bind the land permanently, and the writing and privity elements were undisputed; even homeowner Guldan, whose restriction was unrecorded, was bound because he had actual notice under Federoff and A.R.S. § 33-412(B).

On unconscionability—a question of law under Maxwell v. Fidelity Financial Services—the court found neither procedural nor substantive unconscionability. There was no evidence of unfair surprise or bargaining defects; the recorded documents provided notice, and the homeowners’ claims of unequal bargaining power lacked factual support. Substantively, there was no evidence of a significant cost-price disparity, and GVR’s amendment power was tempered by its articles and bylaws, members’ voting rights, and the rule that an association may not unreasonably alter the nature of its covenants (Dreamland Villa; Shamrock). The court also rejected the illusory/mutuality argument under Gates and Carroll v. Lee, holding GVR provided consideration by being obligated to perform for its members. Finally, reviewing the fee ruling for abuse of discretion, the court upheld the trial court’s denial of GVR’s fees because it had a reasonable basis—the novel, close nature of the claims and the risk of chilling future servitude litigation—while awarding GVR its fees on appeal under A.R.S. § 12-341.01.

Why It Matters

Nickerson is a published, precedential Division Two decision that answered what the court called a novel Arizona question: whether a recorded covenant requiring membership in, and payment of dues to, a recreational association ‘touches and concerns’ the land so that it runs with the land and binds successive owners. The court held that it does, aligning Arizona with courts in several other states and confirming that mandatory recreational-association membership can be a valid, enforceable real covenant even where the burdened homes are not all within a single subdivision and the facilities are dispersed throughout the community. The key consideration is reasonable access to the facilities from the burdened property, not a common platted scheme.

The decision also matters for how associations structure and defend their governing documents and assessments. It reinforces that unconscionability is a legal question examined at contract formation, that recorded CC&Rs and deed restrictions provide the notice needed to defeat an ‘unfair surprise’ claim, and that an association’s power to amend is not ‘unfettered’ because it is checked by its articles, bylaws, members’ voting rights, and the limit against unreasonably altering the nature of the covenants. At the same time, the court’s affirmance of the trial court’s discretionary refusal to award the prevailing association its trial-court fees—because the homeowners raised novel, close questions and fee-shifting could chill legitimate servitude litigation—illustrates that prevailing on the merits does not guarantee a fee award under A.R.S. § 12-341.01.

← Back to Court of Appeals cases

Mountain View Condominiums Homeowners Ass’n v. Scott: HOA Court Case Guide

Posted on by

Arizona Court of Appeals — Condominium Assessments

Division Two holds that assessment liability in a condominium flows from ownership of the unit and its inseparable common-element interest, not from whether a structure has been built, and reverses summary judgment for the non-building owners.

Last updated July 1, 2026. Case: Mountain View Condominiums Homeowners Ass’n v. Scott; No. 2 CA-CV 93-0288; 180 Ariz. 216, 883 P.2d 453 (App. 1994).

Scope note: This educational case page summarizes a court ruling for Arizona HOA homeowners, boards, and counsel. It is not legal advice.

The rule in one sentence

A condominium unit owner’s obligation to pay association assessments arises from unit ownership itself, which carries a vested, undivided interest in the common elements, and does not depend on whether improvements or structures have been constructed on the unit. Because the Declaration, the former Horizontal Property Regime Act, and the Arizona Uniform Condominium Act draw no distinction between completed and uncompleted units, the trial court’s summary judgment for the non-building defendants, including its attorneys’ fee award, is reversed and the case is remanded.

Case Participants

Neutral Parties

  • Mountain View Condominiums Homeowners Association, Inc. (dba Arbor Point Condominiums) (Party)
    Arizona nonprofit corporation and condominium association; plaintiff/appellant that sued to collect common-area assessments. Prevailed on appeal.
  • Clifford J. Scott and Valerie Scott (Party)
    Husband and wife; acquired the project’s beneficial interest after Security Savings’ foreclosure and later deeded units to the other defendants; defendants/appellees who argued no assessments were owed on unbuilt units.
  • Lawyers Title of Arizona, as Trustee under Trust No. 7518-T (Party)
    The Declarant and record titleholder of the condominium property under the Declaration; defendant/appellee.
  • Douglas R. Knoles (Party)
    A married man holding as his sole and separate property; contract purchaser of Units 69-71; defendant/appellee.
  • Superstition Homes (Party)
    Arizona corporation; contract purchaser of Units 72-76; defendant/appellee.
  • Inca Investment, Inc. (Party)
    Arizona corporation; contract purchaser of Units 22-68; defendant/appellee.
  • Tanis A. Duncan (Counsel)
    Counsel for plaintiff/appellant, the Association (Tucson). No law firm was listed in the reporter.
  • Dan L. Dudley (Counsel)
    Counsel for defendants/appellees (Tucson). No law firm was listed in the reporter.
  • Judge Lacagnina (Judge)
    Arizona Court of Appeals, Division 2, Department A
    Authored the opinion of the court.
  • Presiding Judge Livermore (Judge)
    Arizona Court of Appeals, Division 2, Department A
    Concurred in the decision.
  • Judge Fernandez (Judge)
    Arizona Court of Appeals, Division 2, Department A
    Concurred in the decision.

What happened and why it matters

Mountain View Condominiums Homeowners Association, doing business as Arbor Point Condominiums, sued Clifford and Valerie Scott, Lawyers Title of Arizona (as trustee and Declarant), Douglas Knoles, Superstition Homes, and Inca Investment to collect common-area assessments on condominium units on which no buildings had been constructed. The complex was created in 1984 under the Horizontal Property Regime Act, when a Declaration of CC&Rs was recorded and a plat divided the land into 76 units plus common areas. After a foreclosure and a series of deeds, the defendants held Units 22 through 76. They argued they owed no assessments because their units were still vacant land with no improvements, and the trial court agreed, granting them summary judgment and attorneys’ fees on the theory that the Declaration contemplated an erected structure before assessment liability arose. The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two, reversed. Reading the statute, the Declaration, and the bylaws together, the court held that a condominium unit is defined as airspace carrying a vested, undivided interest in the common elements, and that ownership of that interest, not the completion of a building, triggers the duty to pay assessments. Nothing in the Declaration, the former Horizontal Property Regime Act, or the Arizona Uniform Condominium Act distinguished completed from uncompleted units for assessment purposes. The court reversed the judgment and the fee award, remanded for entry of judgment for the Association and a determination of the amounts owed, and awarded the Association its appellate attorneys’ fees.

The court framed the sole question as whether a condominium unit owner must pay assessments when no improvements have been built on the unit, and answered yes. It began with the settled rule that the rights and obligations of condominium owners regarding the common elements come from three sources, the statute, the declaration, and the bylaws, which must be read together and harmonized where possible (citing American Savings Service Corp. v. Selby, Sun-Air Estates v. Manzari, and A.R.S. section 33-1201(B)). Because the property had been submitted to a horizontal property regime under former A.R.S. sections 33-551 to 33-561, the court explained that Arizona condominium ownership consists of individual ownership of a horizontal layer of cubic airspace subject to exclusive control, together with a fractional interest held in common in the common elements (Makeever v. Lyle). The defendants’ undivided Common Area interest was appurtenant to each unit, could not be severed, and was vested as a separate parcel of real property.

Turning to the documents, the court found nothing in the Declaration distinguishing owners of completed units from owners of uncompleted ones. Because an Arizona condominium owner owns only airspace and not the underlying land, the Declaration necessarily describes a unit by physical boundaries to mark the line between the owner’s exclusive area and the common area; that boundary description does not require a structure to exist before someone becomes a unit owner obligated to pay. The bylaws and Articles of Incorporation reinforced this by defining an owner as one holding fee simple to any unit (including contract purchasers) and a member as any unit owner, all obligated to pay assessments without reference to construction.

The court then rejected the argument that the Arizona Uniform Condominium Act applied only to condominiums created after January 1, 1986, holding that section 33-1201(B) extends the Act to earlier condominiums where not in conflict. Both the former Horizontal Property Regime Act, which defined a building as the principal structure “erected or to be erected,” and the Uniform Condominium Act assess against units by percentage interest in the common elements and draw no line between finished and unfinished units. The court found persuasive Bradley v. Mullenix, which reasoned that common expenses like landscaping, snow removal, and exterior upkeep accrue regardless of whether a unit is completed. It also noted that section 33-1255(F) permits only a limited reduction (to not less than twenty-five percent) of a declarant’s assessment on units not substantially completed, and only if the declaration so provides; absent such an amendment, the defendants owed the full assessment. Concluding that the defendants took the benefits and burdens of prior ownership, including the continuing duty to pay assessments, and that treating them otherwise would produce the absurd result of membership benefits without obligations, the court reversed the summary judgment and fee award and remanded.

This published Division Two decision establishes a foundational Arizona rule that assessment liability in a condominium flows from ownership of the unit and its inseparable undivided interest in the common elements, not from whether a building has been constructed. For associations and boards, it confirms that owners of vacant or unbuilt condominium lots cannot escape common-area assessments by pointing to the absence of improvements; the grass still grows, the roads and shared systems still deteriorate, and every unit owner shares those costs in proportion to the interest fixed by the recorded documents. The opinion reads the declaration, bylaws, articles, and the governing statutes as a harmonized whole, a method that continues to guide Arizona courts interpreting community documents.

For developers, contract purchasers, and investors who acquire undeveloped condominium units, the case is a caution that taking title carries the previous owner’s continuing assessment obligations, without interruption, from the moment assessments commence. It also clarifies that the Arizona Uniform Condominium Act reaches condominiums created before its 1986 effective date where it does not conflict with the older Horizontal Property Regime Act or the recorded documents, and that the only relief for unbuilt units is the narrow statutory reduction under A.R.S. section 33-1255(F), which applies solely to declarants and only if the declaration provides for it. The reversal of the fee award further signals that a party who prevails at trial on an erroneous reading of the documents can lose both the judgment and its fees on appeal.

Step-by-step litigation record

Step 1984 Mountain View Condominiums is created under the Horizontal Property Regime Act; the Declaration of CC&Rs is recorded and a plat subdivides the land into 76 units and Common Areas A, B, C, and D, with title held by Lawyers Title of Arizona as trustee.
Step 1991-10-31 Security Savings forecloses and deeds the project’s beneficial interest, originally held by Roger Mountain Limited Partnership, to C.J. Scott.
Step 1993-04-21 Scott and Lawyers Title deed Units 22-76 to Inca Investment, Inc. (Units 22-68), Douglas R. Knoles (Units 69-71), and Superstition Homes (Units 72-76) under contracts for sale.
Step 1993 The Association sues the defendants to collect common-area assessments; on cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court rules for the defendants and awards them attorneys’ fees (No. 2 CA-CV 93-0288 on appeal).
Step 1994-08-25 The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two, reverses the summary judgment and fee award, remands for judgment in favor of the Association, and awards the Association its appellate attorneys’ fees.

FAQ

What was Mountain View Condominiums v. Scott about?

A condominium homeowners association, doing business as Arbor Point Condominiums, sued the owners of several units on which no buildings had been constructed to collect common-area assessments. The owners argued they owed nothing because their units were still vacant land. The Arizona Court of Appeals had to decide whether a unit owner must pay assessments when no improvements have been built on the unit.

Do you have to pay HOA or condominium assessments on a lot with no building on it?

Yes, under this decision. The court held that a condominium unit is defined as airspace carrying a vested, undivided interest in the common elements, and that the obligation to pay assessments arises from owning the unit and that interest, not from completing a structure. Because nothing in the declaration or the governing statutes distinguished built from unbuilt units, the owners of the vacant units still owed the full assessments.

Why did the trial court rule for the owners, and why was it reversed?

The trial court read the recorded declarations as defining a “unit” and the duty to pay assessments in a way that assumed an erected structure, so it concluded that owners who had not built owed nothing. The Court of Appeals reversed, explaining that a condominium owner in Arizona owns only airspace, so the declaration necessarily describes a unit by boundaries rather than by an existing building, and that duty to pay assessments does not depend on construction.

Does the Arizona Uniform Condominium Act apply to condominiums created before 1986?

Yes, in part. The court rejected the argument that the Act applies only to condominiums created after its January 1, 1986 effective date. Under A.R.S. section 33-1201(B), the Act also applies to condominiums created earlier, to the extent its provisions do not conflict with the former Horizontal Property Regime Act or with the declarations, bylaws, or plats adopted under the older law.

Is there any reduction in assessments for units that are not yet built?

Only a narrow one. A.R.S. section 33-1255(F) allows a reduction of a declarant’s assessment obligation, if the declaration so provides, for any unit on which construction has not been substantially completed, but not below twenty-five percent of the assessment for substantially completed units. Because the declaration here contained no such provision and the defendants were treated as ordinary unit owners, they owed the full amount.

Is this decision binding precedent in Arizona?

Yes. This is a published opinion of the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two, reported at 180 Ariz. 216, 883 P.2d 453 (App. 1994). As a published appellate decision it is binding precedent on the question it decides, unlike an unpublished memorandum decision, which does not create precedent.

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 / citationNo. 2 CA-CV 93-0288; 180 Ariz. 216, 883 P.2d 453 (App. 1994)
Court / tribunalCourt of Appeals
Decision / key dateAugust 25, 1994
Judge / panelLacagnina, J. (author), Livermore, P.J., Fernandez, J.
PartiesA condominium homeowners association (Mountain View Condominiums Homeowners Association, dba Arbor Point Condominiums) sued the owners of undeveloped units (Clifford and Valerie Scott, Lawyers Title of Arizona as trustee, Douglas Knoles, Superstition Homes, and Inca Investment) to collect common-area assessments; the owners argued they owed nothing because no buildings had been constructed on their units.
Governing law
Topics
AssessmentsCC&RsCovenantsAttorney FeesProcedure
Outcome / holding

A condominium unit owner’s obligation to pay association assessments arises from unit ownership itself, which carries a vested, undivided interest in the common elements, and does not depend on whether improvements or structures have been constructed on the unit. Because the Declaration, the former Horizontal Property Regime Act, and the Arizona Uniform Condominium Act draw no distinction between completed and uncompleted units, the trial court’s summary judgment for the non-building defendants, including its attorneys’ fee award, is reversed and the case is remanded.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source packageNo raw source-folder files found for this slug
Step-by-step docket roadmap5 roadmap entries
Video overviewNo video embed currently configured
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions6 questions
Curated download aliases0 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Mountain View Condominiums Homeowners Association, doing business as Arbor Point Condominiums, sued Clifford and Valerie Scott, Lawyers Title of Arizona (as trustee and Declarant), Douglas Knoles, Superstition Homes, and Inca Investment to collect common-area assessments on condominium units on which no buildings had been constructed. The complex was created in 1984 under the Horizontal Property Regime Act, when a Declaration of CC&Rs was recorded and a plat divided the land into 76 units plus common areas. After a foreclosure and a series of deeds, the defendants held Units 22 through 76. They argued they owed no assessments because their units were still vacant land with no improvements, and the trial court agreed, granting them summary judgment and attorneys’ fees on the theory that the Declaration contemplated an erected structure before assessment liability arose. The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two, reversed. Reading the statute, the Declaration, and the bylaws together, the court held that a condominium unit is defined as airspace carrying a vested, undivided interest in the common elements, and that ownership of that interest, not the completion of a building, triggers the duty to pay assessments. Nothing in the Declaration, the former Horizontal Property Regime Act, or the Arizona Uniform Condominium Act distinguished completed from uncompleted units for assessment purposes. The court reversed the judgment and the fee award, remanded for entry of judgment for the Association and a determination of the amounts owed, and awarded the Association its appellate attorneys’ fees.

Key Issues & Findings

The court framed the sole question as whether a condominium unit owner must pay assessments when no improvements have been built on the unit, and answered yes. It began with the settled rule that the rights and obligations of condominium owners regarding the common elements come from three sources, the statute, the declaration, and the bylaws, which must be read together and harmonized where possible (citing American Savings Service Corp. v. Selby, Sun-Air Estates v. Manzari, and A.R.S. section 33-1201(B)). Because the property had been submitted to a horizontal property regime under former A.R.S. sections 33-551 to 33-561, the court explained that Arizona condominium ownership consists of individual ownership of a horizontal layer of cubic airspace subject to exclusive control, together with a fractional interest held in common in the common elements (Makeever v. Lyle). The defendants’ undivided Common Area interest was appurtenant to each unit, could not be severed, and was vested as a separate parcel of real property.

Turning to the documents, the court found nothing in the Declaration distinguishing owners of completed units from owners of uncompleted ones. Because an Arizona condominium owner owns only airspace and not the underlying land, the Declaration necessarily describes a unit by physical boundaries to mark the line between the owner’s exclusive area and the common area; that boundary description does not require a structure to exist before someone becomes a unit owner obligated to pay. The bylaws and Articles of Incorporation reinforced this by defining an owner as one holding fee simple to any unit (including contract purchasers) and a member as any unit owner, all obligated to pay assessments without reference to construction.

The court then rejected the argument that the Arizona Uniform Condominium Act applied only to condominiums created after January 1, 1986, holding that section 33-1201(B) extends the Act to earlier condominiums where not in conflict. Both the former Horizontal Property Regime Act, which defined a building as the principal structure “erected or to be erected,” and the Uniform Condominium Act assess against units by percentage interest in the common elements and draw no line between finished and unfinished units. The court found persuasive Bradley v. Mullenix, which reasoned that common expenses like landscaping, snow removal, and exterior upkeep accrue regardless of whether a unit is completed. It also noted that section 33-1255(F) permits only a limited reduction (to not less than twenty-five percent) of a declarant’s assessment on units not substantially completed, and only if the declaration so provides; absent such an amendment, the defendants owed the full assessment. Concluding that the defendants took the benefits and burdens of prior ownership, including the continuing duty to pay assessments, and that treating them otherwise would produce the absurd result of membership benefits without obligations, the court reversed the summary judgment and fee award and remanded.

Why It Matters

This published Division Two decision establishes a foundational Arizona rule that assessment liability in a condominium flows from ownership of the unit and its inseparable undivided interest in the common elements, not from whether a building has been constructed. For associations and boards, it confirms that owners of vacant or unbuilt condominium lots cannot escape common-area assessments by pointing to the absence of improvements; the grass still grows, the roads and shared systems still deteriorate, and every unit owner shares those costs in proportion to the interest fixed by the recorded documents. The opinion reads the declaration, bylaws, articles, and the governing statutes as a harmonized whole, a method that continues to guide Arizona courts interpreting community documents.

For developers, contract purchasers, and investors who acquire undeveloped condominium units, the case is a caution that taking title carries the previous owner’s continuing assessment obligations, without interruption, from the moment assessments commence. It also clarifies that the Arizona Uniform Condominium Act reaches condominiums created before its 1986 effective date where it does not conflict with the older Horizontal Property Regime Act or the recorded documents, and that the only relief for unbuilt units is the narrow statutory reduction under A.R.S. section 33-1255(F), which applies solely to declarants and only if the declaration provides for it. The reversal of the fee award further signals that a party who prevails at trial on an erroneous reading of the documents can lose both the judgment and its fees on appeal.

← Back to Court of Appeals cases

McNair v. Maxwell & Morgan, PC: HOA Court Case Guide

Posted on by

FDCPA | 15 U.S.C. § 1692e | 9th Cir. No. 15-17383 (893 F.3d 680)

The Ninth Circuit narrows Ho v. ReconTrust and confirms that collecting delinquent HOA assessments through Arizona’s judicial-foreclosure process is ‘debt collection’ subject to the FDCPA.

Last updated July 1, 2026. Case: McNair v. Maxwell & Morgan, PC; 893 F.3d 680 (9th Cir. 2018) (No. 15-17383); D. Ariz. No. 2:14-cv-00869-PHX-DGC (David G. Campbell, District Judge).

Download the ruling PDF

Scope note: This educational case page summarizes a court ruling for Arizona HOA homeowners, boards, and counsel. It is not legal advice.

The rule in one sentence

Collecting delinquent homeowner-association assessments through a judicial foreclosure that permits deficiency judgments constitutes “debt collection” under the FDCPA, distinguishing Ho v. ReconTrust Co.; and a debt collector’s filing of a writ of special execution that implicitly represents unapproved “accruing” attorneys’ fees as already court-approved falsely states the legal status of the debt in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A). The Ninth Circuit reversed summary judgment for the defendants on that claim and remanded for a determination of damages, while affirming the remaining claims in a concurrently filed memorandum disposition.

Case Participants

Neutral Parties

  • Martha A. McNair (Appellant)
    Homeowner in Gilbert, Arizona within the Neely Commons Community Association; plaintiff who sued the collection law firm under the FDCPA.
  • Maxwell & Morgan PC (Appellee)
    Arizona professional corporation; the HOA collection law firm that represented the Neely Commons Community Association in collecting McNair’s assessment debt.
  • Charles E. Maxwell (Appellee)
    Principal of Maxwell & Morgan PC; named defendant-appellee (husband).
  • Lisa Maxwell (Appellee)
    Named defendant-appellee (wife of Charles E. Maxwell), joined for marital-community purposes.
  • W. William Nikolaus (Appellee)
    Principal of Maxwell & Morgan PC; named defendant-appellee (husband).
  • Leslie Nikolaus (Appellee)
    Named defendant-appellee (wife of W. William Nikolaus), joined for marital-community purposes.
  • Neely Commons Community Association (Party)
    The homeowners association whose delinquent assessments were at issue; the firm’s client, not a named party to the appeal.
  • Douglas C. Wigley (Counsel)
    Dessaules Law Group
    Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellant Martha McNair (argued); Phoenix, Arizona.
  • Jonathan A. Dessaules (Counsel)
    Dessaules Law Group
    Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellant Martha McNair; Phoenix, Arizona.
  • Robert Travis Campbell (Counsel)
    Simmonds & Narita LLP
    Counsel for Defendants-Appellees (argued); San Francisco, California.
  • Jeffrey A. Topor (Counsel)
    Simmonds & Narita LLP
    Counsel for Defendants-Appellees; San Francisco, California.
  • Tomio B. Narita (Counsel)
    Simmonds & Narita LLP
    Counsel for Defendants-Appellees; San Francisco, California.
  • Janet Bond Arterton (Judge)
    U.S. District Judge for the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation; authored the opinion.
  • Jay S. Bybee (Judge)
    U.S. Circuit Judge, Ninth Circuit; randomly drawn to the panel and joined the opinion.
  • Michelle T. Friedland (Judge)
    U.S. Circuit Judge, Ninth Circuit; joined the opinion.
  • David G. Campbell (Judge)
    U.S. District Judge for the District of Arizona who granted summary judgment to the defendants below.

What happened and why it matters

Martha McNair bought a home in Gilbert, Arizona in 2004 that was part of the Neely Commons Community Association, obligating her under a recorded declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) to pay an annual assessment in monthly installments. After she fell behind, the law firm Maxwell & Morgan P.C. — retained by the Association — pursued her through a series of collection lawsuits, a stipulated judgment, and ultimately a judicial foreclosure that sold her home. McNair then sued the firm and its principals under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), alleging they misrepresented the amount she owed and sought attorneys’ fees to which they were not entitled. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding most claims time-barred and rejecting the timely claims — reasoning in part that pursuing a foreclosure was not “debt collection” and that the state court had implicitly approved the fees. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. Distinguishing Ho v. ReconTrust Co. (a non-judicial foreclosure case), the panel held that collecting HOA assessments through a judicial foreclosure that allows deficiency judgments is “debt collection” subject to the FDCPA. It further held that the firm’s writ of special execution violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e by falsely representing the legal status of $1,597.50 in “accruing” attorneys’ fees as court-approved when no court had yet approved them. The panel remanded for a determination of statutory and any actual damages, and a concurrently filed memorandum disposition affirmed the remaining, largely untimely claims.

The panel addressed the two independent grounds on which the district court had granted summary judgment. First, the district court had held that the defendants were not engaged in “debt collection” because the writ was filed to foreclose on a lien. The Ninth Circuit rejected that reasoning as irreconcilable with the statutory text. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5), a “debt” is an obligation to pay money arising out of a transaction primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, and under § 1692a(6) a “debt collector” is anyone who regularly collects debts owed to another. McNair’s obligation arose from unpaid homeowner-association assessments on her residence, so it plainly qualified as consumer debt, and the firm plainly qualified as a debt collector. The court cited Mashiri v. Epsten Grinnell & Howell, 845 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2017), and Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291 (1995), for the settled rule that attorneys who regularly engage in consumer-debt collection are covered by the Act even when that activity consists of litigation.

The court then distinguished Ho v. ReconTrust Co., NA, 858 F.3d 568 (9th Cir. 2017), on which the defendants relied. Ho held that a trustee facilitating a non-judicial foreclosure was not collecting a “debt” because, under California law, such a foreclosure cannot yield a deficiency judgment and thus extinguishes the entire debt regardless of the sale price — the object being to retake and resell the security, not to collect money from the borrower. Here, by contrast, the defendants pursued a judicial foreclosure under a scheme that, in many cases, permits deficiency judgments, citing A.R.S. §§ 33-727(A) and 33-729(B)-(C). That difference placed the firm’s conduct squarely within the FDCPA’s definition of debt collection.

Second, the district court had held, in the alternative, that the writ did not violate the Act because the Maricopa County Superior Court had implicitly approved the claimed fees by issuing the writ and later rejecting McNair’s challenges. The panel found this analysis failed to ask the right question: whether the defendants were legally entitled to claim the fees at the time they applied for the writ. The FDCPA bars any false or misleading representation of the character, amount, or legal status of a debt, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A). Under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 54(g), post-judgment attorneys’ fees must be requested by motion, and when the November 5, 2013 writ was filed, no court had yet approved the quantification of the $1,597.50 in “accruing” fees. By listing those fees as “now … due,” the writ falsely represented that they had already been judicially approved. The court cited Woliansky v. Miller and Costa v. Maxwell & Morgan PC for the point that fee amounts are set by the court’s discretion. Because the district court had not reached damages, the panel remanded for a determination of statutory and, if applicable, actual damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k, noting McNair might have suffered no actual damages given the Superior Court’s later approval of the fees.

This published Ninth Circuit decision is significant for homeowners, associations, and the law firms that collect HOA debt because it confirms that the FDCPA applies to judicial-foreclosure collection of delinquent assessments. Many collectors had read Ho v. ReconTrust to mean that any foreclosure is outside the Act. McNair narrows Ho to its facts: the exemption turns on whether the foreclosure scheme can produce a deficiency judgment. Because Arizona’s judicial-foreclosure process can, a firm that collects assessments through it is a “debt collector” pursuing a “debt” and must comply with the FDCPA’s prohibitions on false or misleading representations.

The decision also draws a practical line for how collectors may present attorneys’ fees in enforcement papers. Listing “accruing” fees as presently due in a writ of special execution — before any court has approved that amount under Arizona Rule 54(g) — can be an actionable misrepresentation of the debt’s legal status, even if a court later blesses the same fees. For homeowners, McNair confirms a federal remedy (including statutory damages) against overreaching collection conduct; for associations and their counsel, it is a reminder to secure judicial approval before characterizing post-judgment fees as owed. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in 2019, leaving the ruling in force within the Ninth Circuit.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of McNair v. Maxwell & Morgan, PC (893 F.3d 680 (9th Cir. 2018) (No. 15-17383)). Collecting delinquent homeowner-association assessments through a judicial foreclosure that permits deficiency… This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own ruling controls.

Listen: audio deep dive on the ruling

An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the court’s reasoning and disposition in McNair v. Maxwell & Morgan, PC. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

Audio overview generated with Google NotebookLM from the case’s court filings.

Step-by-step litigation record

Step 2004 Martha McNair buys a home in Gilbert, Arizona within the Neely Commons Community Association, obligating her to pay assessments in monthly installments under the CC&Rs.
Step 2009 Maxwell & Morgan P.C. first notifies McNair of a delinquent assessment debt and sues on the Association’s behalf; the parties enter a payment agreement.
Step 2010 After McNair defaults on the payment agreement, the firm revives the lawsuit and obtains a default judgment against her.
Step 2012-06-27 The parties execute a stipulated judgment recognizing the Association’s right to sell McNair’s home to collect the debt, listing $1,687.50 in attorney fees plus accruing fees.
Step 2012-07-12 The Maricopa County Superior Court adopts the stipulated judgment by order.
Step 2013-11-05 The firm files a praecipe and the Superior Court issues a writ of special execution stating $1,687.50 plus $1,597.50 in accruing attorney fees are ‘now … due’; McNair’s home is later sold for $75,000, yielding $11,600.13 to the firm and Association.
Step 2014 McNair sues Maxwell & Morgan P.C. and its principals in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (No. 2:14-cv-00869-DGC) under the FDCPA.
Step 2017-09-14 The Ninth Circuit hears oral argument in San Francisco, California.
Step 2018-06-25 The Ninth Circuit files its published opinion, affirming in part and reversing in part, and remanding for a determination of damages.
Step 2019 The U.S. Supreme Court denies certiorari (Maxwell & Morgan, P.C. v. McNair, 139 S. Ct. 1375).

Complete uploaded source-document index

This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/mcnair-v-maxwell-and-morgan/raw/: 1 PDF. 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.

Source 1 2018-06-25

Opinion

Type: Decision or judgment

Opinion holding that collecting delinquent homeowner-association assessments through a judicial foreclosure that permits deficiency judgments constitutes “debt collection” under the FDCPA, distinguishing Ho v.

Download source file
2018-06-25_001_opinion.pdf

FAQ

What was McNair v. Maxwell & Morgan, PC about?

Martha McNair, a Gilbert, Arizona homeowner, sued the law firm Maxwell & Morgan P.C. and its principals under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The firm had collected delinquent homeowner-association assessments she owed the Neely Commons Community Association, ultimately foreclosing on and selling her home. McNair alleged the firm misrepresented the amount of her debt and sought attorneys’ fees to which it was not entitled.

Does the FDCPA apply to collecting HOA assessments through foreclosure?

Yes, when the foreclosure is judicial and can allow a deficiency judgment. The Ninth Circuit held that the firm’s effort to collect HOA fees through Arizona’s judicial-foreclosure process was “debt collection” under the FDCPA. It distinguished Ho v. ReconTrust Co., which had exempted non-judicial foreclosures because, under the law there, such foreclosures extinguish the entire debt and cannot produce a deficiency judgment.

Why did the firm’s writ of special execution violate the FDCPA?

The November 2013 writ listed $1,597.50 in “accruing” attorneys’ fees as “now … due,” implying a court had already approved that amount. Under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 54(g), post-judgment fees must be requested by motion, and no court had yet approved those fees when the writ was filed. That falsely represented the legal status of the debt in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A).

What did the Ninth Circuit ultimately decide?

The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part. In a concurrent memorandum disposition it affirmed that most of McNair’s claims were untimely and rejected one timely claim. In the published opinion it reversed summary judgment on her claim about the misrepresented fees, held the FDCPA applied, and remanded to the district court to determine statutory and any actual damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k.

Was McNair still liable for the fees, and did she win money?

The Superior Court later approved the attorneys’ fees, so McNair may not have suffered actual damages from the misrepresentation. The Ninth Circuit did not award damages itself; it remanded so the district court could determine what statutory and, if applicable, actual damages she is entitled to. The FDCPA allows statutory damages even without proven actual loss.

Is this decision binding, and what happened after?

Yes. The opinion was published (“FOR PUBLICATION,” 893 F.3d 680), making it precedential within the Ninth Circuit. The defendants sought U.S. Supreme Court review, but certiorari was denied in 2019 (139 S. Ct. 1375), leaving the ruling intact. It is a leading authority on the FDCPA’s reach over judicial-foreclosure collection of HOA debt.

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 / citation893 F.3d 680 (9th Cir. 2018) (No. 15-17383)
Court / tribunalFederal Court
Decision / key dateJune 25, 2018
Judge / panelJanet Bond Arterton (opinion author, D. Conn., sitting by designation), Jay S. Bybee, Michelle T. Friedland
PartiesMartha A. McNair (Plaintiff-Appellant, a Gilbert homeowner) v. Maxwell & Morgan PC and its principals Charles E. Maxwell and W. William Nikolaus (Defendants-Appellees, the HOA collection law firm for the Neely Commons Community Association).
Governing law
  • 15 U.S.C. § 1692e (FDCPA — false or misleading representations)
  • 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A) (false representation of the character, amount, or legal status of a debt)
  • 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5)-(6) (FDCPA definitions of ‘debt’ and ‘debt collector’)
  • 15 U.S.C. § 1692k (FDCPA civil liability and damages)
  • A.R.S. § 12-1551(A) (writ of execution to enforce a judgment)
  • A.R.S. §§ 33-727, 33-729 (judgment liens, foreclosure, and deficiency judgments)
  • Ariz. R. Civ. P. 54(g) (post-judgment attorneys’ fees by motion)
Topics
FDCPAAssessmentsForeclosureAttorney FeesLiensCC&Rs
Outcome / holding

Collecting delinquent homeowner-association assessments through a judicial foreclosure that permits deficiency judgments constitutes “debt collection” under the FDCPA, distinguishing Ho v. ReconTrust Co.; and a debt collector’s filing of a writ of special execution that implicitly represents unapproved “accruing” attorneys’ fees as already court-approved falsely states the legal status of the debt in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A). The Ninth Circuit reversed summary judgment for the defendants on that claim and remanded for a determination of damages, while affirming the remaining claims in a concurrently filed memorandum disposition.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package1 PDF
Step-by-step docket roadmap10 roadmap entries
Video overviewMcNair v. Maxwell & Morgan, PC
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions6 questions
Curated download aliases1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Martha McNair bought a home in Gilbert, Arizona in 2004 that was part of the Neely Commons Community Association, obligating her under a recorded declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) to pay an annual assessment in monthly installments. After she fell behind, the law firm Maxwell & Morgan P.C. — retained by the Association — pursued her through a series of collection lawsuits, a stipulated judgment, and ultimately a judicial foreclosure that sold her home. McNair then sued the firm and its principals under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), alleging they misrepresented the amount she owed and sought attorneys’ fees to which they were not entitled. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding most claims time-barred and rejecting the timely claims — reasoning in part that pursuing a foreclosure was not “debt collection” and that the state court had implicitly approved the fees. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. Distinguishing Ho v. ReconTrust Co. (a non-judicial foreclosure case), the panel held that collecting HOA assessments through a judicial foreclosure that allows deficiency judgments is “debt collection” subject to the FDCPA. It further held that the firm’s writ of special execution violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e by falsely representing the legal status of $1,597.50 in “accruing” attorneys’ fees as court-approved when no court had yet approved them. The panel remanded for a determination of statutory and any actual damages, and a concurrently filed memorandum disposition affirmed the remaining, largely untimely claims.

Key Issues & Findings

The panel addressed the two independent grounds on which the district court had granted summary judgment. First, the district court had held that the defendants were not engaged in “debt collection” because the writ was filed to foreclose on a lien. The Ninth Circuit rejected that reasoning as irreconcilable with the statutory text. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5), a “debt” is an obligation to pay money arising out of a transaction primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, and under § 1692a(6) a “debt collector” is anyone who regularly collects debts owed to another. McNair’s obligation arose from unpaid homeowner-association assessments on her residence, so it plainly qualified as consumer debt, and the firm plainly qualified as a debt collector. The court cited Mashiri v. Epsten Grinnell & Howell, 845 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2017), and Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291 (1995), for the settled rule that attorneys who regularly engage in consumer-debt collection are covered by the Act even when that activity consists of litigation.

The court then distinguished Ho v. ReconTrust Co., NA, 858 F.3d 568 (9th Cir. 2017), on which the defendants relied. Ho held that a trustee facilitating a non-judicial foreclosure was not collecting a “debt” because, under California law, such a foreclosure cannot yield a deficiency judgment and thus extinguishes the entire debt regardless of the sale price — the object being to retake and resell the security, not to collect money from the borrower. Here, by contrast, the defendants pursued a judicial foreclosure under a scheme that, in many cases, permits deficiency judgments, citing A.R.S. §§ 33-727(A) and 33-729(B)-(C). That difference placed the firm’s conduct squarely within the FDCPA’s definition of debt collection.

Second, the district court had held, in the alternative, that the writ did not violate the Act because the Maricopa County Superior Court had implicitly approved the claimed fees by issuing the writ and later rejecting McNair’s challenges. The panel found this analysis failed to ask the right question: whether the defendants were legally entitled to claim the fees at the time they applied for the writ. The FDCPA bars any false or misleading representation of the character, amount, or legal status of a debt, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A). Under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 54(g), post-judgment attorneys’ fees must be requested by motion, and when the November 5, 2013 writ was filed, no court had yet approved the quantification of the $1,597.50 in “accruing” fees. By listing those fees as “now … due,” the writ falsely represented that they had already been judicially approved. The court cited Woliansky v. Miller and Costa v. Maxwell & Morgan PC for the point that fee amounts are set by the court’s discretion. Because the district court had not reached damages, the panel remanded for a determination of statutory and, if applicable, actual damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k, noting McNair might have suffered no actual damages given the Superior Court’s later approval of the fees.

Why It Matters

This published Ninth Circuit decision is significant for homeowners, associations, and the law firms that collect HOA debt because it confirms that the FDCPA applies to judicial-foreclosure collection of delinquent assessments. Many collectors had read Ho v. ReconTrust to mean that any foreclosure is outside the Act. McNair narrows Ho to its facts: the exemption turns on whether the foreclosure scheme can produce a deficiency judgment. Because Arizona’s judicial-foreclosure process can, a firm that collects assessments through it is a “debt collector” pursuing a “debt” and must comply with the FDCPA’s prohibitions on false or misleading representations.

The decision also draws a practical line for how collectors may present attorneys’ fees in enforcement papers. Listing “accruing” fees as presently due in a writ of special execution — before any court has approved that amount under Arizona Rule 54(g) — can be an actionable misrepresentation of the debt’s legal status, even if a court later blesses the same fees. For homeowners, McNair confirms a federal remedy (including statutory damages) against overreaching collection conduct; for associations and their counsel, it is a reminder to secure judicial approval before characterizing post-judgment fees as owed. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in 2019, leaving the ruling in force within the Ninth Circuit.

← Back to Federal Court cases

McDowell Mountain Ranch Community Association, Inc. v. James F. Simons: HOA Court Case Guide

Posted on by

Attorneys’ Fees | A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A) | 1 CA-CV 05-0296

Division One holds that a CC&R “all attorney fees” provision is an enforceable contract: the association recovers its full, properly documented fees unless the objecting owner proves specific amounts are clearly excessive.

Last updated July 1, 2026. Case: McDowell Mountain Ranch Community Association, Inc. v. James F. Simons; 216 Ariz. 266, 165 P.3d 667 (App. 2007).

Scope note: This educational case page summarizes a court ruling for Arizona HOA homeowners, boards, and counsel. It is not legal advice.

The rule in one sentence

Because a homeowners association’s CC&Rs are a contract, a trial court must enforce a provision entitling the association to “all” attorney fees incurred in enforcement and lacks discretion to reduce a prevailing association’s fee award except as to fees that are clearly or “obviously” excessive. Once the association makes a prima facie showing of its fees under Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, the objecting owner bears the burden of proving that the requested fees are clearly excessive. The trial court’s unexplained 50% reduction, entered without any finding of excessiveness and without the hearing the owner requested, was not supported by the record, so the fee award was vacated and remanded.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • McDowell Mountain Ranch Community Association, Inc. (Appellant)
    Arizona nonprofit corporation and homeowners association; plaintiff below. Sued Simons to enforce the CC&Rs’ architectural-approval requirement and appealed the trial court’s 50% reduction of its contractual attorneys’ fees.
  • Scott B. Carpenter (Counsel)
    Carpenter Hazlewood, PLC
    Attorney for plaintiff/appellant McDowell Mountain Ranch Community Association, Inc. (Tempe).
  • Jeffrey B. Corben (Counsel)
    Carpenter Hazlewood, PLC
    Attorney for plaintiff/appellant McDowell Mountain Ranch Community Association, Inc. (Tempe).
  • J. Roger Wood (Counsel)
    Carpenter Hazlewood, PLC
    Attorney for plaintiff/appellant McDowell Mountain Ranch Community Association, Inc. (Tempe).

Respondent Side

  • James F. Simons (Appellee)
    Homeowner and defendant below; appeared in propria persona (self-represented). Objected to the fee request and filed no answering brief on appeal. (Caption spells the name James F. Simons; the head matter spells it James P. Simons.)
  • James F. Simons (Counsel)
    In Propria Persona
    Appeared in propria persona (self-represented) for defendant/appellee (Scottsdale).

Neutral Parties

  • Philip Hall (Judge)
    Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, Department D
    Authored the majority opinion.
  • Sheldon H. Weisberg (Judge)
    Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, Department D
    Presiding Judge; concurred in the majority opinion.
  • Patricia A. Orozco (Judge)
    Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, Department D
    Dissented; would have affirmed the trial court’s award as an implicit finding that the fees were excessive.
  • The Honorable Rebecca A. Albrecht (Judge)
    Maricopa County Superior Court
    Trial judge who reduced the fee award to $4,000 (identified in the opinion’s record notes).

What happened and why it matters

McDowell Mountain Ranch Community Association, an Arizona nonprofit homeowners association in Scottsdale, sued homeowner James F. Simons in January 2004 for injunctive relief after he began a construction project at the rear of his home without the architectural approval his community’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) required. Simons did not answer the complaint or appear at the injunction hearings; the trial court entered a permanent injunction, and the association pursued contempt proceedings until Simons began moving toward compliance. The association then sought its attorneys’ fees under CC&R Article XV, Section 15.14, which obligated an offending owner to pay “all attorney fees and court costs incurred” by the association in enforcing the CC&Rs, and it requested $8,000 in fees plus costs. Without holding the hearing Simons had asked for, the trial court crossed out the requested figure and awarded only $4,000, giving no explanation. On appeal, Division One held that CC&Rs are a contract and that a court generally must enforce a contractual fee provision, reducing the amount only where the fees are clearly or “obviously” excessive—a showing the objecting owner bears the burden to make. Finding no record support for the 50% reduction, the court vacated the fee award and remanded. Judge Orozco dissented.

The Court of Appeals began from the settled principle that a community’s CC&Rs “constitute a contract between the subdivision’s property owners as a whole and individual lot owners” (Ahwatukee Custom Estates Mgmt. Ass’n v. Turner). It distinguished contractual fee provisions from the discretionary fee statute, A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A): unlike statutory fees, a court “lacks discretion to refuse to award fees under a contractual provision” (Chase Bank of Ariz. v. Acosta), and contracts for the payment of attorneys’ fees are enforced according to their terms (Heritage Heights Home Owners Ass’n v. Esser). In Heritage Heights, the court had held that a homeowner became contractually bound to a deed provision requiring the offending owner to pay all attorneys’ fees and costs the enforcing party incurred, and that recovery of all such fees, including on appeal, had to be granted.

The court then recognized a limit drawn from Elson Development Co. v. Arizona Savings & Loan Ass’n: a contractual fee provision is “binding only to the extent that it is reasonable,” but “where the services have been rendered, and the amount stipulated is not obviously excessive, the stipulation as to the amount should govern.” Reading Section 15.14 as closer to the “all fees” language of Heritage Heights than to the fixed percentage in Elson, the court held that the association was entitled to all of its fees except those that are obviously or clearly excessive. Surveying decisions from other jurisdictions, it adopted the rule that fees fixed by a fee-shifting contract are presumptively reasonable and that the party challenging them bears the burden of proving excessiveness. Because the association had submitted two fee applications satisfying Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, it made a prima facie showing, and the burden shifted to Simons to demonstrate that the requested fees were clearly excessive.

Applying those rules, the court found the trial court had erred. By cutting the request in half without explanation—and without holding the hearing Simons requested—the trial court appeared to have placed the burden of proving reasonableness on the association and to have exercised the broad discretion that applies to statutory fee awards under A.R.S. § 12-341.01 and § 12-2030. That discretion is more narrowly circumscribed when the parties have contractually agreed that the prevailing party recovers all of its fees. The record did not support a determination that 50% of the association’s fees were clearly excessive, so the award was vacated. On remand, the trial court may hold a hearing to consider any evidence Simons offers and then award all fees properly incurred except those it expressly finds clearly excessive (noting that a $200 charge for a demand letter about an unrelated recreational-vehicle violation not pleaded in the complaint should be subtracted). The court also awarded the association its fees and costs on appeal under the CC&Rs and A.R.S. § 12-342, upon compliance with Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 21.

For Arizona homeowners associations and the owners they regulate, this published opinion clarifies how much control a trial court has over attorneys’ fees when the governing documents contain an “all fees” enforcement clause. The court treats such CC&R provisions as an enforceable contract: if the association prevails and documents its fees properly, it is presumptively entitled to the full amount, and the court may not simply trim the request as it might under the discretionary fee statute. The practical effect is that the burden shifts to the objecting owner, who must come forward with evidence that specific fees are clearly or obviously excessive rather than relying on the court to police reasonableness on its own.

At the same time, the decision is not a blank check for associations. Fees must still be documented in a proper China Doll application, work unrelated to the pleaded violations can be excluded (as with the $200 recreational-vehicle demand letter here), and an owner who requests a hearing on excessiveness is generally entitled to be heard before the court rules. The opinion also drew a dissent from Judge Orozco, who read Heritage Heights and Elson to preserve the trial court’s duty to assess reasonableness and who would have affirmed the 50% reduction as an implicit finding that the fees were excessive—illustrating that the scope of judicial review over contractual fee awards remained genuinely contested.

Step-by-step litigation record

Step 2004-01-20 Association filed a complaint against Simons for injunctive relief, alleging he began rear construction without required architectural approval, and requested attorneys’ fees and an order to show cause.
Step 2004-02-05 Return hearing; Simons did not appear. The court set a three-hour evidentiary hearing on the preliminary injunction for April 9, 2004.
Step 2004-04-06 Three days before the April 9 hearing, the association moved to continue after Simons began compliance work; the hearing was continued to June 11, 2004.
Step 2004-06-11 Simons did not appear; the association reported the restoration was incomplete; after a brief evidentiary hearing the trial court entered a permanent injunction.
After Simons failed to answer, the association applied for entry of default and for attorneys’ fees of $5,683.50 under CC&R Article XV, Section 15.14.
Step 2004-09-01 Association filed a Request for Sanctions and for an Order to Show Cause, asserting Simons had failed to comply with the permanent injunction.
Step 2004-09-29 Contempt-related hearing; Simons appeared, and the association reported he was attempting to come into compliance.
Step 2005-03-01 Association moved to vacate the scheduled contempt hearing, lodged a final judgment, and supplemented its fee application to $8,000 in fees plus $538.80 in costs.
Step 2005-03-03 Association lodged a proposed Judgment for $8,000 in fees and $538.80 in costs; the court set March 23, 2005 as Simons’s deadline to object.
Step 2005-03-24 The court received Simons’s letter objecting to the fee request and asking for a hearing to present evidence the fees were excessive.
Step 2005-03-28 Association moved for summary disposition based on Simons’s failure to object by the March 23 deadline.
Step 2005-04-05 Association replied, denying the alleged verbal communications and raising its fee request to $8,380.80 without supplementing its affidavit.
Without holding a hearing, the trial court awarded the association $4,000 by crossing out the “8” in $8,000 and handwriting a “4.” The association appealed.
Step 2007-08-10 The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, vacated the partial fee award and remanded; Presiding Judge Weisberg concurred and Judge Orozco dissented.

FAQ

What was this dispute about?

McDowell Mountain Ranch Community Association sued homeowner James F. Simons for injunctive relief after he began a construction project at the rear of his home without the architectural approval the community’s CC&Rs required. After obtaining a permanent injunction and pursuing contempt proceedings, the association sought its attorneys’ fees under the CC&Rs. The only issue on appeal was whether the trial court could award the association just half of the fees it requested.

What did the CC&Rs say about attorneys’ fees?

Article XV, Section 15.14 of the Declaration provided that when the association employs an attorney to enforce compliance with the CC&Rs, the offending owner “shall pay to the Association, upon demand, all attorney fees and court costs incurred by the Association, whether or not suit is filed.” The court treated this as an enforceable contractual fee-shifting provision rather than a discretionary statutory fee request.

Can a trial court reduce a fee award that CC&Rs require?

Only in limited circumstances. Because CC&Rs are a contract, the court held that a trial court generally must enforce an “all fees” provision and cannot trim the award as it could under the discretionary fee statute (A.R.S. § 12-341.01). The one exception, drawn from Elson Development Co. v. Arizona Savings & Loan Ass’n, is that fees that are clearly or “obviously” excessive need not be awarded.

Who has the burden to prove the fees are excessive?

The objecting owner. Once the association submits a proper fee application under Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, it establishes a prima facie entitlement to the amount requested. The burden then shifts to the owner to show that specific fees are clearly excessive. If the owner does not make that showing, the association is entitled to its full fees.

Why did the Court of Appeals vacate the 50% reduction?

The trial court cut the request from $8,000 to $4,000 without explanation and without holding the hearing Simons had requested. That approach suggested the court had wrongly placed the burden of proving reasonableness on the association and exercised the broad discretion that applies to statutory fees. Because nothing in the record supported a finding that half the fees were clearly excessive, the appeals court vacated the award and remanded for a proper determination.

Is this decision binding precedent, and was it unanimous?

Yes, it is a published, precedential opinion of the Arizona Court of Appeals (216 Ariz. 266, 165 P.3d 667). It was not unanimous: Presiding Judge Weisberg concurred, but Judge Orozco dissented, reasoning that reasonableness is implied in every fee provision and that the trial court’s decision to halve the fees was itself an implicit finding of excessiveness that should have been affirmed.

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 / citation216 Ariz. 266, 165 P.3d 667 (App. 2007)
Court / tribunalCourt of Appeals
Decision / key dateAugust 10, 2007
Judge / panelPhilip Hall (author, majority), Sheldon H. Weisberg (Presiding Judge, concurring), Patricia A. Orozco (dissenting)
PartiesMcDowell Mountain Ranch Community Association, Inc. (plaintiff/appellant) v. James F. Simons (defendant/appellee, self-represented)
Governing law
  • A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A)
  • A.R.S. § 12-2030
  • A.R.S. § 12-342
  • A.R.S. § 12-2101(B), (F)
Topics
Attorney FeesCC&RsArchitectural ReviewProcedure
Outcome / holding

Because a homeowners association’s CC&Rs are a contract, a trial court must enforce a provision entitling the association to “all” attorney fees incurred in enforcement and lacks discretion to reduce a prevailing association’s fee award except as to fees that are clearly or “obviously” excessive. Once the association makes a prima facie showing of its fees under Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, the objecting owner bears the burden of proving that the requested fees are clearly excessive. The trial court’s unexplained 50% reduction, entered without any finding of excessiveness and without the hearing the owner requested, was not supported by the record, so the fee award was vacated and remanded.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source packageNo raw source-folder files found for this slug
Step-by-step docket roadmap14 roadmap entries
Video overviewNo video embed currently configured
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions6 questions
Curated download aliases0 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

McDowell Mountain Ranch Community Association, an Arizona nonprofit homeowners association in Scottsdale, sued homeowner James F. Simons in January 2004 for injunctive relief after he began a construction project at the rear of his home without the architectural approval his community’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) required. Simons did not answer the complaint or appear at the injunction hearings; the trial court entered a permanent injunction, and the association pursued contempt proceedings until Simons began moving toward compliance. The association then sought its attorneys’ fees under CC&R Article XV, Section 15.14, which obligated an offending owner to pay “all attorney fees and court costs incurred” by the association in enforcing the CC&Rs, and it requested $8,000 in fees plus costs. Without holding the hearing Simons had asked for, the trial court crossed out the requested figure and awarded only $4,000, giving no explanation. On appeal, Division One held that CC&Rs are a contract and that a court generally must enforce a contractual fee provision, reducing the amount only where the fees are clearly or “obviously” excessive—a showing the objecting owner bears the burden to make. Finding no record support for the 50% reduction, the court vacated the fee award and remanded. Judge Orozco dissented.

Key Issues & Findings

The Court of Appeals began from the settled principle that a community’s CC&Rs “constitute a contract between the subdivision’s property owners as a whole and individual lot owners” (Ahwatukee Custom Estates Mgmt. Ass’n v. Turner). It distinguished contractual fee provisions from the discretionary fee statute, A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A): unlike statutory fees, a court “lacks discretion to refuse to award fees under a contractual provision” (Chase Bank of Ariz. v. Acosta), and contracts for the payment of attorneys’ fees are enforced according to their terms (Heritage Heights Home Owners Ass’n v. Esser). In Heritage Heights, the court had held that a homeowner became contractually bound to a deed provision requiring the offending owner to pay all attorneys’ fees and costs the enforcing party incurred, and that recovery of all such fees, including on appeal, had to be granted.

The court then recognized a limit drawn from Elson Development Co. v. Arizona Savings & Loan Ass’n: a contractual fee provision is “binding only to the extent that it is reasonable,” but “where the services have been rendered, and the amount stipulated is not obviously excessive, the stipulation as to the amount should govern.” Reading Section 15.14 as closer to the “all fees” language of Heritage Heights than to the fixed percentage in Elson, the court held that the association was entitled to all of its fees except those that are obviously or clearly excessive. Surveying decisions from other jurisdictions, it adopted the rule that fees fixed by a fee-shifting contract are presumptively reasonable and that the party challenging them bears the burden of proving excessiveness. Because the association had submitted two fee applications satisfying Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, it made a prima facie showing, and the burden shifted to Simons to demonstrate that the requested fees were clearly excessive.

Applying those rules, the court found the trial court had erred. By cutting the request in half without explanation—and without holding the hearing Simons requested—the trial court appeared to have placed the burden of proving reasonableness on the association and to have exercised the broad discretion that applies to statutory fee awards under A.R.S. § 12-341.01 and § 12-2030. That discretion is more narrowly circumscribed when the parties have contractually agreed that the prevailing party recovers all of its fees. The record did not support a determination that 50% of the association’s fees were clearly excessive, so the award was vacated. On remand, the trial court may hold a hearing to consider any evidence Simons offers and then award all fees properly incurred except those it expressly finds clearly excessive (noting that a $200 charge for a demand letter about an unrelated recreational-vehicle violation not pleaded in the complaint should be subtracted). The court also awarded the association its fees and costs on appeal under the CC&Rs and A.R.S. § 12-342, upon compliance with Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 21.

Why It Matters

For Arizona homeowners associations and the owners they regulate, this published opinion clarifies how much control a trial court has over attorneys’ fees when the governing documents contain an “all fees” enforcement clause. The court treats such CC&R provisions as an enforceable contract: if the association prevails and documents its fees properly, it is presumptively entitled to the full amount, and the court may not simply trim the request as it might under the discretionary fee statute. The practical effect is that the burden shifts to the objecting owner, who must come forward with evidence that specific fees are clearly or obviously excessive rather than relying on the court to police reasonableness on its own.

At the same time, the decision is not a blank check for associations. Fees must still be documented in a proper China Doll application, work unrelated to the pleaded violations can be excluded (as with the $200 recreational-vehicle demand letter here), and an owner who requests a hearing on excessiveness is generally entitled to be heard before the court rules. The opinion also drew a dissent from Judge Orozco, who read Heritage Heights and Elson to preserve the trial court’s duty to assess reasonableness and who would have affirmed the 50% reduction as an implicit finding that the fees were excessive—illustrating that the scope of judicial review over contractual fee awards remained genuinely contested.

← Back to Court of Appeals cases

Cheryl Marie McCoy, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Leslie Johnson, Defendant/Appellee: HOA Court Case Guide

Posted on by

Defamation & HOA Elections | A.R.S. § 33-1804 | 1 CA-CV 21-0676

How Arizona treats HOA board members who sue critics over election-related statements — and why they must plead actual malice as limited-purpose public figures.

Last updated July 1, 2026. Case: Cheryl Marie McCoy, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Leslie Johnson, Defendant/Appellee; 1 CA-CV 21-0676; CV2020-010557.

Download the ruling PDF

Scope note: This educational case page summarizes a court ruling for Arizona HOA homeowners, boards, and counsel. It is not legal advice.

The rule in one sentence

Members and candidates of a large homeowners’ association’s board are limited-purpose public figures for defamation and false light purposes as to statements about their board service and HOA elections, so they must plead and prove actual malice. Because the plaintiffs failed to plead actual malice, and because limited-purpose public figures cannot maintain false light claims arising from their public duties, the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal was affirmed.

Case Participants

Neutral Parties

  • Cheryl Marie McCoy (“Cher”) (Plaintiff/Appellant)
    Former Val Vista Lakes Community Association Board president; brought defamation and false light claims against Leslie Johnson.
  • Marcianne Johnson (“Marci”) (Plaintiff/Appellant)
    Val Vista Lakes Board member re-elected in November 2019 and chosen as Board president; removed in the June 2020 recall election.
  • Melissa Wilson (Scovel) (“Melissa”) (Plaintiff/Appellant)
    Val Vista Lakes Board member and former Board president; removed in the June 2020 recall election.
  • Leslie Johnson (Defendant/Appellee)
    Fellow Val Vista Lakes Association member who authored the challenged social-media posts and meeting comment.
  • Val Vista Lakes Community Association (Non-party association)
    The approximately 2,280-member Gilbert, Arizona homeowners’ association whose board and elections were the subject of the challenged statements; not a party to the suit.
  • Bradley R. Jardine (Counsel)
    Jardine, Baker, Hickman & Houston, P.L.L.C.
    Co-counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants.
  • Michael Warzynski (Counsel)
    Jardine, Baker, Hickman & Houston, P.L.L.C.
    Co-counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants.
  • Venessa J. Bragg (Counsel)
    Elardo, Bragg, Rossi & Palumbo, P.C.
    Co-counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants.
  • Nathan Brown (Counsel)
    Brown Patent Law
    Counsel for Defendant/Appellee Leslie Johnson.
  • Cynthia J. Bailey (Judge)
    Court of Appeals judge; authored the memorandum decision.
  • Samuel A. Thumma (Judge)
    Presiding Judge on the Court of Appeals panel.
  • David B. Gass (Judge)
    Vice Chief Judge on the Court of Appeals panel.
  • Andrew J. Russell (Judge)
    Maricopa County Superior Court judge who dismissed the complaint below.

What happened and why it matters

Three current or former members of the Val Vista Lakes Community Association Board — Cheryl “Cher” McCoy, Marcianne “Marci” Johnson, and Melissa Wilson (Scovel) — sued a fellow homeowner, Leslie Johnson, for defamation and false light invasion of privacy over social-media posts and a comment at an August 2020 board meeting. The challenged statements accused board members affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) of religiously motivated favoritism in selecting the board’s management committee (calling applicants “LDS hand-picked”) and questioned board members’ religion around the November 2019 board election and the June 2020 recall election that removed Marci and Melissa. The Maricopa County Superior Court dismissed the claims under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), holding the plaintiffs were limited-purpose public figures by reason of their board service and that the statements were non-actionable opinion. On appeal, Division One affirmed. It reasoned that the boards of large homeowners’ associations perform quasi-governmental functions and that their activities are matters of public concern to the community — reinforced by the Planned Communities Act’s open-meeting policy in A.R.S. § 33-1804 — so board members and candidates who inject themselves into HOA elections are limited-purpose public figures who must plead and prove actual malice. Because the plaintiffs failed to plead actual malice, and because limited-purpose public figures cannot maintain false light claims arising from their public duties, the court affirmed dismissal of both claims and denied Johnson’s unsupported request for appellate attorneys’ fees.

Reviewing the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal de novo, the Court of Appeals began with the settled rule that a court may decide as a matter of law whether a person is a public figure. Persons may be deemed public figures based on their positions, their purposeful activity in thrusting themselves into matters of public controversy, or their close involvement with the resolution of matters of public concern, and a person may become a limited-purpose public figure by voluntarily injecting themselves into, or being drawn into, a particular public controversy. Although Arizona courts had not decided in a written opinion whether board members of a large homeowners’ association can be limited-purpose public figures, the court found persuasive out-of-state authority holding that they can (Cabrera, Metge, Gulrajaney, Verna, and Martin). The superior court had relied on Verna, which viewed an association board position as essentially indistinguishable from membership on a town’s governing body because the board performs many quasi-municipal functions.

Applying that framework, the court observed that all three plaintiffs had been board candidates, had served on the Board, and had served as Board president at one time or another, so they either voluntarily injected themselves or were drawn into matters of concern to the Val Vista Lakes community. The court rejected the argument that a private association cannot produce public figures, citing Agar and Gulrajaney, and rejected the contention that plaintiffs did not start the “conversation” about their religion, explaining that voluntarily engaging in activity calculated to invite public scrutiny is enough. It also rejected the argument that the open-meeting provision of the Planned Communities Act shows HOAs are not governmental: the policy statement in A.R.S. § 33-1804(F) — that meetings be conducted openly and members be able to speak after discussion of agenda items — strongly suggests that board activities and decisions are matters of public concern. The court distinguished private business boards because the legislature extended First Amendment-type protections to HOA members (A.R.S. §§ 33-1804, -1808).

Because the plaintiffs were limited-purpose public figures, the false light claim failed under Godbehere, which bars such claims that relate to the performance of public duties; plaintiffs did not dispute that the statements related to their board service. On defamation, a public-figure plaintiff must plead and prove actual malice, and conclusory characterizations without supporting factual specificity fail Arizona’s notice-pleading standard, especially in defamation actions (BLK III; Cullen). Plaintiffs conceded two of the three statements were not actionable, and the remaining “LDS hand-picked” post was not in the record and was not pleaded with the specificity needed to show it made a verifiable factual assertion about Marci or Melissa. The court therefore affirmed the dismissal and denied Johnson’s request for appellate attorneys’ fees because she cited no legal basis for the award.

This memorandum decision addresses a recurring tension in community-association life: robust, sometimes bitter, debate about board elections and governance can collide with individual board members’ desire to protect their reputations. By treating board members and candidates of a large HOA as limited-purpose public figures, the court placed HOA electoral speech on a footing similar to speech about local government, requiring a defamation plaintiff to plead and prove actual malice and barring false light claims tied to public duties. In practice, that raises the pleading bar substantially for board members who sue critics over election-related statements, and it protects members’ ability to comment publicly on candidates and board decisions.

The decision also underscores how Arizona’s Planned Communities Act frames HOA governance as a matter of community-wide public concern. The court read the open-meeting policy of A.R.S. § 33-1804 (with A.R.S. § 33-1808) as evidence that board activities are open, participatory, and quasi-governmental, distinguishing HOA boards from ordinary private business boards. Because this is an unpublished memorandum decision under Arizona Rule of the Supreme Court 111(c), it is not precedential and may be cited only as authorized by rule; even so, it illustrates how Arizona courts are likely to analyze defamation and false light claims arising from HOA elections, recall campaigns, and board management decisions. A separately docketed memorandum decision arising from the same community, McCoy v. Hassen, 1 CA-CV 21-0524, addresses related disputes.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Cheryl Marie McCoy, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Leslie Johnson, Defendant/Appellee (1 CA-CV 21-0676). Members and candidates of a large homeowners’ association’s board are limited-purpose public figures for defamation… This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own ruling controls.

Listen: audio deep dive on the ruling

An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the court’s reasoning and disposition in Cheryl Marie McCoy, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Leslie Johnson, Defendant/Appellee. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

Audio overview generated with Google NotebookLM from the case’s court filings.

Step-by-step litigation record

Step 2019 Before the November 2019 board election, Leslie Johnson allegedly published a social-media post inquiring about people’s religion and implying religious belief was affecting their actions.
Step 2019-11 The Association held its regular Board election; Melissa and Marci were re-elected, and Marci was chosen to serve as Board president.
Step 2020-06 A recall election removed Marci and Melissa from the Board.
Step 2020 After the recall, Leslie allegedly posted on social media that management-committee applicants were “LDS hand-picked” by LDS-affiliated board members.
Step 2020-08 At an August 2020 Board meeting, Leslie allegedly yelled a comment referencing a director’s religion (“Because you’re a MORMON . . .”) while director Dustin Snow was answering a question.
Step 2020 Shortly after the August 2020 meeting, plaintiffs sued Leslie and other defendants in Maricopa County Superior Court (No. CV2020-010557), alleging defamation, false light, intentional infliction of emotional distress, private nuisance, and a Fair Housing Act claim later conceded.
Several defendants, including Leslie, moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); plaintiffs filed a written response and Leslie filed no reply.
Forty-five days after plaintiffs’ response, the superior court granted most of the motions, including Leslie’s, finding plaintiffs were limited-purpose public figures and the statements non-actionable opinion, and dismissing the false light and emotional-distress claims.
The superior court entered a final Rule 54(b) judgment dismissing the complaint against Leslie; plaintiffs appealed, and co-defendant James Rosebrough was removed from the appeal by stipulation.
Step 2022-12-08 The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, issued its memorandum decision affirming the dismissal and denying Leslie’s request for appellate attorneys’ fees.

Complete uploaded source-document index

This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/mccoy-v-johnson/raw/: 1 PDF. 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.

Source 1 2022-12-08

Opinion

Type: Decision or judgment

Opinion holding that HOA board members and candidates were limited-purpose public figures for defamation purposes, so the plaintiffs had to plead and prove actual malice.

Download source file
2022-12-08_001_opinion.pdf

FAQ

What was McCoy v. Johnson about?

Three current or former members of the Val Vista Lakes Community Association Board sued a fellow homeowner, Leslie Johnson, for defamation and false light invasion of privacy. The claims arose from social-media posts and a comment at an August 2020 board meeting that questioned board members’ religion and accused LDS-affiliated board members of favoring “LDS hand-picked” applicants for the board’s management committee, made around the November 2019 board election and the June 2020 recall election.

What is a “limited-purpose public figure,” and why did it matter?

A limited-purpose public figure is someone who voluntarily injects themselves into, or is drawn into, a particular public controversy. Such a plaintiff must prove “actual malice” — that the speaker knew a statement was false or recklessly disregarded its falsity — to win a defamation claim, and cannot bring a false light claim arising from the performance of their public duties. The court held the board members were limited-purpose public figures as to their board service and HOA elections.

Why did the court treat HOA board members like public figures?

The court relied on out-of-state authority (including the New Jersey Verna decision) holding that boards of large homeowners’ associations perform quasi-municipal functions, making board members comparable to members of a town’s governing body. Because the three plaintiffs had run for the board, served on it, and served as board president, the court found they had voluntarily entered matters of public concern to the roughly 2,280-member Val Vista Lakes community.

What role did the Planned Communities Act play?

The plaintiffs argued the Planned Communities Act’s open-meeting provision showed HOAs are not governmental. The court disagreed, reasoning that the policy statement in A.R.S. § 33-1804(F) — requiring meetings to be conducted openly and members to be able to speak after discussion of agenda items — strongly suggests board activities and decisions are matters of public concern. The court also noted the Legislature extended First Amendment-type protections to HOA members (A.R.S. §§ 33-1804, -1808), distinguishing HOA boards from private business boards.

Why were the defamation and false light claims dismissed?

Because the plaintiffs were limited-purpose public figures, their false light claim about their public duties was barred, and their defamation claim required pleading actual malice. The court found the complaint offered only conclusory characterizations of the statements. Plaintiffs conceded two of three statements were not actionable, and the remaining “LDS hand-picked” post was not in the record and was not pleaded with the specificity needed to show a verifiable factual assertion about the plaintiffs.

Is this decision binding precedent, and who represented the parties?

No. It is an unpublished memorandum decision under Arizona Rule of the Supreme Court 111(c), so it is not precedential and may be cited only as authorized by rule. The plaintiffs/appellants were represented by Bradley R. Jardine and Michael Warzynski of Jardine, Baker, Hickman & Houston, P.L.L.C., and by Venessa J. Bragg of Elardo, Bragg, Rossi & Palumbo, P.C. Leslie Johnson was represented by Nathan Brown of Brown Patent Law.

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 / citation1 CA-CV 21-0676
Court / tribunalCourt of Appeals
Decision / key dateDecember 8, 2022
Judge / panelCynthia J. Bailey, Samuel A. Thumma, David B. Gass
PartiesCheryl Marie McCoy, et al. (Plaintiffs/Appellants) v. Leslie Johnson (Defendant/Appellee)
Governing law
Topics
ElectionsProcedureOpen Meetings
Outcome / holding

Members and candidates of a large homeowners’ association’s board are limited-purpose public figures for defamation and false light purposes as to statements about their board service and HOA elections, so they must plead and prove actual malice. Because the plaintiffs failed to plead actual malice, and because limited-purpose public figures cannot maintain false light claims arising from their public duties, the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal was affirmed.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package1 PDF
Step-by-step docket roadmap10 roadmap entries
Video overviewCheryl Marie McCoy, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Leslie Johnson, Defendant/Appellee
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions6 questions
Curated download aliases1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Three current or former members of the Val Vista Lakes Community Association Board — Cheryl “Cher” McCoy, Marcianne “Marci” Johnson, and Melissa Wilson (Scovel) — sued a fellow homeowner, Leslie Johnson, for defamation and false light invasion of privacy over social-media posts and a comment at an August 2020 board meeting. The challenged statements accused board members affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) of religiously motivated favoritism in selecting the board’s management committee (calling applicants “LDS hand-picked”) and questioned board members’ religion around the November 2019 board election and the June 2020 recall election that removed Marci and Melissa. The Maricopa County Superior Court dismissed the claims under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), holding the plaintiffs were limited-purpose public figures by reason of their board service and that the statements were non-actionable opinion. On appeal, Division One affirmed. It reasoned that the boards of large homeowners’ associations perform quasi-governmental functions and that their activities are matters of public concern to the community — reinforced by the Planned Communities Act’s open-meeting policy in A.R.S. § 33-1804 — so board members and candidates who inject themselves into HOA elections are limited-purpose public figures who must plead and prove actual malice. Because the plaintiffs failed to plead actual malice, and because limited-purpose public figures cannot maintain false light claims arising from their public duties, the court affirmed dismissal of both claims and denied Johnson’s unsupported request for appellate attorneys’ fees.

Key Issues & Findings

Reviewing the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal de novo, the Court of Appeals began with the settled rule that a court may decide as a matter of law whether a person is a public figure. Persons may be deemed public figures based on their positions, their purposeful activity in thrusting themselves into matters of public controversy, or their close involvement with the resolution of matters of public concern, and a person may become a limited-purpose public figure by voluntarily injecting themselves into, or being drawn into, a particular public controversy. Although Arizona courts had not decided in a written opinion whether board members of a large homeowners’ association can be limited-purpose public figures, the court found persuasive out-of-state authority holding that they can (Cabrera, Metge, Gulrajaney, Verna, and Martin). The superior court had relied on Verna, which viewed an association board position as essentially indistinguishable from membership on a town’s governing body because the board performs many quasi-municipal functions.

Applying that framework, the court observed that all three plaintiffs had been board candidates, had served on the Board, and had served as Board president at one time or another, so they either voluntarily injected themselves or were drawn into matters of concern to the Val Vista Lakes community. The court rejected the argument that a private association cannot produce public figures, citing Agar and Gulrajaney, and rejected the contention that plaintiffs did not start the “conversation” about their religion, explaining that voluntarily engaging in activity calculated to invite public scrutiny is enough. It also rejected the argument that the open-meeting provision of the Planned Communities Act shows HOAs are not governmental: the policy statement in A.R.S. § 33-1804(F) — that meetings be conducted openly and members be able to speak after discussion of agenda items — strongly suggests that board activities and decisions are matters of public concern. The court distinguished private business boards because the legislature extended First Amendment-type protections to HOA members (A.R.S. §§ 33-1804, -1808).

Because the plaintiffs were limited-purpose public figures, the false light claim failed under Godbehere, which bars such claims that relate to the performance of public duties; plaintiffs did not dispute that the statements related to their board service. On defamation, a public-figure plaintiff must plead and prove actual malice, and conclusory characterizations without supporting factual specificity fail Arizona’s notice-pleading standard, especially in defamation actions (BLK III; Cullen). Plaintiffs conceded two of the three statements were not actionable, and the remaining “LDS hand-picked” post was not in the record and was not pleaded with the specificity needed to show it made a verifiable factual assertion about Marci or Melissa. The court therefore affirmed the dismissal and denied Johnson’s request for appellate attorneys’ fees because she cited no legal basis for the award.

Why It Matters

This memorandum decision addresses a recurring tension in community-association life: robust, sometimes bitter, debate about board elections and governance can collide with individual board members’ desire to protect their reputations. By treating board members and candidates of a large HOA as limited-purpose public figures, the court placed HOA electoral speech on a footing similar to speech about local government, requiring a defamation plaintiff to plead and prove actual malice and barring false light claims tied to public duties. In practice, that raises the pleading bar substantially for board members who sue critics over election-related statements, and it protects members’ ability to comment publicly on candidates and board decisions.

The decision also underscores how Arizona’s Planned Communities Act frames HOA governance as a matter of community-wide public concern. The court read the open-meeting policy of A.R.S. § 33-1804 (with A.R.S. § 33-1808) as evidence that board activities are open, participatory, and quasi-governmental, distinguishing HOA boards from ordinary private business boards. Because this is an unpublished memorandum decision under Arizona Rule of the Supreme Court 111(c), it is not precedential and may be cited only as authorized by rule; even so, it illustrates how Arizona courts are likely to analyze defamation and false light claims arising from HOA elections, recall campaigns, and board management decisions. A separately docketed memorandum decision arising from the same community, McCoy v. Hassen, 1 CA-CV 21-0524, addresses related disputes.

← Back to Court of Appeals cases

Cheryl Marie McCoy, et al. v. Ken Hassen, et al.: HOA Court Case Guide

Posted on by

Defamation & Public Figures | A.R.S. §§ 12-349, 41-1491.36 | 1 CA-CV 21-0524

Division One holds that presidents of a 2,280-member Arizona community association were limited-purpose public figures, so their defamation claims over a contested board recall required proof of actual malice.

Last updated July 1, 2026. Case: Cheryl Marie McCoy, et al. v. Ken Hassen, et al.; 1 CA-CV 21-0524; CV2020-010557.

Download the ruling PDF

Scope note: This educational case page summarizes a court ruling for Arizona HOA homeowners, boards, and counsel. It is not legal advice.

The rule in one sentence

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Because the plaintiff HOA board members and past presidents were limited-purpose public figures as to community and board matters, and because their complaint failed to plead actual malice and the challenged statements were largely non-actionable opinion, dismissal of the defamation and false-light claims under Rule 12(b)(6) was affirmed; but the superior court’s summary denial of the Kartageners’ request for attorneys’ fees, expenses, and sanctions under A.R.S. §§ 12-349 and 41-1491.36 was reversed and remanded for further consideration.

Case Participants

Neutral Parties

  • Cheryl Marie McCoy (Appellant)
    Former Val Vista Lakes Community Association Board member and past President; plaintiff/appellant/cross-appellee. Her husband, Todd McCoy, continued to serve on the Board.
  • Marcianne Johnson (Appellant)
    Former Val Vista Lakes Board member who became Board President after the November 2019 election and was removed in the June 2020 recall; plaintiff/appellant/cross-appellee.
  • Melissa Wilson (Scovel) (Appellant)
    Former Val Vista Lakes Board President, removed in the June 2020 recall; plaintiff/appellant/cross-appellee.
  • Ken Hassen (Appellee)
    Fellow community member and former Board member; his Rule 12(b)(6) motion was granted after the court found he expressed only opinions.
  • Henry Kartagener (Appellee / Cross-Appellant)
    Community member and defendant; cross-appellant who challenged the denial of the couple’s fees-and-sanctions request. The court found certain of his statements were non-actionable opinion.
  • Claire Kartagener (Appellee / Cross-Appellant)
    Community member and defendant; cross-appellant on the fees-and-sanctions request.
  • Sharon Maiden (Appellee)
    Community member and defendant; the court found her post-election ‘secret scheme’ comment was non-actionable and distinguishable from Tarter v. Bendt.
  • Wilbur Maiden (Appellee)
    Community member and defendant, sued as part of the Maiden marital community.
  • Samantha Kelley (Appellee)
    Community member and defendant whose motion to dismiss was granted.
  • William Suttell (Appellee)
    Former Board member and defendant, sued as part of the Kelley marital community.
  • Bradley R. Jardine (Counsel)
    Jardine, Baker, Hickman & Houston, P.L.L.C. (Phoenix)
    Co-counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants/Cross-Appellees.
  • Michael Warzynski (Counsel)
    Jardine, Baker, Hickman & Houston, P.L.L.C. (Phoenix)
    Co-counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants/Cross-Appellees.
  • Venessa J. Bragg (Counsel)
    Elardo, Bragg, Rossi & Palumbo, P.C. (Phoenix)
    Co-counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants/Cross-Appellees.
  • Andrew T. Apodaca (Counsel)
    Goering, Roberts, Rubin, Brogna, Enos & Treadwell-Ruben, P.C. (Tucson)
    Counsel for Defendants/Appellees Sharon and Wilbur Maiden.
  • Christopher L. Enos (Counsel)
    Goering, Roberts, Rubin, Brogna, Enos & Treadwell-Ruben, P.C. (Tucson)
    Counsel for Defendants/Appellees Sharon and Wilbur Maiden.
  • Maria Crimi Speth (Counsel)
    Jaburg & Wilk, P.C. (Phoenix)
    Counsel for Defendants/Appellees Samantha Kelley and William Suttell.
  • Aaron K. Haar (Counsel)
    Jaburg & Wilk, P.C. (Phoenix)
    Counsel for Defendants/Appellees Samantha Kelley and William Suttell.
  • Daniel Torrens (Counsel)
    Portmeirion Law Offices, PLLC (Phoenix)
    Co-counsel for Defendant/Appellee Ken Hassen.
  • Christopher Robbins (Counsel)
    Hill, Hall & DeCiancio, PLC (Phoenix)
    Co-counsel for Defendant/Appellee Ken Hassen.
  • R. Corey Hill (Counsel)
    Hill, Hall & DeCiancio, PLC (Phoenix)
    Co-counsel for Defendant/Appellee Ken Hassen.
  • Ginette M. Hill (Counsel)
    Hill, Hall & DeCiancio, PLC (Phoenix)
    Co-counsel for Defendant/Appellee Ken Hassen.
  • Michael E. Hensley (Counsel)
    Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C. (Phoenix)
    Counsel for Defendants/Appellees/Cross-Appellants Henry and Claire Kartagener.
  • John D. Lierman (Counsel)
    Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C. (Phoenix)
    Counsel for Defendants/Appellees/Cross-Appellants Henry and Claire Kartagener.
  • Elizabeth B. N. Garcia (Counsel)
    Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C. (Phoenix)
    Counsel for Defendants/Appellees/Cross-Appellants Henry and Claire Kartagener.
  • Cynthia J. Bailey (Judge)
    Presiding Judge, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One; authored the memorandum decision.
  • Peter B. Swann (Judge)
    Judge, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One; joined the decision.
  • D. Steven Williams (Judge)
    Judge, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One; joined the decision.
  • Joan M. Sinclair (Judge)
    Judge of the Maricopa County Superior Court who presided over the case below.
  • Andrew J. Russell (Judge)
    Judge of the Maricopa County Superior Court who presided over the case below.

What happened and why it matters

Three former board members and past presidents of the Val Vista Lakes Master-Planned Community Association in Gilbert, Arizona — Cheryl Marie McCoy, Marcianne Johnson, and Melissa Wilson (Scovel) — sued a group of fellow community members and former board members for defamation, false light invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, an Arizona Fair Housing Act violation, and private nuisance. Their claims arose from an online ‘hate and disinformation campaign’ surrounding a November 2019 board election and a June 2020 recall election that removed two of them from the Board. The Maricopa County Superior Court dismissed all counts under Rule 12(b)(6) and entered Rule 54(b) judgments. On appeal, the plaintiffs challenged only the dismissal of their defamation and false-light claims against Ken Hassen, the Kartageners, the Maidens, and Samantha Kelley (and her spouse William Suttell); the Kartageners cross-appealed the denial of their request for attorneys’ fees, expenses, and sanctions. Division One of the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissals, holding that because the plaintiffs had run for and held the presidency of an unusually large (2,280-member) community association, they were ‘limited purpose public figures’ who had to plead falsity and actual malice — which they failed to do — and that many of the challenged statements were non-actionable opinion or political speech about contested board elections. On the cross-appeal, the court held the superior court erred in summarily denying the Kartageners’ fee-and-sanctions request and remanded for reconsideration. Because it is an unpublished memorandum decision under Rule 111(c), it is not precedential.

Reviewing the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals de novo, the panel first rejected the plaintiffs’ procedural argument that the trial court should have converted the motions into summary judgment. Because the full text of the allegedly defamatory statements — which the defendants attached to their motions — was central to a complaint that otherwise offered only the plaintiffs’ own summaries, the court could consider those statements without conversion, consistent with Coleman v. City of Mesa and Strategic Development & Construction v. 7th & Roosevelt Partners.

The court then affirmed the threshold ruling that the plaintiffs were limited-purpose public figures. Each had not merely served on the Board but had run in elections for it and achieved the presidency of an unusually large association — the complaint alleged 2,280 members. Following the New Jersey decision Verna v. Links at Valleybrook Neighborhood Ass’n and decisions from California, Minnesota, and Wyoming, the court reasoned that HOA boards perform ‘quasi-municipal functions’ and that the Board’s composition was a matter of public concern to the community’s members. It rejected the argument that HOA governance is not of general public concern, explaining that protected speech need only concern matters interesting to ‘even a relatively small segment’ of the public, and it distinguished HOA boards from purely private boards because the legislature has extended First Amendment-type protections to association members through A.R.S. §§ 33-1804 and 33-1808. The court also found unavailing the plaintiffs’ reliance on the Planned Communities Act and their ‘private contract’ argument.

Because the plaintiffs were public figures, they had to prove — by clear and convincing evidence — falsity and actual malice under New York Times v. Sullivan, Gertz v. Robert Welch, and Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers. The complaint, consisting largely of conclusory characterizations rather than the actual statements, failed that heightened standard under BLK III, LLC v. Skelton. Independently, the court held the statements attached to the motions were non-actionable opinion or political speech about hotly contested board elections, incapable of being proven objectively true or false, and that many were not ‘of and concerning’ all three plaintiffs. It distinguished Tarter v. Bendt because Sharon Maiden’s comment about a ‘secret’ scheme referred to ‘ex-board members,’ not a secret Board meeting. The plaintiffs conceded that their false-light claims failed if they were public figures.

On the cross-appeal, reviewed de novo, the court held the superior court erred in summarily denying the Kartageners’ request for fees and sanctions. Under A.R.S. § 12-349 a court must assess reasonable fees and expenses (and may award limited double damages) against a party who brings a claim without substantial justification — meaning groundless and not made in good faith — proven by a preponderance of the evidence; under A.R.S. § 41-1491.36 a prevailing defendant may recover fees where the complaint was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation. The court found McCoy’s claims against the Kartageners had no factual basis and were groundless; the Fair Housing Act claim was frivolous and was not withdrawn as to the Kartageners for roughly five months; and the private-nuisance claim had no factual or legal basis. It declined to find Johnson’s and Wilson’s public-figure arguments irrational, and remanded for the trial court to reconsider the fee-and-sanctions request in light of the decision.

This memorandum decision is a clear Arizona illustration that people who run for and serve on a homeowners’ or community association board — especially as president of a large community — can be treated as ‘limited purpose public figures’ for defamation purposes. That status matters enormously: instead of the ordinary negligence standard available to private plaintiffs, a public-figure board member must plead and prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that a challenged statement was both false and made with ‘actual malice’ (knowledge of falsity or conscious disregard of the truth). Statements of opinion and political speech about contested board elections generally cannot support a defamation claim at all. For board members bruised by online campaigns and recall fights, the case signals that heated criticism of association leadership enjoys strong First Amendment protection.

The decision also underscores the fee-and-sanctions exposure that comes with filing thin defamation and related claims. The court reversed the trial court’s routine denial of the Kartageners’ request under A.R.S. §§ 12-349 and 41-1491.36, emphasizing that a claim brought without any factual basis — such as McCoy’s claims against the Kartageners, the unfounded Fair Housing Act count, and the novel private-nuisance theory — can be ‘groundless and not made in good faith,’ exposing the filing party to attorneys’ fees, expenses, and even limited sanctions. Community-association litigants and their counsel should note both the substantive hurdle (public-figure/actual-malice) and the downside risk (mandatory fee-shifting) before suing neighbors over election-season speech.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Cheryl Marie McCoy, et al. v. Ken Hassen, et al. (1 CA-CV 21-0524). Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own ruling controls.

Listen: audio deep dive on the ruling

An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the court’s reasoning and disposition in Cheryl Marie McCoy, et al. v. Ken Hassen, et al.. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

Audio overview generated with Google NotebookLM from the case’s court filings.

Step-by-step litigation record

Step 2019-11 A regularly scheduled Val Vista Lakes Board election is held; Dustin Snow and Dean Sanders join the Board, Ken Hassen leaves it, and Marcianne Johnson becomes Board President.
Step 2020-06 A recall election removes Johnson and Melissa Wilson (Scovel) from the Board, following an alleged online campaign against the plaintiffs.
Step 2020-08 McCoy, Johnson, and Wilson file suit in Maricopa County Superior Court (No. CV2020-010557) alleging defamation, false light, intentional infliction of emotional distress, an Arizona Fair Housing Act violation, and private nuisance.
Step 2020-11 Various defendants, including Kelley, the Kartageners, and the Maidens, begin filing and joining Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss, attaching the full allegedly defamatory statements.
Step 2021-01 In response to the Kartageners’ motion, plaintiffs agree to withdraw the Fair Housing Act claim as to the Kartageners — about five months after filing the complaint.
Step 2021-02 The superior court holds oral argument on the motions to dismiss; plaintiffs concede the Fair Housing Act claim may be dismissed without prejudice.
Step 2021-04 The court issues a minute entry granting the motions to dismiss for Kelley, the Kartageners, and the Maidens, finding plaintiffs are limited-purpose public figures and that certain statements were non-actionable opinion.
Step 2021 Hassen files a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, which the court grants; the Kartageners move for fees, expenses, and sanctions, which the court denies; the court enters separate Rule 54(b) judgments for each defendant.
Step 2022-08-30 The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, affirms the dismissals of the defamation and false-light claims, reverses the denial of the Kartageners’ fee-and-sanctions request, and remands.

Complete uploaded source-document index

This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/mccoy-v-hassen/raw/: 1 PDF. 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.

Source 1 2022-08-30

Opinion

Type: Decision or judgment

Opinion affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding the fair-housing and fee-sanctions dispute.

Download source file
2022-08-30_001_opinion.pdf

FAQ

What was McCoy v. Hassen about?

Three former board members and past presidents of the Val Vista Lakes Master-Planned Community Association in Gilbert, Arizona — Cheryl McCoy, Marcianne Johnson, and Melissa Wilson (Scovel) — sued a group of fellow community members and former board members. They alleged defamation, false light invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, an Arizona Fair Housing Act violation, and private nuisance stemming from an online ‘hate and disinformation campaign’ surrounding a November 2019 board election and a June 2020 recall election. The Association itself was not a named party — the litigants were its board members and residents.

Why were the HOA board members treated as ‘limited purpose public figures’?

The court held the plaintiffs did far more than simply sit on a board: each ran in elections for and achieved the presidency of an unusually large association of about 2,280 members. Citing decisions from New Jersey, California, Minnesota, and Wyoming, the court reasoned that HOA boards perform ‘quasi-municipal functions’ and that the Board’s composition is a matter of public concern to community members. By voluntarily injecting themselves into contested board elections, the plaintiffs became limited-purpose public figures for those issues.

What must a public-figure plaintiff prove in a defamation case?

Unlike a private plaintiff, a public official or public figure must prove — by clear and convincing evidence — that the challenged statement was false and was made with ‘actual malice,’ meaning the speaker knew it was false or acted with reckless (indeed conscious) disregard of its truth. The court found the plaintiffs’ complaint, which mostly offered their own summaries and conclusory characterizations rather than the actual statements, failed to meet that heightened standard.

Why did the defamation claims fail on the merits?

Beyond the pleading deficiency, the court held the statements attached to the motions to dismiss were largely non-actionable opinion or political speech about hotly contested board elections — statements incapable of being proven objectively true or false. Many statements also were not ‘of and concerning’ all three plaintiffs. The court distinguished Tarter v. Bendt, noting Sharon Maiden’s comment about a ‘secret’ scheme referred to ‘ex-board members,’ not a secret board meeting, and the plaintiffs conceded their false-light claims failed if they were public figures.

What happened on the Kartageners’ cross-appeal about attorneys’ fees?

The court reversed the superior court’s summary denial of the Kartageners’ request for attorneys’ fees, expenses, and sanctions under A.R.S. §§ 12-349 and 41-1491.36. It found that McCoy had no factual basis for any claim against the Kartageners, that the Fair Housing Act claim was frivolous and not withdrawn as to the Kartageners for about five months, and that the private-nuisance claim had no factual or legal basis. The court remanded for the trial court to reconsider the fee-and-sanctions request.

Is McCoy v. Hassen binding precedent in Arizona?

No. It is an unpublished memorandum decision under Arizona Rule of the Supreme Court 111(c), so it is not precedential and may be cited only as authorized by that rule. It nonetheless illustrates how Arizona courts apply the limited-purpose-public-figure doctrine and fee-shifting statutes in disputes among HOA board members and residents.

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 / citation1 CA-CV 21-0524
Court / tribunalCourt of Appeals
Decision / key dateAugust 30, 2022
Judge / panelCynthia J. Bailey, Peter B. Swann, D. Steven Williams
PartiesCheryl Marie McCoy, Marcianne Johnson & Melissa Wilson (Scovel) — former Val Vista Lakes Community Association board members and presidents (Plaintiffs/Appellants/Cross-Appellees) v. Ken Hassen, Henry & Claire Kartagener, Sharon & Wilbur Maiden, and Samantha Kelley & William Suttell — fellow community members and former board members (Defendants/Appellees); the Kartageners cross-appealed the denial of their fees-and-sanctions request.
Governing law
Topics
ElectionsAttorney FeesFair HousingProcedure
Outcome / holding

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Because the plaintiff HOA board members and past presidents were limited-purpose public figures as to community and board matters, and because their complaint failed to plead actual malice and the challenged statements were largely non-actionable opinion, dismissal of the defamation and false-light claims under Rule 12(b)(6) was affirmed; but the superior court’s summary denial of the Kartageners’ request for attorneys’ fees, expenses, and sanctions under A.R.S. §§ 12-349 and 41-1491.36 was reversed and remanded for further consideration.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package1 PDF
Step-by-step docket roadmap9 roadmap entries
Video overviewCheryl Marie McCoy, et al. v. Ken Hassen, et al.
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions6 questions
Curated download aliases1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Three former board members and past presidents of the Val Vista Lakes Master-Planned Community Association in Gilbert, Arizona — Cheryl Marie McCoy, Marcianne Johnson, and Melissa Wilson (Scovel) — sued a group of fellow community members and former board members for defamation, false light invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, an Arizona Fair Housing Act violation, and private nuisance. Their claims arose from an online ‘hate and disinformation campaign’ surrounding a November 2019 board election and a June 2020 recall election that removed two of them from the Board. The Maricopa County Superior Court dismissed all counts under Rule 12(b)(6) and entered Rule 54(b) judgments. On appeal, the plaintiffs challenged only the dismissal of their defamation and false-light claims against Ken Hassen, the Kartageners, the Maidens, and Samantha Kelley (and her spouse William Suttell); the Kartageners cross-appealed the denial of their request for attorneys’ fees, expenses, and sanctions. Division One of the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissals, holding that because the plaintiffs had run for and held the presidency of an unusually large (2,280-member) community association, they were ‘limited purpose public figures’ who had to plead falsity and actual malice — which they failed to do — and that many of the challenged statements were non-actionable opinion or political speech about contested board elections. On the cross-appeal, the court held the superior court erred in summarily denying the Kartageners’ fee-and-sanctions request and remanded for reconsideration. Because it is an unpublished memorandum decision under Rule 111(c), it is not precedential.

Key Issues & Findings

Reviewing the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals de novo, the panel first rejected the plaintiffs’ procedural argument that the trial court should have converted the motions into summary judgment. Because the full text of the allegedly defamatory statements — which the defendants attached to their motions — was central to a complaint that otherwise offered only the plaintiffs’ own summaries, the court could consider those statements without conversion, consistent with Coleman v. City of Mesa and Strategic Development & Construction v. 7th & Roosevelt Partners.

The court then affirmed the threshold ruling that the plaintiffs were limited-purpose public figures. Each had not merely served on the Board but had run in elections for it and achieved the presidency of an unusually large association — the complaint alleged 2,280 members. Following the New Jersey decision Verna v. Links at Valleybrook Neighborhood Ass’n and decisions from California, Minnesota, and Wyoming, the court reasoned that HOA boards perform ‘quasi-municipal functions’ and that the Board’s composition was a matter of public concern to the community’s members. It rejected the argument that HOA governance is not of general public concern, explaining that protected speech need only concern matters interesting to ‘even a relatively small segment’ of the public, and it distinguished HOA boards from purely private boards because the legislature has extended First Amendment-type protections to association members through A.R.S. §§ 33-1804 and 33-1808. The court also found unavailing the plaintiffs’ reliance on the Planned Communities Act and their ‘private contract’ argument.

Because the plaintiffs were public figures, they had to prove — by clear and convincing evidence — falsity and actual malice under New York Times v. Sullivan, Gertz v. Robert Welch, and Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers. The complaint, consisting largely of conclusory characterizations rather than the actual statements, failed that heightened standard under BLK III, LLC v. Skelton. Independently, the court held the statements attached to the motions were non-actionable opinion or political speech about hotly contested board elections, incapable of being proven objectively true or false, and that many were not ‘of and concerning’ all three plaintiffs. It distinguished Tarter v. Bendt because Sharon Maiden’s comment about a ‘secret’ scheme referred to ‘ex-board members,’ not a secret Board meeting. The plaintiffs conceded that their false-light claims failed if they were public figures.

On the cross-appeal, reviewed de novo, the court held the superior court erred in summarily denying the Kartageners’ request for fees and sanctions. Under A.R.S. § 12-349 a court must assess reasonable fees and expenses (and may award limited double damages) against a party who brings a claim without substantial justification — meaning groundless and not made in good faith — proven by a preponderance of the evidence; under A.R.S. § 41-1491.36 a prevailing defendant may recover fees where the complaint was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation. The court found McCoy’s claims against the Kartageners had no factual basis and were groundless; the Fair Housing Act claim was frivolous and was not withdrawn as to the Kartageners for roughly five months; and the private-nuisance claim had no factual or legal basis. It declined to find Johnson’s and Wilson’s public-figure arguments irrational, and remanded for the trial court to reconsider the fee-and-sanctions request in light of the decision.

Why It Matters

This memorandum decision is a clear Arizona illustration that people who run for and serve on a homeowners’ or community association board — especially as president of a large community — can be treated as ‘limited purpose public figures’ for defamation purposes. That status matters enormously: instead of the ordinary negligence standard available to private plaintiffs, a public-figure board member must plead and prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that a challenged statement was both false and made with ‘actual malice’ (knowledge of falsity or conscious disregard of the truth). Statements of opinion and political speech about contested board elections generally cannot support a defamation claim at all. For board members bruised by online campaigns and recall fights, the case signals that heated criticism of association leadership enjoys strong First Amendment protection.

The decision also underscores the fee-and-sanctions exposure that comes with filing thin defamation and related claims. The court reversed the trial court’s routine denial of the Kartageners’ request under A.R.S. §§ 12-349 and 41-1491.36, emphasizing that a claim brought without any factual basis — such as McCoy’s claims against the Kartageners, the unfounded Fair Housing Act count, and the novel private-nuisance theory — can be ‘groundless and not made in good faith,’ exposing the filing party to attorneys’ fees, expenses, and even limited sanctions. Community-association litigants and their counsel should note both the substantive hurdle (public-figure/actual-malice) and the downside risk (mandatory fee-shifting) before suing neighbors over election-season speech.

← Back to Court of Appeals cases

Zakia Mashiri v. Epsten Grinnell & Howell; Debora M. Zumwalt; Does 1-25: HOA Court Case Guide

Posted on by

FDCPA & HOA Assessments | 15 U.S.C. § 1692g | 845 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2017)

A San Diego homeowner sued her HOA’s collection law firm after it demanded an overdue assessment and threatened a lien. The Ninth Circuit held she stated a plausible FDCPA claim because the letter’s payment deadline and lien threat overshadowed her federal right to dispute the debt, and that the firm was a debt collector subject to the full statute.

Last updated July 1, 2026. Case: Zakia Mashiri v. Epsten Grinnell & Howell; Debora M. Zumwalt; Does 1-25; 845 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2017) (No. 14-56927); 3:14-cv-00839-JLS-RBB (S.D. Cal.).

Download the ruling PDF

Scope note: This educational case page summarizes a court ruling for Arizona HOA homeowners, boards, and counsel. It is not legal advice.

The rule in one sentence

The Ninth Circuit reversed the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, holding that Mashiri stated a plausible FDCPA claim because, judged by the ‘least sophisticated debtor’ standard, the collection letter contained language that overshadowed and conflicted with her 15 U.S.C. § 1692g debt-validation rights. The panel further held that a debt collector who sends such a letter to collect an overdue assessment is subject to the full scope of the FDCPA, not merely the limitations of § 1692f(6), because it was collecting a debt and not merely enforcing an already-existing security interest.

Case Participants

Neutral Parties

  • Zakia Mashiri (Plaintiff)
    Homeowner and member of the Westwood Club homeowners’ association in San Diego; Plaintiff-Appellant who brought the FDCPA, Rosenthal Act, and Unfair Competition Law claims.
  • Epsten Grinnell & Howell APC (Defendant)
    Law firm that sent the May 1, 2013 assessment-collection letter on behalf of the Westwood Club HOA; Defendant-Appellee. Held to be a debt collector subject to the full scope of the FDCPA.
  • Debora M. Zumwalt (Defendant)
    Epsten Grinnell & Howell APC
    Attorney named as a defendant; associated with the collection letter sent on behalf of the HOA. Defendant-Appellee.
  • Westwood Club Homeowners’ Association (Creditor (non-party))
    The underlying HOA client and creditor on whose behalf Epsten sent the collection letter and recorded the lien; not a named party in the appeal.
  • Asil Marhiri (Counsel)
    Mashiri Law Firm
    Argued the appeal for Plaintiff-Appellant Zakia Mashiri; Mashiri Law Firm, San Diego, California.
  • Anne Lorentzen Rauch (Counsel)
    Epsten Grinnell & Howell APC
    Argued the appeal for Defendants-Appellees; Epsten Grinnell & Howell APC, San Diego, California.
  • Mandy D. Hexom (Counsel)
    Epsten Grinnell & Howell APC
    Counsel for Defendants-Appellees; Epsten Grinnell & Howell APC, San Diego, California.
  • Rian W. Jones (Counsel)
    Epsten Grinnell & Howell APC
    Counsel for Defendants-Appellees; Epsten Grinnell & Howell APC, San Diego, California.
  • Richard A. Paez (Judge)
    U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
    Circuit Judge; authored the panel’s published opinion.
  • Dorothy W. Nelson (Judge)
    U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
    Circuit Judge on the panel.
  • Elaine E. Bucklo (Judge)
    U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (sitting by designation)
    U.S. District Judge sitting by designation on the Ninth Circuit panel.
  • Janis L. Sammartino (Judge)
    U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
    District Judge who presided below and granted the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal that was reversed on appeal.

What happened and why it matters

Zakia Mashiri owns a home in San Diego and is a member of the Westwood Club homeowners’ association, which levies annual assessments. After she failed to timely pay a $385 assessment fee levied in July 2012, the HOA’s collection law firm, Epsten Grinnell & Howell, and attorney Debora M. Zumwalt sent her a May 1, 2013 letter (the ‘May Notice’) demanding $598 in assessments plus late, administrative, and legal fees, and warning that failure to pay within thirty-five days would result in a lien on her property. The same letter also contained federal debt-validation language telling her she had thirty days to dispute the debt. Mashiri sued under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), California’s Rosenthal Act, and California’s Unfair Competition Law, alleging the letter’s payment deadline and lien threat overshadowed and contradicted her right to dispute the debt. The district court dismissed all claims under Rule 12(b)(6). The Ninth Circuit reversed. Applying the ‘least sophisticated debtor’ standard, it held Mashiri stated a plausible 15 U.S.C. § 1692g violation because the letter demanded payment within thirty-five days of its date (inconsistent with the thirty-day dispute window running from receipt) and threatened a lien regardless of any dispute. The panel also rejected Epsten’s argument, raised for the first time on appeal, that it was subject only to § 1692f(6); it held Epsten was a debt collector subject to the full scope of the FDCPA. The court reversed and remanded.

Reviewing the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal de novo, the panel accepted the complaint’s well-pleaded allegations as true and asked whether they stated a claim ‘plausible on its face’ under Ashcroft v. Iqbal and Bell Atlantic v. Twombly. It framed the FDCPA’s purpose as eliminating abusive debt-collection practices and subjecting ‘debt collectors’ to civil liability. The court first addressed Epsten’s threshold argument, raised for the first time on appeal, that because it sought only to perfect a security interest it was governed solely by 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(6). Although arguments raised for the first time on appeal are ordinarily forfeited, the panel reached this one because it was purely legal, the pertinent facts were undisputed, and Mashiri had responded to it. On the merits, the court held the overdue assessment was a ‘debt’ under § 1692a(5) because it arose from Mashiri’s household membership in the HOA, and the May Notice plainly sought to collect it. Relying on Ho v. ReconTrust, the panel reasoned that entities enforcing security interests are debt collectors when their activities constitute debt collection; unlike the trustee in Ho, who merely sent a notice of default without demanding payment, Epsten demanded payment and there was as yet no recorded lien to enforce. Epsten was therefore subject to the full scope of the FDCPA, including § 1692g and § 1692e. Turning to § 1692g, the court explained that a validation notice must be conveyed effectively (Swanson v. Southern Oregon Credit Service) and must not be overshadowed by or inconsistent with other messages that would confuse the least sophisticated debtor (Terran v. Kaplan). The panel found two plausible violations: first, demanding payment within thirty-five days of the letter’s date conflicted with the debtor’s thirty-day dispute period measured from receipt, because a debtor might receive the letter with fewer than thirty days remaining and would have to forgo her dispute rights to avoid a lien; second, the statement that a lien ‘will’ be recorded upon nonpayment overshadowed the right to dispute, because the least sophisticated debtor would wrongly believe a lien would be recorded on the thirty-fifth day even after disputing the debt. The court distinguished Shimek v. Weissman (governed by Georgia law permitting contemporaneous lien filing) and explained that under California’s Davis-Stirling Act (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 5660, 5670) an HOA must give thirty days’ notice and participate in dispute resolution before recording a lien, so the FDCPA duty to suspend collection pending verification was fully consistent with state law. Accordingly, the threat to record a lien was a debt-collection activity that had to cease upon a dispute, and the letter’s failure to convey that effectively stated a plausible § 1692g violation. Reversing the § 1692g dismissal required reversing the dependent § 1692e(5), Rosenthal Act, and Unfair Competition Law claims as well.

For homeowners’ associations and the law firms that collect their assessments, this published Ninth Circuit decision confirms that a single letter can be both a Davis-Stirling pre-lien notice and full-blown FDCPA debt collection. A collector cannot escape § 1692g simply by saying it was ‘perfecting a security interest’ when no lien yet exists and the letter demands payment. Practically, collection letters must give the consumer the full thirty-day dispute window measured from receipt, must not set a payment deadline that effectively shortens that window, and must not threaten that a lien ‘will’ be recorded in a way that suggests the threat survives a timely dispute. Because the FDCPA requires collection to cease once the debtor disputes the debt and until verification is mailed, a lien threat that ignores that pause can overshadow the validation notice and expose the firm to liability.

For Arizona homeowners and boards, the decision carries direct weight even though it arose under California’s Davis-Stirling Act. It is a published, precedential opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which includes Arizona, so it binds Arizona’s federal district courts on the FDCPA questions it decides. Arizona HOAs collect assessments under a different state statutory scheme, but the FDCPA is federal law that applies the same way to Arizona assessment-collection letters. An Arizona homeowner who receives a demand letter from an HOA collection firm has the same right to a clear, unobstructed thirty-day validation notice, and firms operating in Arizona should ensure their letters do not let assessment deadlines or lien warnings overshadow that federal right.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Zakia Mashiri v. Epsten Grinnell & Howell; Debora M. Zumwalt; Does 1-25 (845 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2017) (No. 14-56927)). HOA collection letter plausibly overshadowed FDCPA validation rights by threatening imminent lien action. This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own ruling controls.

Listen: audio deep dive on the ruling

An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the court’s reasoning and disposition in Zakia Mashiri v. Epsten Grinnell & Howell; Debora M. Zumwalt; Does 1-25. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

Audio overview generated with Google NotebookLM from the case’s court filings.

Step-by-step litigation record

Step 2012-07 The Westwood Club HOA levies a $385 annual assessment fee; Mashiri fails to pay it in a timely manner.
Step 2013-05-01 Epsten Grinnell & Howell and attorney Debora M. Zumwalt send the ‘May Notice’ collection letter on behalf of the HOA, demanding $598 and warning of a lien if unpaid within 35 days.
Step 2013-05-20 Mashiri writes to Epsten disputing the debt, requesting validation, and stating she never received a bill for the July 2012 assessment.
Step 2013-06-05 Epsten responds by sending another copy of Mashiri’s account statement.
Step 2013-06-18 Epsten, on behalf of the HOA, records a lien on Mashiri’s property for $928 ($598 plus $330 in additional legal fees).
Step 2013-06-21 Mashiri sends the HOA a $385 check with a letter disputing the balance of the debt.
Step 2013-06-24 Epsten notifies Mashiri of the recorded lien, as required by Cal. Civ. Code § 5675(e).
Step 2014 Mashiri files her complaint (D.C. No. 3:14-cv-00839-JLS-RBB, S.D. Cal.); the district court later dismisses it under Rule 12(b)(6).
Step 2016-10-04 The Ninth Circuit hears oral argument in Pasadena, California.
Step 2017-01-13 The Ninth Circuit files its published opinion reversing the dismissal and remanding for further proceedings.

Complete uploaded source-document index

This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/mashiri-v-epsten-grinnell-howell/raw/: 1 PDF. 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.

Source 1 2017-01-13

Opinion

Type: Decision or judgment

Opinion holding that Mashiri stated a plausible FDCPA claim because the collection letter overshadowed and conflicted with her 15 U.S.C. § 1692g debt-validation rights.

Download source file
2017-01-13_001_opinion.pdf

FAQ

Is Mashiri v. Epsten Grinnell & Howell binding precedent?

Yes. It is a published, precedential opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, reported at 845 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2017). Because Arizona is within the Ninth Circuit, the decision binds Arizona’s federal district courts on the FDCPA questions it decides, even though the case itself arose under California law.

What did the court decide about the HOA collection letter?

The court held that the homeowner stated a plausible violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g. Judged by the ‘least sophisticated debtor’ standard, the letter’s demand for payment within thirty-five days of its date, and its warning that a lien ‘will’ be recorded, overshadowed and conflicted with her federal right to dispute the debt within thirty days of receiving the notice.

Can an HOA collection firm avoid the FDCPA by saying it was just perfecting a lien?

Not on these facts. The firm argued for the first time on appeal that it was subject only to 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(6) because it was enforcing a security interest. The court rejected that, holding the overdue assessment was a ‘debt,’ the letter demanded payment, and no lien yet existed to enforce, so the firm was subject to the full scope of the FDCPA.

Why was the 35-day payment deadline a problem?

The FDCPA gives a consumer thirty days from receipt of the notice to dispute the debt. Because the letter demanded payment within thirty-five days of its date, a homeowner who received it late might have fewer than thirty days to act, effectively forcing her to give up her dispute rights to avoid a lien. The court found that inconsistent with § 1692g.

How does California’s Davis-Stirling Act fit with the FDCPA here?

The court held the two are consistent. Davis-Stirling (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 5660, 5670) already requires an HOA to give at least thirty days’ notice and to participate in dispute resolution before recording a lien, so the FDCPA’s requirement that collection pause once the debtor disputes the debt did not conflict with state law. The lien threat was thus a debt-collection activity that had to cease upon a dispute.

What happened to the homeowner’s state-law claims?

The district court had dismissed the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Unfair Competition Law claims as dependent on the FDCPA claim. Because the Ninth Circuit reversed the § 1692g dismissal, it also reversed the dismissal of the dependent § 1692e(5), Rosenthal Act, and Unfair Competition Law claims and remanded for further proceedings.

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 / citation845 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2017) (No. 14-56927)
Court / tribunalFederal Court
Decision / key dateJanuary 13, 2017
Judge / panelRichard A. Paez (Circuit Judge, author), Dorothy W. Nelson (Circuit Judge), Elaine E. Bucklo (U.S. District Judge, N.D. Ill., sitting by designation)
PartiesZakia Mashiri (Plaintiff-Appellant), a homeowner and member of the Westwood Club homeowners’ association, v. Epsten Grinnell & Howell APC and attorney Debora M. Zumwalt (Defendants-Appellees), the law firm and lawyer who sent an assessment-collection letter on the HOA’s behalf.
Governing law
  • Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq.
  • 15 U.S.C. § 1692g (debt validation notice; overshadowing/inconsistency)
  • 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(6) (nonjudicial enforcement of a security interest)
  • 15 U.S.C. § 1692e / § 1692e(5) (false or misleading representations)
  • 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5) (definition of ‘debt’)
  • 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6) (definition of ‘debt collector’)
  • Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1788 et seq.
  • California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.
  • Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 5660, 5670, 5675
Topics
FDCPAAssessmentsLiensForeclosureProcedure
Outcome / holding

The Ninth Circuit reversed the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, holding that Mashiri stated a plausible FDCPA claim because, judged by the ‘least sophisticated debtor’ standard, the collection letter contained language that overshadowed and conflicted with her 15 U.S.C. § 1692g debt-validation rights. The panel further held that a debt collector who sends such a letter to collect an overdue assessment is subject to the full scope of the FDCPA, not merely the limitations of § 1692f(6), because it was collecting a debt and not merely enforcing an already-existing security interest.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package1 PDF
Step-by-step docket roadmap10 roadmap entries
Video overviewZakia Mashiri v. Epsten Grinnell & Howell; Debora M. Zumwalt; Does 1-25
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions6 questions
Curated download aliases1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Zakia Mashiri owns a home in San Diego and is a member of the Westwood Club homeowners’ association, which levies annual assessments. After she failed to timely pay a $385 assessment fee levied in July 2012, the HOA’s collection law firm, Epsten Grinnell & Howell, and attorney Debora M. Zumwalt sent her a May 1, 2013 letter (the ‘May Notice’) demanding $598 in assessments plus late, administrative, and legal fees, and warning that failure to pay within thirty-five days would result in a lien on her property. The same letter also contained federal debt-validation language telling her she had thirty days to dispute the debt. Mashiri sued under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), California’s Rosenthal Act, and California’s Unfair Competition Law, alleging the letter’s payment deadline and lien threat overshadowed and contradicted her right to dispute the debt. The district court dismissed all claims under Rule 12(b)(6). The Ninth Circuit reversed. Applying the ‘least sophisticated debtor’ standard, it held Mashiri stated a plausible 15 U.S.C. § 1692g violation because the letter demanded payment within thirty-five days of its date (inconsistent with the thirty-day dispute window running from receipt) and threatened a lien regardless of any dispute. The panel also rejected Epsten’s argument, raised for the first time on appeal, that it was subject only to § 1692f(6); it held Epsten was a debt collector subject to the full scope of the FDCPA. The court reversed and remanded.

Key Issues & Findings

Reviewing the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal de novo, the panel accepted the complaint’s well-pleaded allegations as true and asked whether they stated a claim ‘plausible on its face’ under Ashcroft v. Iqbal and Bell Atlantic v. Twombly. It framed the FDCPA’s purpose as eliminating abusive debt-collection practices and subjecting ‘debt collectors’ to civil liability. The court first addressed Epsten’s threshold argument, raised for the first time on appeal, that because it sought only to perfect a security interest it was governed solely by 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(6). Although arguments raised for the first time on appeal are ordinarily forfeited, the panel reached this one because it was purely legal, the pertinent facts were undisputed, and Mashiri had responded to it. On the merits, the court held the overdue assessment was a ‘debt’ under § 1692a(5) because it arose from Mashiri’s household membership in the HOA, and the May Notice plainly sought to collect it. Relying on Ho v. ReconTrust, the panel reasoned that entities enforcing security interests are debt collectors when their activities constitute debt collection; unlike the trustee in Ho, who merely sent a notice of default without demanding payment, Epsten demanded payment and there was as yet no recorded lien to enforce. Epsten was therefore subject to the full scope of the FDCPA, including § 1692g and § 1692e. Turning to § 1692g, the court explained that a validation notice must be conveyed effectively (Swanson v. Southern Oregon Credit Service) and must not be overshadowed by or inconsistent with other messages that would confuse the least sophisticated debtor (Terran v. Kaplan). The panel found two plausible violations: first, demanding payment within thirty-five days of the letter’s date conflicted with the debtor’s thirty-day dispute period measured from receipt, because a debtor might receive the letter with fewer than thirty days remaining and would have to forgo her dispute rights to avoid a lien; second, the statement that a lien ‘will’ be recorded upon nonpayment overshadowed the right to dispute, because the least sophisticated debtor would wrongly believe a lien would be recorded on the thirty-fifth day even after disputing the debt. The court distinguished Shimek v. Weissman (governed by Georgia law permitting contemporaneous lien filing) and explained that under California’s Davis-Stirling Act (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 5660, 5670) an HOA must give thirty days’ notice and participate in dispute resolution before recording a lien, so the FDCPA duty to suspend collection pending verification was fully consistent with state law. Accordingly, the threat to record a lien was a debt-collection activity that had to cease upon a dispute, and the letter’s failure to convey that effectively stated a plausible § 1692g violation. Reversing the § 1692g dismissal required reversing the dependent § 1692e(5), Rosenthal Act, and Unfair Competition Law claims as well.

Why It Matters

For homeowners’ associations and the law firms that collect their assessments, this published Ninth Circuit decision confirms that a single letter can be both a Davis-Stirling pre-lien notice and full-blown FDCPA debt collection. A collector cannot escape § 1692g simply by saying it was ‘perfecting a security interest’ when no lien yet exists and the letter demands payment. Practically, collection letters must give the consumer the full thirty-day dispute window measured from receipt, must not set a payment deadline that effectively shortens that window, and must not threaten that a lien ‘will’ be recorded in a way that suggests the threat survives a timely dispute. Because the FDCPA requires collection to cease once the debtor disputes the debt and until verification is mailed, a lien threat that ignores that pause can overshadow the validation notice and expose the firm to liability.

For Arizona homeowners and boards, the decision carries direct weight even though it arose under California’s Davis-Stirling Act. It is a published, precedential opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which includes Arizona, so it binds Arizona’s federal district courts on the FDCPA questions it decides. Arizona HOAs collect assessments under a different state statutory scheme, but the FDCPA is federal law that applies the same way to Arizona assessment-collection letters. An Arizona homeowner who receives a demand letter from an HOA collection firm has the same right to a clear, unobstructed thirty-day validation notice, and firms operating in Arizona should ensure their letters do not let assessment deadlines or lien warnings overshadow that federal right.

← Back to Federal Court cases