Author Archives: [email protected]

The rule in one sentence

Case Participants

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.

Step-by-step litigation record

View all 1 source document for this case ↓

Case Dossier

This dossier combines the case metadata, linked court sources, and the explanatory sections below. It distinguishes court rulings from party filings, allegations, and requested relief.

Case Summary

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Key Issues & Findings

The rule in one sentence

Case Participants

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.

Step-by-step litigation record

View all 1 source document for this case ↓

Case Dossier

This dossier combines the case metadata, linked court sources, and the explanatory sections below. It distinguishes court rulings from party filings, allegations, and requested relief.

Case Summary

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Key Issues & Findings

The rule in one sentence

Case Participants

What happened and why it matters

La Esperanza Townhome Association, Inc. v. Title Security Agency of Arizona is a 1984 published decision of the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two, addressing how a recorded subdivision Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) may be amended. The La Esperanza townhome subdivision in Tucson was created in 1973, when the developers subdivided the land, recorded a Declaration covering lots 1 through 35, and recorded a subdivision plat. The Declaration allowed amendment only by an instrument signed by at least 90 percent of the lot owners during its first 25 years. In 1975, the developers directed the title trustee to record an amendment excluding the southerly 223 feet of the subdivision, the portion fronting East Broadway, so it could be developed for multiple-unit and commercial use. In 1980, a successor trustee, Title Security, then holding 50 percent of the lots, unilaterally recorded a revised plat that resubdivided that area. The association sued to have both the amendment and the plat revision declared void; the trial court instead ruled for the defendants and upheld them. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that an amendment to restrictive covenants must apply uniformly to all lots in the subdivision, and that both the non-uniform 1975 amendment and the unilateral 1980 plat revision, which lacked the required 90 percent owner approval, were null and void.

The court reviewed the trial court’s judgment upholding the 1975 amendment and the 1980 plat revision and reversed. On the amendment, the court noted there was a question below about whether it had been signed by the required number of landowners, but held that the case turned on a more fundamental point: the amendment purported to affect only part of the lots in the subdivision. Relying on Riley v. Boyle, 6 Ariz. App. 523, 434 P.2d 525 (1967), the court reaffirmed that any amendment to a set of restrictive covenants must have uniform application to all lots, and that an amendment purporting to modify the restrictions as to one lot or some lots, but not all, is null and void. The court quoted Riley’s reasoning that the power to amend extends only to restrictions for all lots, and that a contrary reading could produce a “patchwork quilt” of different restrictions that would upset the orderly plan of the subdivision.

The court reinforced this conclusion with out-of-state authority reaching the same result, including Montoya v. Barreras (N.M. 1970), Lakeshore Estates Recreational Area, Inc. v. Turner (Mo. App. 1972), Ridge Park Home-Owners v. Pena (N.M. 1975), and Cowherd Development Co. v. Littick (Mo. 1951), each holding that a subset of owners cannot release or alter restrictions on selected lots absent a clear provision allowing it. The court acknowledged that if all landowners join in an amendment it need not have uniform effect (Steve Vogli Co. v. Lane), but found that the La Esperanza Declaration permitted only uniform changes. It rejected the defendants’ argument that releasing the south 223 feet from all covenants (rather than just one) was a meaningful distinction, calling it “a distinction without a difference.”

The court also rejected the defendants’ reliance and estoppel defenses. Because the 1975 amendment was null and void, it never became effective; purchasers who bought after 1975 took subject to a void document, and their purchase did not validate it. The court found Ostlund could not claim detrimental reliance because the amendment, changing restrictions on only part of the subdivision, raised a “red flag” that reasonable investigation would have shown to be invalid. Finally, because the original plat (Book 25, page 1) had been incorporated into the Declaration, Ostlund’s recording of a new plat was itself an attempt to amend the Declaration; without an instrument signed by 90 percent of the lot owners, the new plat was invalid, and the estoppel claim failed because the association learned of the plan only after the revised plat was filed and most funds were spent.

This decision is a foundational Arizona statement of the uniformity principle in restrictive-covenant and CC&R law: a subset of owners generally cannot amend a subdivision’s covenants to relieve only some lots from restrictions while leaving the rest bound. The rule protects the mutual, reciprocal expectations that owners acquire when they buy into a common plan, and it prevents a controlling owner or developer from carving out favored parcels for uses (here, multi-unit and commercial development) that the recorded scheme did not allow. Even where the governing document sets a supermajority threshold, an amendment that is non-uniform in application can fail regardless of how many owners sign it.

The case also illustrates two practical points that continue to matter for community associations, developers, and buyers. First, a recorded subdivision plat that is incorporated into a declaration cannot be revised unilaterally; changing it requires the same owner approval the declaration demands for any amendment. Second, an instrument that appears in the public record is not necessarily valid: a void amendment never takes effect, later purchasers take subject to its invalidity rather than curing it, and an irregularity that changes restrictions on only part of a subdivision should put a prospective developer on notice to investigate before spending money in reliance on it.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of La Esperanza Townhome Association, Inc. v. Title Security Agency of Arizona (142 Ariz. 235, 689 P.2d 178 (App. 1984)). An amendment to a subdivision’s restrictive covenants must apply uniformly to all lots; an amendment that releases… 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 La Esperanza Townhome Association, Inc. v. Title Security Agency of Arizona. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

Step-by-step litigation record

View all 1 source document for this case ↓

Case Dossier

This dossier combines the case metadata, linked court sources, and the explanatory sections below. It distinguishes court rulings from party filings, allegations, and requested relief.

Case Summary

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Key Issues & Findings

The rule in one sentence

Case Participants

What happened and why it matters

Homeowner Robert Jashinsky sued his homeowners’ association, Dorada Estates Community Association, Inc., after its Design Review Committee (DRC) repeatedly denied his proposal to build an 879-square-foot backyard casita with an attached pergola. The community’s recorded Declaration gave the DRC “sole and absolute discretion” over design proposals, but internal board emails suggested the committee was searching for a reason to deny the project and ultimately relied on Design Guidelines adopted after Jashinsky’s submission. A three-day Maricopa County jury trial produced a $52,740 damages award for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and breach of the association’s duty to act reasonably, and the superior court separately granted equitable and declaratory relief ordering the association to permit the construction. On appeal, Division One affirmed. It held that the homeowner’s testimony about estimated building costs was admissible (not hearsay under State v. Printz); that the court lacked jurisdiction to review the sufficiency of the evidence because the association never moved for a new trial or renewed judgment as a matter of law (A.R.S. section 12-2102(C)); that whether the HOA acted reasonably was a fact question for the jury; that the failure to plead injunctive relief was cured by raising the issue in the joint pretrial statement; and that the equitable remedy was within the trial court’s discretion. This is an unpublished memorandum decision and is not precedential under Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c).

The Court of Appeals addressed five arguments. First, on the evidentiary challenge, the court reviewed for abuse of discretion and held that Jashinsky’s testimony about the casita’s estimated $200-per-square-foot building cost was not inadmissible hearsay. Applying State v. Printz, 125 Ariz. 300 (1980), the court explained that knowledge of value does not necessarily rest on hearsay; when a witness acquires first-hand knowledge of value through multiple negotiations or consultations rather than a single out-of-court assertion offered for its truth, the resulting estimate is admissible. Because Jashinsky derived his estimate from consultations with an architect and a contractor, the superior court did not abuse its discretion in overruling the hearsay objection.

Second, the court held it lacked jurisdiction to review the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the damages award. Under A.R.S. section 12-2102(C) and Marquette Venture Partners II, L.P. v. Leonesio, an appellant who made a Rule 50(a) motion at the close of evidence must move for a new trial or for renewed judgment as a matter of law to preserve a sufficiency challenge on appeal. Because Dorada Estates did neither, appellate jurisdiction over that issue was absent.

Third, and most significant for HOA law, the court held that whether the association acted reasonably was a factual question reserved for the jury. Even where governing documents afford broad discretion, that discretion is constrained by duties the association owes its members: the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Restatement (Second) of Contracts section 205; Restatement (Third) of Property (Servitudes) section 4.1) and the duty under Restatement (Third) of Property (Servitudes) section 6.13(1)(b), (c) to treat members fairly and act reasonably in exercising discretionary powers, including design-control powers. Arizona adopted this approach in Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195 (App. 2007), and whether an association breached those duties is a question of fact (Maleki; Est. of Reinen). By awarding damages, the jury implicitly found Dorada Estates breached both duties, and the record supported that finding: the jury could have concluded the DRC gave only pretextual reasons and denied the revised request based on Design Guidelines not in effect when Jashinsky submitted it.

Fourth, the court rejected the argument that Jashinsky’s failure to plead injunctive relief barred his equitable recovery. Under Murphy Farrell Development and Carlton v. Emhardt, listing a claim as a material contested issue in the joint pretrial statement effectively amends the complaint; Jashinsky’s estoppel questions in the joint pretrial statement asked for essentially the relief he obtained. Fifth, the court held the equitable remedy was not an abuse of discretion. Whether to decline enforcement of a covenant turns on equitable considerations such as relative hardship, misconduct, the public interest, and the adequacy of other remedies (Swain; Ahwatukee; Loiselle). The court could weigh the association’s misconduct and the inadequacy of damages, because Jashinsky’s ultimate goal was permission to build, not money. The declaratory and equitable-estoppel judgment ordering the association to allow the construction was therefore affirmed, and the court awarded Jashinsky his appellate attorneys’ fees and costs under the Declaration and A.R.S. section 12-341.

This decision is a clear application of the principle that an HOA’s architectural-review discretion, even when the governing documents describe it as “sole and absolute,” is not unlimited. Division One reaffirmed that Arizona associations owe their members an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing and a duty to act reasonably in exercising design-control powers, and that a jury may find those duties breached where the record shows pretextual denials or reliance on guidelines adopted after a member’s application. For boards and design committees, the practical lesson is that broad discretionary language does not immunize a denial that a factfinder could view as arbitrary, unreasonable, or applied retroactively.

The case also illustrates important procedural and remedial points. On the procedural side, it shows that a Rule 50(a) motion alone does not preserve a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge for appeal; a party must also move for a new trial or renewed judgment as a matter of law under A.R.S. section 12-2102(C). On the remedial side, it shows that a court may order an association to permit a proposed modification as equitable relief, and that failing to formally plead injunctive relief is not fatal when the issue is raised in the joint pretrial statement. Although unpublished and non-precedential under Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c), the decision is a useful illustration of how Arizona courts police the outer limits of HOA architectural discretion.

Step-by-step litigation record

View all 1 source document for this case ↓

Case Dossier

This dossier combines the case metadata, linked court sources, and the explanatory sections below. It distinguishes court rulings from party filings, allegations, and requested relief.

Case Summary

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Key Issues & Findings

The rule in one sentence

Case Participants

What happened and why it matters

Linda Greenberg and her neighbors, John and Eileen McGowan, own adjoining two-acre parcels in Inscription Canyon Ranch, a residential community in Williamson Valley, Arizona, that is governed by longstanding recorded Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). After the Inscription Canyon Ranch Architectural Review Committee (ICR ARC) approved the McGowans’ construction of a structure, Greenberg sued the McGowans, the ARC, and the ICR Water Users Association, Inc. The dispute centered on whether the structure was a permitted barn or a prohibited garage and whether the McGowans could keep two donkeys and a foal on their parcel. Greenberg’s operative complaint alleged breach of the CC&Rs and a violation of the homeowners’-association open-meetings statute, A.R.S. § 33-1804, and sought declaratory and injunctive relief and damages. The Yavapai County Superior Court granted summary judgment to all defendants, denied Greenberg’s requests to file a third amended complaint and for reconsideration, and awarded the defendants attorneys’ fees under the CC&Rs and A.R.S. § 12-341.01. On appeal, Division One reviewed the summary judgment de novo and affirmed, finding no genuine issue of material fact, no abuse of discretion in the procedural rulings, and no error in the fee award. The court also awarded the prevailing defendants their reasonable fees and taxable costs on appeal under the CC&Rs. The decision is an unpublished memorandum decision and is not precedential.

Reviewing the grant of summary judgment de novo, the court treated the interpretation of the CC&Rs as a question of law, giving effect to the parties’ intent as shown by the language of the document read in its entirety and the purpose for which the covenants were created (Powell v. Washburn). On the central animal question, the court rejected Greenberg’s premise that Paragraph 10 (“Livestock and Poultry”) created an exclusive list of permitted animals. Paragraph 10 expressly prohibits poultry, fowl, and swine and expressly permits horses and 4-H animal projects, but it never mentions donkeys and contains no catch-all establishing that the listed animals are the only ones allowed. Because the paragraph does not describe a class of prohibited animals, the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius did not apply, and reading the covenant to bar donkeys would improperly render its broad references to “livestock,” “animals,” fences, and corrals superfluous. The court reinforced this reading with other provisions: Paragraphs 1, 3, and 4 contemplate barns and outbuildings for animals of all kinds; Paragraph 6 describes a bridle path expressly for horses, mules, and donkeys; and Paragraphs 8, 13, and 19 show the drafters knew how to write comprehensive, all-encompassing prohibitions when they intended one — something Paragraph 10 conspicuously lacks. The court also noted A.R.S. § 3-1201’s definition of “equine” as including donkeys. On the barn-versus-garage issue, Greenberg conceded the structure had to date been used only as a barn (the approved use), so her theory that it might later be used as a garage presented an unripe, hypothetical dispute on which courts do not issue advisory opinions. Her breach-of-contract claim independently failed because she never disclosed a computation or measure of damages as required by Rule 26.1(a)(7); merely stating she would testify at trial could not create a triable issue under Rule 56(e). The court found no abuse of discretion in denying leave to file a third amended complaint filed 20 months into the case after discovery closed and summary judgment was entered — the amendment came late, sought to add long-known parties, would have reopened discovery, and was partly futile — and no error in denying reconsideration that merely repackaged rejected CC&R arguments. Finally, because the CC&Rs entitle the prevailing party to reasonable fees and costs and A.R.S. § 12-341.01 also applies, and because the defendants’ fee affidavits complied with Rule 54(g)(4), the fee award (including to the ARC) was proper.

For Arizona homeowners’ associations and their members, the decision illustrates a recurring principle of covenant interpretation: restrictions on the use of land are construed from the text of the recorded document as a whole, and a list of prohibited or permitted items is not treated as exhaustive unless the drafters said so. Because Paragraph 10 barred only certain animals and lacked any catch-all, the court would not read it to prohibit donkeys, and it pointed to the drafters’ use of sweeping language elsewhere in the CC&Rs as proof they knew how to impose a comprehensive ban when they wanted one. Boards, architectural committees, and owners drafting or enforcing covenants should note that ambiguity and omission tend to be resolved in favor of the free use of property, and that courts will avoid readings that render covenant language superfluous.

The case is also a practical reminder about litigation mechanics in HOA disputes. A breach-of-contract claim, even one tied to CC&Rs, still requires the plaintiff to disclose a computation and measure of damages; a promise to testify at trial will not defeat summary judgment. Motions to amend brought late — after discovery has closed and judgment entered — face steep odds, especially when they add previously known parties and would reopen discovery. And most owners bringing or defending covenant suits should anticipate that the CC&Rs’ prevailing-party fee clause, reinforced by A.R.S. § 12-341.01, can shift substantial attorneys’ fees to the losing side both in the trial court and on appeal. As an unpublished memorandum decision, however, the ruling is not precedential and may be cited only as authorized by rule.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Greenberg v. McGowan (1 CA-CV 19-0061). Greenberg showed no error in the interpretation and enforcement of the recorded CC&Rs — the covenants did not… 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 Greenberg v. McGowan. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

Step-by-step litigation record

View all 1 source document for this case ↓

Case Dossier

This dossier combines the case metadata, linked court sources, and the explanatory sections below. It distinguishes court rulings from party filings, allegations, and requested relief.

Case Summary

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Key Issues & Findings

The rule in one sentence

Case Participants

What happened and why it matters

Viewpoint Lake sits in Sun City, Arizona, ringed by eighty-one single-family lots, the El Dorado of Sun City Condominiums, a recreation center, and a medical facility. A 1969 recorded Declaration of Restrictions made lake maintenance the responsibility of the surrounding lakefront owners but never specified how those costs should be split. After Recreation Centers of Sun City, Inc. took title to the lake and nearby golf courses in 1975 and agreed to pay half of maintenance, disputes arose over the rest. In 1979, Del Webb, Recreation Centers, and the Viewpoint Lake Homeowners Association signed an unrecorded agreement setting a $95 per-lot fee adjusted annually by the Consumer Price Index, and the parties followed that formula for nearly thirty years. In late 2008, Recreation Centers announced it would reduce its funding and proposed a lakeshore-frontage formula that more than tripled homeowner assessments. Six owners filed a certified class action, and El Dorado intervened, arguing the 1969 Declaration did not burden its condominium tract. The superior court granted summary judgment for the class and for Recreation Centers against El Dorado. On appeal, Division One of the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that Recreation Centers had waived any challenge to the 1979 Agreement through decades of acquiescence, that A.R.S. section 33-440 did not invalidate the agreement, that the agreement lasted as long as the 1969 Declaration, and that the recorded 1969 Declaration burdened El Dorado’s contiguous land. The court awarded the class its appellate attorneys’ fees. This is an unpublished memorandum decision and is not precedent.

Reviewing the summary judgments de novo, the court declined to resolve whether the 1979 Agreement was a substantive amendment to the 1969 Declaration that would have required the majority owner vote prescribed for amendments. It instead affirmed on the alternative ground that Recreation Centers had waived any right to challenge the agreement’s validity. Waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right, and a party’s persistent failure to object to conduct under a covenant can result in waiver or abandonment of the restriction. Here Recreation Centers had knowingly performed under the 1979 Agreement for nearly thirty years — paying its share and accepting the CPI-based allocation without objection — so no remand for factfinding was necessary. The court reinforced this with the contract principle that a course of performance accepted or acquiesced in without objection is given great weight in interpreting an agreement (Abrams v. Horizon Corp.; Restatement (Second) of Contracts section 202(4)).

The court next rejected Recreation Centers’ argument that A.R.S. section 33-440, governing private covenants, precluded the 1979 Agreement. Because no statute is retroactive unless expressly declared (A.R.S. section 1-244) and section 33-440 took effect on September 26, 2008, the statute did not control a 1979 agreement. Even assuming it applied, the court found no conflict: the 1979 Agreement is a private covenant affecting real property under section 33-440(C)(2) and is expressly validated by section 33-440(A)(1), which recognizes pre-statute covenants and precludes only later covenants inconsistent with them. The court also declined to read section 33-440 as limited to planned communities; although declaration is defined by reference to the Planned Communities Act (section 33-1802), the separate definition of private covenant is not so limited.

Interpreting the 1979 Agreement as a question of law, the court held it was a binding settlement of a bona fide dispute rather than a terminable-at-will, short-term arrangement. The agreement adjusted assessments for any succeeding year, incorporated a Consumer Price Index escalator showing the parties contemplated future increases, and rested on the 1969 Declaration, which itself ran for thirty years with automatic ten-year renewals; the court therefore tied the agreement’s duration to that of the Declaration. The court also rejected the contention that the Viewpoint Lake Homeowners Association lacked legal capacity: a party that deals with an association as an entity and accepts value from it is estopped from later denying its capacity to contract, and nothing in the Declaration gave the Management Board the exclusive power to allocate maintenance costs.

Finally, the court held the recorded 1969 Declaration burdened El Dorado’s Tract C property. It refused to read the Declaration’s reference to future deed language as a condition precedent to imposing the burden absent clear and unequivocal language, and it found the Declaration satisfied the statute of frauds because it identified the burdened estate — Viewpoint Lake (Tract A) and all parcels adjacent to and contiguous with it — with sufficient certainty. Because Del Webb owned both tracts in 1969 and the 1971 amendment confirmed Tract C’s contiguity, anyone tracing title would have constructive notice that the Declaration encumbered Tract C from the moment of its execution.

For Arizona homeowners and associations, this decision illustrates how a long-standing course of conduct can lock in a cost-sharing arrangement even when the original governing documents are silent or arguably require a formal amendment. Recreation Centers could not escape the 1979 assessment formula it had followed for three decades: by knowingly performing under the agreement year after year, it waived any argument that the agreement was an invalid amendment or was terminable at will. The case is a reminder that boards and owners who want to preserve the right to challenge a governing arrangement must object promptly rather than acquiesce, because Arizona courts give great weight to a settled course of performance and may treat decades of acceptance as an intentional relinquishment of the right to complain.

The decision also shows how recorded declarations can bind property that never received a separate, tailored recording. The 1969 Declaration encumbered every parcel adjacent to and contiguous with Viewpoint Lake, and the court held that this description gave constructive notice to anyone tracing title to El Dorado’s condominium tract — so the burden attached from the Declaration’s execution, not from some later filing. For buyers, associations, and title examiners, the case underscores the importance of tracing the full chain of title for recorded lake-, common-area-, or subdivision-wide restrictions, and it confirms that A.R.S. section 33-440 (effective in 2008) does not retroactively unsettle covenants and agreements that predate it. Because the opinion is an unpublished memorandum decision, it is not binding precedent, but it is a useful educational example of assessment, covenant, and waiver principles in the HOA context.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Cropley v. Recreation Centers of Sun City, Inc. (1 CA-CV 10-0034). Affirmed. Recreation Centers waived any right to challenge the validity or interpretation of the 1979 Agreement… 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 Cropley v. Recreation Centers of Sun City, Inc.. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

Step-by-step litigation record

View all 1 source document for this case ↓

Case Dossier

This dossier combines the case metadata, linked court sources, and the explanatory sections below. It distinguishes court rulings from party filings, allegations, and requested relief.

Case Summary

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Key Issues & Findings

The rule in one sentence

Case Participants

What happened and why it matters

Casita de Castilian, Inc., the non-profit corporation serving as the Council of Co-owners for a condominium (horizontal property regime) created under A.R.S. Section 33-551 et seq., sued unit owners Kenneth and Mary Elizabeth Kamrath to recover $4,397 in unpaid assessments plus $765 in late-payment penalties. The Kamraths counterclaimed, asserting that the association was obligated to repair and maintain the roof over their units, a general common element, and was liable for the roughly $2,393 cost of the needed repairs. The case was tried to the court on stipulated facts. The association’s original 1970 bylaws had made the corporation responsible for maintaining all common elements, but a 1975 amendment, adopted by a 92-to-14 vote of the membership and recorded, shifted roof-maintenance responsibility to the individual unit owners. The trial court ruled for the association on both its complaint and the counterclaim and awarded assessments, penalties, and attorney fees; the owners appealed only the counterclaim ruling. The Court of Appeals, Division Two, affirmed. It held that bylaws are a proper instrument for allocating maintenance responsibility, that only a majority (not unanimous) vote was required, and that assigning roof upkeep to individual owners satisfied A.R.S. Section 33-561’s requirement that the council ‘make provisions for’ maintenance. Finding no inequitable or disproportionate burden, the court denied the owners’ claimed setoff.

The Court of Appeals framed three questions: whether the corporation’s bylaws are a proper instrument for providing for maintenance of common elements; if so, whether all co-owners must agree to such a provision; and whether requiring each owner to maintain his own roof satisfies A.R.S. Section 33-561. On the first question, the court observed that A.R.S. Section 33-551(6)(b) makes roofs ‘general common elements’ unless the recorded declaration provides otherwise, and that A.R.S. Section 33-553(4) requires the declaration to describe the common elements. Here the declaration described the common elements as all real property except the individual units, so the roofs were common elements, but neither the statutes nor the declaration fixed responsibility for maintaining them. The articles of incorporation were likewise silent. The bylaws, however, did fix responsibility: the original 1970 bylaws made the corporation responsible, and the amended 1975 bylaws made each member liable for the roof covering of the apartment owned. Rejecting the owners’ argument that Article IV(A) of the declaration (which obligates owners to pay assessments to meet common-element expenses) required the association to perform the work, the court held that the provision merely obligated owners to pay assessments and did not impose a maintenance duty on the council. It therefore held the bylaws were a proper instrument.

On unanimity, the court found nothing in the statute requiring agreement of all co-owners; the only statutory unanimity requirement (A.R.S. Section 33-556) concerns withdrawing property from the regime. The court distinguished Makeever v. Lyle, then the only reported Arizona decision interpreting the condominium law, in which a majority could not convert general common elements to one owner’s exclusive use because that amounted to a taking of the other co-owners’ interests. Reallocating upkeep of a single common element was not such a taking. Reading the declaration (which called for majority approval of decisions), the articles (which let a majority change bylaws), and the statute together, the court concluded a simple majority could adopt or amend maintenance bylaws.

On the third question, the court emphasized that A.R.S. Section 33-561 requires only that the council ‘make provisions for’ maintenance and does not itself make the council responsible for the work. Surveying the 1962 FHA Model Act, the 1977 Uniform Condominium Act (which Arizona did not adopt), and comparative state statutes, the court found nothing supporting the owners’ reading. It distinguished the Florida case Thiess v. Island House Association, where an amendment shifted a disproportionate repair burden onto a minority of owners; here the owners raised no claim that the amendment was unfair, disproportionate, or inequitable. Accordingly, absent such an inequitable result, the majority could place maintenance of a common element on the individual owners, and the counterclaim failed.

This 1981 published decision is one of the earliest Arizona appellate opinions interpreting the state’s condominium (horizontal property regime) statute, and it remains instructive on how maintenance duties are allocated within a community association. The key lesson is that, under Arizona’s particular statutory language, the law does not automatically make the association responsible for maintaining every common element. A.R.S. Section 33-561 requires only that the council of co-owners ‘make provisions for’ maintenance, and the court read that phrasing to permit an association to place upkeep of a specific common element, such as each unit’s roof, on the individual owners through the governing documents. Owners and boards reviewing who is responsible for a repair should therefore look closely at the declaration, articles, and especially the bylaws rather than assuming the association must perform all common-element work.

The decision also illustrates two recurring themes in association governance disputes. First, governing documents can generally be amended by the vote specified in those documents and the statute (here a simple majority), and unanimity is required only in narrow circumstances such as withdrawing property from the regime; a maintenance reallocation is not treated as a ‘taking’ of the other owners’ interests the way converting common area to one owner’s exclusive use would be. Second, the court signaled an equitable limit: an amendment that shifts a disproportionate or unfair burden onto a minority of owners (as in the Florida Thiess case) could be vulnerable, even though the reallocation here was upheld because no such inequity was shown. Because this is a published opinion in which the Arizona Supreme Court denied review, it is binding precedent for how these older condominium instruments and statutes are construed.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Casita de Castilian, Inc. v. Kenneth K. Kamrath and Mary Elizabeth Kamrath (129 Ariz. 146, 629 P.2d 562 (App. 1981)). A condominium council of co-owners may, through a validly adopted majority-vote bylaw amendment, shift… 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 Casita de Castilian, Inc. v. Kenneth K. Kamrath and Mary Elizabeth Kamrath. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

Step-by-step litigation record

View all 1 source document for this case ↓

Case Dossier

This dossier combines the case metadata, linked court sources, and the explanatory sections below. It distinguishes court rulings from party filings, allegations, and requested relief.

Case Summary

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Key Issues & Findings

The rule in one sentence

Case Participants

What happened and why it matters

Keith and Kathy Campbell own property in the Florence Gardens Mobile Home Association community, a Pinal County non-profit governed by CC&Rs recorded in 1998. In March 2019 the board mailed owners a letter, a proposed Amended and Restated Declaration, and a written-concurrence form, explaining that adoption required the written concurrence of 878 owners (two-thirds of the assessed lots) and asking owners to return the form within thirty days. The Association reached the required number of concurrences “shortly after the 30-day window” and counted them all; Keith Campbell, then board president, objected that late concurrences should not count, and resigned. The Campbells sued for breach of contract, negligence per se under the Planned Community Act, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court dismissed the fiduciary-duty claim under Rule 12(b)(6), ordered a more definite statement identifying the specific meeting date, then struck the amended complaint and dismissed the case with prejudice when no date was supplied. Division Two affirmed dismissal of the fiduciary-duty claim as conclusory and outside the fund-related duty recognized in Divizio, but held that ordering a more definite statement was error because the Association’s own motion admitted no relevant meeting ever occurred, making a meeting date impossible to provide. The court vacated the striking and dismissal, remanded, and awarded no fees or costs on appeal.

Reviewing the dismissals de novo under Coleman v. City of Mesa, the court analyzed the two rulings separately. On the fiduciary-duty claim, dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is proper only where, as a matter of law, plaintiffs could not obtain relief under any provable interpretation of the facts, and the court may look only to the pleading itself. The Campbells alleged the Association “acts as a fiduciary with the fees collected from its members” and breached that duty by labeling the vote a “concurrence” and counting it past the statutory time frames. The court held these were merely conclusory statements insufficient under Cullen v. Auto-Owners Insurance: even assuming the collection of member fees could create a fiduciary relationship, the Campbells never alleged how the Association’s actions amounted to an improper use of funds. It distinguished Divizio v. Kewin Enterprises, where mobile-home-park members were entitled to accountings of dues collected for community upkeep; here the challenged conduct — collecting signed concurrences after the 30-day deadline — did not involve the collection or use of funds to which the Divizio duty would extend. Merely paying dues does not convert every alleged wrong into a breach of fiduciary duty.

On the striking of the amended complaint, the court explained that a defendant may move for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e) only when a pleading is so vague or ambiguous that it cannot frame a response, and a court may strike a pleading for disobeying such an order. But the Association’s own motion, while demanding that the Campbells identify the meeting date of the alleged statutory violations, candidly admitted that “there was no such meeting” and “no meeting of the membership related to the collection of the concurrences.” Because it was clear from the Association’s own filing that it was impossible for the Campbells to state a meeting date that never existed, ordering a more definite statement was error — and, that order being error, striking the amended complaint and dismissing the remaining claims for noncompliance with it was likewise error. Because neither party completely prevailed, the court declined to award appellate fees or costs and left the Association’s fee cross-appeal for the trial court on remand.

The decision is a mixed result that highlights two recurring HOA-litigation pressure points: whether a board owes homeowners a fiduciary duty, and how much factual specificity a complaint about governance procedures must contain. On the fiduciary-duty question, the court did not announce a categorical rule that HOA boards never owe fiduciary duties; instead it treated the claim as a pleading failure, distinguishing Divizio and emphasizing that a fiduciary theory tied to member dues requires concrete allegations of improper use of funds, not a general assertion that the board mishandled a vote. Homeowners advancing fiduciary-duty claims should therefore plead specific, fund-related misconduct rather than relabeling a covenant or voting dispute.

The striking ruling is the more consequential procedural lesson: a defendant cannot use a motion for a more definite statement to force a plaintiff to allege a fact the defendant itself concedes does not exist. Because the Association admitted no relevant meeting occurred, the trial court could not condition the survival of the suit on the Campbells’ identifying a meeting date, and dismissal on that basis was reversible. The case also confirms that CC&Rs constitute a contract among owners, so disputes over amendment and concurrence procedures can support contract-based claims and fee awards under A.R.S. § 12-341.01 — though here, with neither side fully prevailing, the court awarded no appellate fees. As an unpublished memorandum decision, it is not precedential and may be cited only as authorized by rule.

Step-by-step litigation record

View all 1 source document for this case ↓

Case Dossier

This dossier combines the case metadata, linked court sources, and the explanatory sections below. It distinguishes court rulings from party filings, allegations, and requested relief.

Case Summary

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Key Issues & Findings