jeremy@azhoawatch.org, Author at Arizona HOA Transparency Project

Hawk v. PC Village Association: HOA Sign Bans Preempted by Arizona Law

Posted on June 29, 2026 by [email protected]

CC&R Enforceability | A.R.S. §§ 33-441, 33-1808 | 1 CA-CV 12-0362

This landmark case illustrates the limits of HOA authority when community covenants conflict with state-mandated property rights. It establishes that legislative protections for homeowners override pre-existing CC&R provisions, even if those covenants were recorded before the statutes were passed.

Last updated June 29, 2026. Case: Hawk, Court of Appeals No. 1 CA-CV 12-0362; opinion affirming.

Download the appellate opinion Download the appellate mandate Download the record index Source-file index FAQ

Current-status note: Pipeline note: the public raw-source folder contains source files that were not in the last staged NotebookLM source set. The page remains a source-linked record, but generated media should be rebuilt or rechecked after the staged source manifest catches up.

Scope note: This page details the factual background, key legal disputes, and the complete procedural timeline for the landmark Arizona case of Hawk v. PC Village Association. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

A.R.S. § 33-441 applies prospectively to prohibit the enforcement of pre-existing covenants, conditions, and restrictions that restrict the display of ‘for sale’ signs, and such application does not violate the Contract Clause of the United States or Arizona Constitutions.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Robert R. Hawk (Plaintiff)
Co-owner of Pine Canyon Lot 197 who displayed a standard 'For Sale' sign on his property, initiating the dispute.
Cecilia J. Hawk (Plaintiff)
Co-owner of Pine Canyon Lot 197 and co-plaintiff/appellee alongside her husband Robert R. Hawk.
Tevis Reich (Counsel)
Law Office of Tevis Reich
Represented plaintiffs and appellees Robert and Cecilia Hawk throughout the trial court and appeal.
Richard V. Mack (Counsel)
Mack, Watson & Stratman, P.L.C.
Counsel who represented the Arizona Association of REALTORS® as amicus curiae in support of the Hawks.
Scott M. Drucker (Counsel)
Mack, Watson & Stratman, P.L.C.
Counsel who represented the Arizona Association of REALTORS® as amicus curiae in support of the Hawks.
K. Michelle Lind (Counsel)
Arizona Association of REALTORS®
General Counsel who represented the Arizona Association of REALTORS® as amicus curiae.

Respondent Side

PC Village Association, Inc. (Defendant)
Arizona non-profit homeowners association responsible for managing the Pine Canyon Subdivision.
Edward G. Hochuli (Counsel)
Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C.
Represented defendant and appellant PC Village Association, Inc. in both the trial court and on appeal.
J. Gary Linder (Counsel)
Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C.
Represented defendant and appellant PC Village Association, Inc.
Jonathan Confer (Counsel)
Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C.
Represented defendant and appellant PC Village Association, Inc.
Lori L. Voepel (Counsel)
Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C.
Appellate counsel who represented PC Village Association, Inc. throughout the appeals process.
Jonathan P. Barnes, Jr. (Counsel)
Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C.
Represented appellant PC Village Association, Inc. on appeal.
Warren Smith (Association President)
PC Village Association, Inc.
President of the PC Village Association who issued courtesy notices and signed the supersedeas bond on appeal.
T. Randall Bailey (Witness)
Pine Canyon resident who submitted an affidavit supporting the validity of the CC&R sign ban.
Sherri Slayton (Witness)
Pine Canyon resident who submitted an affidavit supporting the validity of the CC&R sign ban.
Randall Lee Hutchison (Witness)
Pine Canyon resident who submitted an affidavit supporting the validity of the CC&R sign ban.
Arlene McDonald (Witness)
Pine Canyon resident who submitted an affidavit supporting the validity of the CC&R sign ban.
Howard Sadkin (Witness)
Pine Canyon resident who submitted an affidavit supporting the validity of the CC&R sign ban.
Deborah S. Schweikert (Witness)
Pine Canyon resident who submitted an affidavit supporting the validity of the CC&R sign ban.
James R. Schweikert (Witness)
Pine Canyon resident who submitted an affidavit supporting the validity of the CC&R sign ban.
Pamela S. Slayton (Witness)
Pine Canyon resident who submitted an affidavit supporting the validity of the CC&R sign ban.
James D. Siragusa (Witness)
Pine Canyon resident who submitted an affidavit supporting the validity of the CC&R sign ban.
Patrick H. Stewart (Witness)
Pine Canyon resident who submitted an affidavit supporting the validity of the CC&R sign ban.

Neutral Parties

Hon. Mark R. Moran (Judge)
Coconino County Superior Court
Trial judge (Division 3) who granted summary judgment and awarded attorney's fees to the Hawks.
Hon. Peter B. Swann (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Appellate judge who sat on the panel that heard oral arguments and decided the appeal.
Hon. Patricia A. Orozco (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Presiding appellate judge on the panel that heard oral arguments and decided the appeal.
Hon. Kent E. Cattani (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Appellate judge on the panel that heard oral arguments and decided the appeal.
Deborah Young (Other)
Coconino County Superior Court
Clerk of Coconino County Superior Court.
Ruth A. Willingham (Other)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Clerk of the Court of Appeals, Division One.
Jonna E. Baker (Other)
Coconino County Superior Court
Certified Court Reporter who transcribed the oral arguments in the trial court.

What happened

In 2009, Robert and Cecilia Hawk purchased Lot 197 in Pine Canyon, a master-planned subdivision in Flagstaff managed by the PC Village Association. The community was subject to CC&Rs recorded in 2002 and amended in 2004, which contained a strict ban in Section 12.3 prohibiting any ‘For Sale’ or ‘For Rent’ signs on residential lots. In August 2011, the Hawks displayed a standard ‘For Sale’ sign on their lot to market their home. Citing the CC&R restriction, PC Village personnel entered the lot on two consecutive days and removed the sign.

In response, the Hawks filed a complaint in Coconino County Superior Court for declaratory and injunctive relief, asserting that the sign prohibition was invalid under A.R.S. § 33-441 and § 33-1808(F). The Association counterclaimed and asserted that retroactive application of the statutes would violate the Contract Clauses of the Arizona and United States Constitutions. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Hawks, enjoining the Association from removing compliant signs and awarding the Hawks $21,820 in fees and costs. The Association appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment on all grounds.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Hawk v. PC Village Association (1 CA-CV 12-0362). A.R.S. § 33-441 bars enforcement of certain old covenants only prospectively. 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 Hawk v. PC Village Association. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

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

Procedural timeline

2009-08-25

Robert and Cecilia Hawk purchase Lot 197 in the Pine Canyon Subdivision.

2011-08-16

Robert Hawk places a standard 'For Sale' sign on Lot 197.

2011-08-17

PC Village Association personnel remove the sign and send a courtesy violation notice citing CC&R Section 12.3.

2011-09-15

Plaintiffs Robert and Cecilia Hawk file their Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief in Coconino County Superior Court (Case No. CV2011-00775) and file a Certificate Regarding Arbitration.

2011-09-27

Summons and Complaint are formally served on defendant PC Village Association, Inc.

2011-11-01

Defendant PC Village Association, Inc. files its Answer, Counterclaim, Demand for Jury Trial, and Certificate of Compulsory Arbitration.

2011-11-04

Plaintiffs file their Answer to Defendant's Counterclaim.

2011-11-10

Superior Court issues initial and amended orders setting a Case Management Conference.

2011-11-15

Plaintiffs file their Motion for Summary Judgment.

2011-12-16

Parties file a Stipulation to Extend Deadline to Respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment.

2011-12-19

Parties file an Amended Stipulation to Extend Deadline to Respond.

2011-12-20

Parties file a Stipulated Motion to Continue Case Management Conference.

2011-12-28

Superior Court issues an Order granting stipulation to continue the Case Management Conference.

2012-01-03

Defendant files Response to summary judgment, Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment challenging constitutionality of sign statutes, Notice of Claim of Unconstitutionality, and Statement of Facts.

2012-01-17

Superior Court holds Case Management Conference and schedules oral argument.

2012-01-25

Plaintiffs file Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment and Response to Cross-Motion.

2012-02-03

Defendant files Reply in Support of its Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and service affidavits.

2012-02-28

Superior Court holds Oral Argument on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment and takes the matter under advisement.

2012-03-26

Superior Court issues Under-Advisement Ruling granting summary judgment in favor of the Hawks.

2012-03-30

Hawks file Affidavit of Attorney Fees and Statement of Costs.

2012-04-18

Defendant files Opposition to Plaintiffs' Affidavit of Attorney's Fees and Costs.

2012-04-20

Hawks file Reply to Opposition, Supplemental Affidavit of Attorney's Fees and Costs, and Notice of Lodging Proposed Judgment.

2012-04-23

Defendant PC Village Association, Inc. files Notice of Appeal in Coconino County Superior Court.

2012-04-24

Superior Court Clerk issues Notice of Bond Posted for Costs ($500 cash bond) and Notice Re: Notice of Appeal Filed.

2012-04-30

Superior Court holds Status Conference regarding attorney's fees hearing.

2012-05-11

Process server files Declaration of Service of subpoena duces tecum on defense counsel.

2012-05-24

Hawks file Second Supplemental Affidavit of Attorney's Fees and Costs.

2012-05-24

Superior Court enters Judgment in favor of the Hawks for $21,820 in attorney's fees and costs.

2012-05-24

Superior Court holds hearing, hears oral argument on attorney's fees and Defendant's Rule 62(C) Motion to Stay/Suspend Enforcement, and takes Rule 62(C) under advisement.

2012-05-24

Superior Court issues Under-Advisement Ruling denying Defendant's request to stay the injunction.

2012-06-04

Court of Appeals Division One issues Civil Notice to Counsel regarding appeal filing fees and appellant opening brief deadlines.

Download source

0000 Civil Notice To Counsel Appellants

2012-06-13

PC Village Association, Inc. files Amended Notice of Appeal.

2012-06-14

Appellant files Civil Appeals Docketing Statement and certificates of service for reporter's transcripts.

Download 9 sources

0000 Civil Appeals Docketing Statement 0000 Notice Of Service Of February 28201 0000 Notice Of Service Of May 242012 Repo 0001 Certificate Of Service 0001 Certificate Of Service 2 0001 Certificate Of Service 3 0002 Court Reporters Transcript 22812 J 0002 Court Reporters Transcript 52412 J 0002 Notice Of Appeal 042312 Amended Not

2012-06-28

Court of Appeals issues Notice to Counsel confirming appellant filing fee payment and reminding of brief deadlines.

Download source

0000 Notice To Counsel Appellees Fees Du

2013-10-29_112_0001-certificate-of-service.pdf

Source 113 2013-12-13

0000 Civil Mandate Package

Type: Decision or judgment

Decision document; read it to understand the controlling result before moving to later filings.

Download source file

2013-12-13_113_0000-civil-mandate-package.pdf

FAQ

Can an Arizona HOA enforce a complete ban on 'For Sale' signs if the CC&Rs were recorded before the state laws were passed?

No. The Arizona Court of Appeals held that A.R.S. § 33-441 applies prospectively to prohibit the enforcement of pre-existing CC&R bans on ‘For Sale’ signs. HOA boards cannot rely on the recording date of their covenants to bypass state laws protecting a homeowner’s right to market their property.

Does the state law preventing HOAs from banning 'For Sale' signs violate the constitutional protection against impairing contracts?

No. The court ruled that the sign statutes do not unconstitutionally impair CC&R agreements. Because HOAs are highly regulated and CC&Rs typically contain clauses acknowledging that community rules must comply with changing laws, homeowners have no reasonable expectation that a sign ban will remain enforceable indefinitely.

What are the size limits for 'For Sale' signs that an Arizona homeowner can display?

Under A.R.S. § 33-441, homeowners are permitted to display industry-standard signs and sign riders. The sign itself must not exceed 18 by 24 inches, and any sign rider must not exceed 6 by 24 inches.

Can an HOA still regulate how and where 'For Sale' signs are displayed?

Yes. While an HOA cannot ban ‘For Sale’ signs entirely or require the use of a specific, proprietary sign, it retains the authority to establish reasonable regulations regarding the placement and number of signs displayed, provided those rules conform to state statutory guidelines.

Is the ruling in Hawk v. PC Village Association binding precedent for all Arizona HOAs?

Yes. Because this decision was issued as a published, precedential opinion by the Arizona Court of Appeals, it establishes binding legal precedent that applies to all planned communities and condominiums throughout the state of Arizona.

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

Case ID / citation	1 CA-CV 12-0362
Court / tribunal	Court of Appeals
Decision / key date	September 3, 2013
Judge / panel	Hon. Peter B. Swann, Hon. Patricia A. Orozco, Hon. Kent E. Cattani, Hon. Mark R. Moran
Parties	Robert R. Hawk and Cecilia J. Hawk (homeowners/plaintiffs) vs. PC Village Association, Inc. (homeowners association/defendant)
Governing law	A.R.S. § 33-441 A.R.S. § 33-1808 A.R.S. § 1-244 A.R.S. § 12-341.01 A.R.S. § 12-1831
Topics	CC&RsAttorney Fees
Outcome / holding	A.R.S. § 33-441 applies prospectively to prohibit the enforcement of pre-existing covenants, conditions, and restrictions that restrict the display of 'for sale' signs, and such application does not violate the Contract Clause of the United States or Arizona Constitutions.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package	113 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	58 roadmap entries
Video overview	Hawk v. PC Village Association
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	5 questions
Featured download links	3 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Robert and Cecilia Hawk, owners of a lot in the Pine Canyon master-planned community in Flagstaff, Arizona, filed a lawsuit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against their homeowners association, PC Village Association, Inc. The dispute arose in August 2011 when the Hawks displayed a "For Sale" sign on their property to market their home, and the Association removed it twice, citing Section 12.3 of the community's CC&Rs, which prohibited such signage. The Hawks argued that A.R.S. § 33-441, enacted in 2009, and A.R.S. § 33-1808(F), enacted in 2007, superseded and invalidated the CC&R restriction. The Association contended that the statutes were inapplicable because the CC&Rs were recorded prior to their enactment and that retroactive application would unconstitutionally impair their contractual rights. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Hawks and awarded them $21,820 in attorney's fees and costs. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that A.R.S. § 33-441 prospectively applied to render the pre-existing CC&R restriction unenforceable, and that this did not violate the Contract Clauses of the federal or state constitutions.

Key Issues & Findings

The Court of Appeals held that A.R.S. § 33-441 operates prospectively because it regulates future acts-specifically, the enforcement of a restriction after the statute's effective date-rather than past transactions. Although the CC&Rs were recorded in 2002, the Association's right to enforce the sign ban was contingent upon a resident actually displaying a sign. Since the Hawks posted their sign in 2011, several years after A.R.S. § 33-441 became effective in 2009, applying the statute to this future conduct did not constitute retroactive legislation.

Under the Contract Clause analysis, the court determined that the Association failed to show that A.R.S. § 33-441 substantially impaired any contractual relationship. The CC&Rs themselves expressly contemplated that the community rules might change or be affected by future laws, meaning the residents had no reasonable expectation that the sign ban would remain in effect indefinitely. Because the threshold of substantial impairment was not met, the court concluded there was no constitutional violation and declined to evaluate if the impairment was justified under the state's police power.

Additionally, the court affirmed the award of attorney's fees to the Hawks under A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A). It rejected the Association's argument that the trial court abused its discretion, finding a reasonable basis for the fees as the Hawks were the prevailing party in an action arising out of contract (the CC&Rs), and the complexity and novelty of the constitutional and statutory issues justified the billing records.

Why It Matters

For Arizona homeowners and HOA boards, this decision establishes that state laws overriding community covenants apply to pre-existing CC&Rs, preventing HOAs from enforcing outdated restrictions on property owners' rights. Specifically, associations cannot rely on the date of their CC&R recordation to bypass statutory protections regarding the display of 'for sale' signs or other legislative carve-outs.

For legal counsel, the case reinforces the principle that CC&Rs constitute contract-based rights where enforcement expectations are subject to statutory changes, meaning they do not easily qualify for Contract Clause protection. It also emphasizes that under A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A), prevailing parties in CC&R disputes are highly likely to recover substantial attorney's fees, raising the financial risks for HOAs that engage in litigation to enforce invalidated rules.

← Back to Court of Appeals cases

Vales v. Kings Hill Condominium Association: Procedural Milestones in an HOA Appeal

Posted on June 29, 2026 by [email protected]

Procedure | A.R.S. § 12-322A | 1 CA-CV 04-0816

This case illustrates the complex procedural path of an Arizona homeowners association dispute on appeal. It highlights key milestones including docketing, record transmission, and the final mandate. Homeowners and boards can observe how appellate courts govern procedural compliance and cost recovery.

Last updated June 29, 2026. Case: Vales, appellate No. 1 CA-CV 04-0816; mandate issued.

Download the appellate mandate Download the record index Source-file index FAQ

Scope note: This page covers the procedural history, timeline, and cost awards of the Arizona HOA appeal in Janet Vales v. Kings Hill Condominium Association, including its precedential posture. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The Court of Appeals issued its opinion and memorandum decision on December 22, 2005, and subsequently issued a mandate on March 29, 2006, commanding the Maricopa County Superior Court to comply with its decision and awarding appellate costs of $297.80.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Janet Vales (Plaintiff)
A married woman dealing with her sole and separate property; Plaintiff/Appellant.
Melody K. Seal (Counsel)
Jackson White PC
Represented Plaintiff/Appellant Janet Vales.
James L. Tanner (Counsel)
Jackson White PC
Represented Plaintiff/Appellant Janet Vales.

Respondent Side

Kings Hill Condominium Association (Defendant)
An unincorporated condominium association; Defendant/Appellee.
Michael A. Ludwig (Counsel)
Jones Skelton & Hochuli PLC
Represented Defendant/Appellee Kings Hill Condominium Association.
Randall H. Warner (Counsel)
Jones Skelton & Hochuli PLC
Represented Defendant/Appellee Kings Hill Condominium Association.

Neutral Parties

Hon. J. Richard Gama (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court
Trial Court Judge on Appeal.
Hon. Philip Hall (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Presiding Judge, Department D.
Hon. G. Murray Snow (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Judge, Department D.
Hon. Patricia K. Norris (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Judge, Department D.
Philip G. Urry (Other)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Clerk of Court of Appeals, Division One.
Michael K. Jeanes (Other)
Maricopa County Superior Court
Clerk of Maricopa County Superior Court.
Patricia Sanderman (Other)
Maricopa County Superior Court
Supervisor, Appeals Section, Maricopa County Superior Court.

What happened

Janet Vales filed an appeal (No. 1 CA-CV 04-0816) in the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, from a judgment of the Maricopa County Superior Court (No. CV2003-009786) presided over by Judge J. Richard Gama. The case was docketed in December 2004, with Vales paying the $140.00 filing fee on January 3, 2005.

Following the docketing, the Court of Appeals ordered the Clerk of the Maricopa County Superior Court to transmit the record on appeal. The Superior Court compiled and transmitted a record consisting of one volume of instruments and minute entries, with no transcripts or exhibits, in April 2005. The appeal was submitted without oral argument to Department D, consisting of Presiding Judge Philip Hall and Judges G. Murray Snow and Patricia K. Norris, who took the matter under advisement in October 2005. The court issued an opinion and memorandum decision on December 22, 2005, and, after denying a motion for reconsideration, issued its mandate on March 29, 2006, awarding $297.80 in costs.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Vales v. Kings Hill Condominium Association (1 CA-CV 04-0816). The Court of Appeals issued its opinion and memorandum decision on December 22, 2005, and subsequently issued a… 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 Vales v. Kings Hill Condominium Association. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

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

Procedural timeline

2004-11-30

A docketing statement was received from Appellant Janet Vales.

2004-12-21

The index of record from the Superior Court was filed, and the case was assigned docket number 1 CA-CV 04-0816 in the Court of Appeals, Division One.

Download source

0000 Div 1 Civil Notice To Counsel Appell

2004-12-21

Clerk Philip G. Urry issued a Civil Notice to Counsel regarding the $140.00 filing fee deadline and the opening brief due date.

Download source

0000 Div 1 Civil Notice To Counsel Appell

Download source

Type: Court/source PDF

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file

2005-12-21_006_0000-div-1-westmead-package-letters.pdf

Source 7 2006-03-29

0000 Div 1 Civil Mandate Package

Type: Decision or judgment

Decision document; read it to understand the controlling result before moving to later filings.

Download source file

2006-03-29_007_0000-div-1-civil-mandate-package.pdf

FAQ

What is the precedential value of the decision in Vales v. Kings Hill Condominium Association?

The Court of Appeals issued both an ‘Opinion’ and a ‘Memorandum Decision’ on December 22, 2005. Under Arizona court rules, memorandum decisions are non-precedential, while opinions are published and binding. Because the mandate references both, parties must check which parts of the decision were officially published as precedential.

What is the penalty if an appellant fails to pay the filing fee on time?

If the appellant fails to pay the required filing fee ($140.00 in this case) within the timeframe specified by the court, the appeal will be deemed abandoned in accordance with A.R.S. § 12-322A.

How does the Arizona Court of Appeals obtain the trial court record?

Under Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure (ARCAP) Rule 11(a)(3), the Court of Appeals issues an order directing the Clerk of the Superior Court to transmit the record on appeal (including instruments, minute entries, transcripts, and exhibits) within 15 days.

Can an HOA appeal be decided without oral argument?

Yes. If the appeal is deemed ‘at issue,’ the court may submit the case without oral argument. In this case, Department D took the matter under advisement after conference on October 5, 2005.

Are attorneys' fees or costs awarded at the end of an HOA appeal?

Yes, the prevailing party on appeal can recover taxable costs. Upon issuing the final mandate on March 29, 2006, the Court of Appeals awarded costs of $297.80 to be complied with by the Maricopa County Superior Court.

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

Case ID / citation	1 CA-CV 04-0816
Court / tribunal	Court of Appeals
Decision / key date	December 22, 2005
Judge / panel	Hon. Philip Hall, Hon. G. Murray Snow, Hon. Patricia K. Norris, Hon. J. Richard Gama
Parties	Janet Vales (Plaintiff/Appellant, homeowner) vs. Kings Hill Condominium Association (Defendant/Appellee, unincorporated condominium association)
Topics	ProcedureCondominiums
Outcome / holding	The Court of Appeals issued its opinion and memorandum decision on December 22, 2005, and subsequently issued a mandate on March 29, 2006, commanding the Maricopa County Superior Court to comply with its decision and awarding appellate costs of $297.80.

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package	7 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	12 roadmap entries
Video overview	Vales v. Kings Hill Condominium Association
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	5 questions
Featured download links	2 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

This appeal arises from a dispute between homeowner Janet Vales and the Kings Hill Condominium Association. Following a trial court decision in Maricopa County Superior Court under Judge J. Richard Gama, Vales appealed to the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One. The appellate court docketed the case in December 2004, received briefing throughout early 2005, and ordered the transmission of the record on appeal. The matter was submitted to Department D (consisting of Judges Philip Hall, G. Murray Snow, and Patricia K. Norris) without oral argument and taken under advisement. On December 22, 2005, the Court of Appeals filed its opinion and memorandum decision. After denying a motion for reconsideration on March 7, 2006, and with no petition for review filed with the Arizona Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals issued its mandate on March 29, 2006, commanding the Superior Court to comply with its decision and awarding $297.80 in costs.

Key Issues & Findings

The available record for this matter is procedural rather than substantive: it documents the docketing, filing-fee deadlines, transmission of the record on appeal, submission of the appeal to Department D under advisement without oral argument, and the issuance of the opinion, memorandum decision, and final mandate, but it does not reproduce the court's merits analysis. Accordingly, this page summarizes the procedural posture and disposition rather than the substantive legal reasoning. The Court of Appeals resolved the appeal through a combination of a published opinion and a non-precedential memorandum decision, denied a motion for reconsideration, and then issued its mandate commanding the Superior Court to comply and awarding appellate costs.

Why It Matters

Because the substantive merits of the decision are not detailed in the procedural record, the primary takeaway is procedural. It highlights the structured, multi-step nature of the Arizona appellate process for homeowners and HOA boards, including strict deadlines for filing fees, the compilation of the record on appeal, the submission under advisement without oral argument, and the finality of the mandate. Additionally, it underscores that prevailing parties on appeal in Arizona HOA disputes can recover taxable costs (here, $297.80) upon issuance of the mandate.

← Back to Court of Appeals cases

College Book Centers v. Carefree Foothills HOA: Enforceability of CC&R Non-Waiver Clauses and Property Access Rights

Posted on June 29, 2026 by [email protected]

CC&Rs & Private Condemnation | A.R.S. § 12-1202(A) | 1 CA-CV 08-0450

This case illustrates the high legal threshold required to prove that an Arizona homeowners’ association has waived its CC&Rs. It also highlights how a landlocked property owner may still use statutory private condemnation to bypass restrictive covenants, provided they pay just compensation to affected owners.

Last updated June 29, 2026. Case: College Book Centers, appellate No. 1 CA-CV 08-0450; reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded.

Download the appellate opinion Download the appellate mandate Download the record index Source-file index FAQ

Current-status note: This page is published as a litigation record based on the source files available through 2011-06-15. Later filings, appeals, mandates, settlements, or dismissal orders may change the posture; the linked court records control.

Scope note: This page details the Arizona Court of Appeals’ published, precedential decision regarding the enforceability of CC&R non-waiver clauses, the requirements for establishing common law implied easements of necessity, and the framework for statutory private condemnation of restrictive covenants. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The Arizona Court of Appeals held that the homeowners’ association did not waive its CC&R restrictions because two prior roadway easements in a seventy-six-lot subdivision did not constitute frequent violations, and the CC&Rs contained an enforceable non-waiver clause. It also held that Vanyo failed to establish a common law implied way of necessity because there was no historical evidence that the property was landlocked when it was patented and severed from federal land in 1912.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

David B. Vanyo (Plaintiff)
College Book Centers, Inc. 401 Profit Sharing Plan and Trustee
Trustee of the College Book Centers 401 Profit Sharing Plan and purchaser of Lot 24 and the Mamie Maude Mining Claim.
College Book Centers, Inc. 401 Profit Sharing Plan and Trust (Plaintiff)
The 401 profit sharing plan and trust entity holding title to Lot 24 and the landlocked Mamie Maude Mining Claim.
Jeffrey D. Gross (Counsel)
Gallagher & Kennedy, P.A.
Attorney representing the plaintiff/appellee David B. Vanyo and the College Book Centers Profit Sharing Plan.
Timothy Berg (Counsel)
Co-counsel representing the plaintiff/appellee David B. Vanyo on appeal and in the petition for review.
Valerie Biederbeck (Other)
Vanyo's predecessor-in-interest who sold Lot 24 and the Mamie Maude Mining Claim to Vanyo's pension plan.
Richard Biederbeck (Other)
Vanyo's predecessor-in-interest who sold Lot 24 and the Mamie Maude Mining Claim to Vanyo's pension plan.
James Farris Murphy (Witness)
Vanyo's former real estate transaction attorney who testified at trial regarding pre-closing meetings and notice from the HOA.
Donald Duncan (Witness)
Licensed real estate appraiser called by Vanyo who testified on valuation and lack of financial impact of the road on subdivision lots.
Greg Gentsch (Witness)
Licensed professional engineer called by Vanyo who testified on the road design and infeasibility of constructing a road across the steep slope.

Respondent Side

Carefree Foothills Homeowners’ Association (Defendant)
The homeowners' association for the subdivision, serving as the certified class representative of the subdivision lot owners.
John P. Dwyer, Jr. (Defendant)
Carefree Foothills Homeowners’ Association
Homeowner who initially opted out of the defendant class, participated individually at trial, and rejoined the class post-trial.
Janet G. Dwyer (Defendant)
Carefree Foothills Homeowners’ Association
Homeowner who initially opted out of the defendant class, participated individually at trial, and rejoined the class post-trial.
Thomas H. Crouch (Counsel)
Meagher & Geer, P.L.L.P.
Attorney representing the defendant/appellant Carefree Foothills Homeowners' Association.
Kevin T. Minchey (Counsel)
Meagher & Geer, P.L.L.P.
Attorney representing the defendant/appellant Carefree Foothills Homeowners' Association.
Kurt M. Zitzer (Counsel)
Meagher & Geer, P.L.L.P.
Attorney representing the defendant/appellant Carefree Foothills Homeowners' Association.
Ralph W. Applegate, Jr. (Association President)
Carefree Foothills Corporation
Original subdivision developer who drafted the CC&Rs and acted as the HOA board prior to its official formation; granted historical easements.
Denton L. Ingle (Other)
Carefree Foothills Corporation
Partner of developer Ralph Applegate, subdivision manager, original owner of Lot 43, and draftsman of the Thiele easement.
Barbara L. Ingle (Other)
Subdivision homeowner and co-owner of Lot 43 who signed the reciprocal 1987 Applegate roadway agreement.
Fo O. Buck (Other)
Subdivision homeowner and owner of Lot 42 who signed the reciprocal 1987 Applegate roadway agreement.
Deborah R. Buck (Other)
Subdivision homeowner and co-owner of Lot 42 who signed the reciprocal 1987 Applegate roadway agreement.
Jack Anderson (Board Member)
Carefree Foothills Homeowners’ Association
Subdivision homeowner, principal of Calver Capital, and Architectural Control Committee chair responsible for denying Vanyo's road proposal.
Whitney Smelser (Witness)
Licensed Land Surveyor and expert witness called by the HOA who testified on historical physical access to the mining claims.

Neutral Parties

John A. Buttrick (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court
The trial court judge who presided over the jury trial and entered final judgment in favor of Vanyo.
Michael J. Brown (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Appellate judge who authored the court's opinion reversing the waiver and implied easement claims.
Patricia A. Orozco (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Presiding appellate judge on Department B who concurred with the court's opinion.
Patricia K. Norris (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Appellate judge on Department B who concurred with the court's opinion.
Philip G. Urry (Other)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Clerk of the Court of Appeals who issued docketing notices and orders to transmit the superior court record.
Ruth Willingham (Other)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Acting Clerk of the Court of Appeals who issued electronic notifications of the opinion and the final civil mandate.
Rachelle M. Resnick (Other)
Arizona Supreme Court
Clerk of the Arizona Supreme Court who processed the petition for review and issued letters on the denial of review.
Heinrich J. Thiele (Other)
The Heinrich J. Thiele and Gertrude A. Thiele Trust
Co-grantee of the perpetual 1984 access and utility easement across Lot 7 to access an adjacent unsubdivided parcel.
Gertrude A. Thiele (Other)
The Heinrich J. Thiele and Gertrude A. Thiele Trust
Co-grantee of the perpetual 1984 access and utility easement across Lot 7 to access an adjacent unsubdivided parcel.
Jefferrey Rybarszyk (Witness)
Professional engineer whose deposition testimony was entered into the court record.
John Ratliff (Witness)
Developer of the adjacent Carefree Vistas subdivision who offered Vanyo a limited roadway easement for $50,000.
Michael K. Jeanes (Other)
Maricopa County Superior Court
Clerk of Maricopa County Superior Court.
Patricia Sanderman (Other)
Maricopa County Superior Court
Supervisor of the Appeals Section of Maricopa County Superior Court.

What happened

In March 2005, David B. Vanyo, acting as trustee of the College Book Centers, Inc. 401 Profit Sharing Plan, purchased Lot 24 in the seventy-six-lot Carefree Foothills residential subdivision in Maricopa County, Arizona, alongside an adjacent nine-acre rectangular parcel called the Mamie Maude Mining Claim. Lot 24 is subject to the subdivision’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), which restrict lot use exclusively to single-family residential purposes and prohibit non-residential structures. Mamie Maude, which is not part of the subdivision, is bisected by a steep, impassable slope that prevents building a safe roadway connecting its elevated northern portion to its lower southern portion. Seeking to develop the lower portion into four residential lots, Vanyo’s predecessors-in-interest and later Vanyo himself proposed building a fifty-foot roadway across Lot 24 to connect the cul-de-sac of Languid Lane to Mamie Maude. The HOA rejected both proposals, advising that a roadway is a non-residential structure that violates the CC&Rs.

In August 2006, Vanyo filed a class action lawsuit in Maricopa County Superior Court against all subdivision property owners, naming the HOA as the class representative. Vanyo sought a declaratory judgment that the HOA had waived its right to enforce the CC&R restriction because it had previously permitted two roadway easements (the Thiele roadway in 1984 and the Applegate roadway in 1987) to cross subdivision lots. Vanyo also claimed he possessed a common law implied way of necessity over Lot 24, or alternatively, that he was entitled to privately condemn the CC&R restriction under Arizona’s private way of necessity statute (A.R.S. § 12-1202(A)). Following a trial in November 2007, the jury returned a verdict in Vanyo’s favor on the waiver claim without reaching the other two claims. The trial court entered judgment for Vanyo, awarded him $100,000 in attorneys’ fees, and denied the HOA’s motions for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) and a new trial.

The HOA appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in denying its motions for JMOL. The Arizona Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s denial of JMOL on Vanyo’s waiver and implied way of necessity claims. It held that the two prior roadway easements did not constitute frequent violations to establish a waiver, and that the clear non-waiver provision in the CC&Rs barred Vanyo’s waiver claim because the subdivision covenants had not been completely abandoned. The court also held that Vanyo failed to prove an implied way of necessity because he provided no evidence that Mamie Maude was landlocked when it was patented and severed from federal land in 1912. However, the court affirmed the denial of JMOL on the statutory private condemnation claim, remanding it for a new trial because the jury had never reached a verdict on whether removing the CC&R restriction was reasonably necessary and what just compensation was due. Vanyo filed a petition for review with the Arizona Supreme Court, which was denied on May 24, 2011, and the Court of Appeals issued its civil mandate package to the Superior Court on June 15, 2011.

Video overview of the case record

An AI-generated video overview of College Book Centers v. Carefree Foothills HOA (1 CA-CV 08-0450). The homeowners’ association did not waive its CC&R restrictions because two prior roadway easements in a… This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own ruling controls.

Listen: audio deep dive on the case record

An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the court record and procedural posture in College Book Centers v. Carefree Foothills HOA. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked case records below.

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

Procedural timeline

1912-04-01

The United States Government issues a land patent for the Mamie Maude Mining Claim to Charles W. Cheney and F.H. Summeril, severing it from federal land.

1956-06-15

The United States Government issues land patents for adjacent property including what is now the Carefree Foothills subdivision.

1983-11-23

CC&Rs containing a single-family residential use restriction and a non-waiver clause are executed and recorded for the Carefree Foothills subdivision.

1984-09-12

Developer Ralph Applegate causes Carefree Foothills Corporation to grant a perpetual access and utility easement across Lot 7 to the Thiele Trust.

1987-01-21

Lot owners (including Ralph Applegate) execute the Mutual Ingress and Egress Agreement and Easement over Lots 42, 43, and 44, which is recorded on April 2, 1987.

2005-03-22

David B. Vanyo, as trustee of the College Book Centers 401 Profit Sharing Plan, purchases Lot 24 and the Mamie Maude Mining Claim.

2005-11-14

Carefree Foothills HOA formally rejects David Vanyo's written proposal to build a roadway across Lot 24 to access Mamie Maude.

2006-08-08

David B. Vanyo files a putative class action complaint against Carefree Foothills HOA in Maricopa County Superior Court (Cause No. CV2006-011927).

2006-11-02

Maricopa County Superior Court certifies the case as a defendant class action, appointing the HOA as the class representative.

2007-11-13

A three-day jury trial begins in Maricopa County Superior Court.

2007-11-20

The jury returns a unanimous verdict in Vanyo's favor, finding the HOA waived enforcement of the CC&R single-family use restriction.

2008-04-17

Maricopa County Superior Court enters final judgment in favor of Vanyo, declaring the CC&R restriction waived and awarding $100,000 in attorneys' fees.

2008-04-25

Carefree Foothills HOA files a post-trial Motion for New Trial or Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL).

2008-06-24

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge John A. Buttrick enters an order denying the HOA's motion for JMOL and new trial.

2008-07-03

Carefree Foothills HOA files a Notice of Appeal to the Arizona Court of Appeals and posts a supersedeas bond.

2008-08-13

The Arizona Court of Appeals denies the HOA's motion to challenge the supersedeas bond amount.

2008-08-20

The Court of Appeals Division One issues a Notice to Counsel docketing the appeal as Case No. 1 CA-CV 08-0450.

2008-11-10

College Book Centers / David Vanyo files Appellee's Answering Brief.

Download source

0000 Appellees Answering Brief

2008-11-18

Court of Appeals Clerk Philip G. Urry enters an order directing the Clerk of Maricopa County Superior Court to transmit the record on appeal.

2008-12-03

Clerk of the Court of Appeals files the Inventory of Record on Appeal.

Download source

0000 Div 1 Inventory

2008-12-05

Carefree Foothills HOA files Appellant's Reply Brief.

Download source

0000 Appellants Reply Brief

2009-04-01

The Court of Appeals issues a Notice of Oral Argument setting the hearing for May 5, 2009.

Download source

0000 Notice Of Oa Or Conference

2009-05-05

Court of Appeals Department B hears oral argument and enters an order taking the appeal under advisement.

2010-10-26

The Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Department B files its Opinion, reversing the waiver and implied easement rulings but remanding the statutory condemnation claim for a new trial.

Download source

0000 Opinion

Download source

Type: Decision or judgment

Decision document; read it to understand the controlling result before moving to later filings.

Download source file

2011-06-15_012_0000-civil-mandate-package.pdf

FAQ

Is this Arizona Court of Appeals ruling binding precedent?

Yes, this is a published, precedential opinion by the Arizona Court of Appeals. It establishes binding legal rules across Arizona regarding the strict enforceability of CC&R non-waiver clauses, the high evidentiary hurdles for common law implied easements of necessity, and the framework for statutory private condemnation of restrictive covenants.

Can an HOA waive its right to enforce CC&Rs if it allowed past violations?

Generally, no, if the CC&Rs contain a clear non-waiver clause. The Court of Appeals held that an unambiguous non-waiver clause remains enforceable despite past violations unless the restrictions have been so thoroughly disregarded as to constitute a ‘complete abandonment’ that destroys the fundamental character of the neighborhood.

How many past violations are needed to prove that an HOA has waived a covenant restriction?

The court ruled as a matter of law that two historical roadway violations over a twenty-year period in a seventy-six-lot subdivision do not constitute ‘frequent’ violations. To establish waiver in the absence of a non-waiver clause, violations must be frequent, habitual, or regular, occurring often or at close intervals.

What must a property owner prove to establish a common law implied way of necessity?

The claimant must prove that the dominant and servient properties were under common ownership, followed by a severance, and that the landlocked property had no outlet at the exact time of that original severance. Silence regarding access in a 1912 federal land patent is legally insufficient to prove that the property lacked an outlet.

Can a landlocked owner condemn an HOA's CC&R restriction to build an access road?

Yes. Arizona law allows a landlocked property owner to utilize statutory private condemnation under A.R.S. § 12-1202(A) to condemn a restrictive covenant on an adjacent lot. Because this statutory right only arises if no common law implied easement exists, the court remanded this claim for a new trial to let a jury determine if the road is reasonably necessary and to decide the ‘just compensation’ owed to the subdivision lot owners.

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

Case ID / citation	1 CA-CV 08-0450
Court / tribunal	Court of Appeals
Decision / key date	October 26, 2010
Judge / panel	Hon. Michael J. Brown, Hon. Patricia A. Orozco, Hon. Patricia K. Norris
Parties	College Book Centers, Inc. 401 Profit Sharing Plan and Trustee David B. Vanyo (Plaintiffs/Appellees) v. Carefree Foothills Homeowners' Association (Defendants/Appellants)
Governing law	A.R.S. § 12-1202(A) A.R.S. § 12-341.01 A.R.S. § 33-416
Topics	CC&RsSelective EnforcementAttorney FeesProcedure
Outcome / holding	The Arizona Court of Appeals held that the homeowners' association did not waive its CC&R restrictions because two prior roadway easements in a seventy-six-lot subdivision did not constitute frequent violations, and the CC&Rs contained an enforceable non-waiver clause. It also held that Vanyo failed to establish a common law implied way of necessity because there was no historical evidence that the property was landlocked when it was patented and severed from federal land in 1912.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package	12 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	30 roadmap entries
Video overview	College Book Centers v. Carefree Foothills HOA
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	5 questions
Featured download links	3 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

This case arose when David B. Vanyo, as trustee of the College Book Centers 401 Profit Sharing Plan, purchased undeveloped Lot 24 within the Carefree Foothills subdivision and an adjacent landlocked nine-acre parcel known as the Mamie Maude Mining Claim. To develop the lower portion of Mamie Maude into residential lots, Vanyo requested the homeowners' association's (HOA) permission to build a short roadway across Lot 24. The HOA denied the request because the subdivision's CC&Rs prohibited non-residential structures. Vanyo sued the HOA, claiming that the HOA waived this restriction by previously allowing two other roadways (the Thiele and Applegate easements), and that he was entitled to a common law implied easement or statutory private way of necessity. A jury found in Vanyo's favor on waiver, and the trial court entered judgment with attorneys' fees. On appeal, the Arizona Court of Appeals reversed the waiver and implied easement rulings, remanding the statutory private condemnation claim for a new trial.

Key Issues & Findings

The court's reasoning on the waiver claim turned on the frequency of violations and the effect of the CC&R non-waiver clause. It concluded that two prior roadway easements granted in the 1980s did not constitute frequent violations in a seventy-six-lot subdivision to establish waiver of the non-residential structure restriction. Furthermore, the court held that the CC&Rs contained an unambiguous non-waiver clause that remained fully enforceable since the subdivision covenants had not been completely abandoned. Complete abandonment occurs only when restrictions have been so thoroughly disregarded that the fundamental character of the neighborhood has been destroyed, which Vanyo did not argue. The court also rejected Vanyo's action versus inaction distinction, holding that both act as a failure to enforce that is covered by the non-waiver clause.

On Vanyo's common law implied way of necessity claim, the court held that Vanyo failed to establish a prima facie case. Under Arizona law, a claimant must prove that the dominant and servient properties were under common ownership, followed by severance, that the dominant property had no outlet at the time of severance, and that access was reasonably necessary when severance occurred. The court found no evidence in the record establishing that Mamie Maude was landlocked in 1912 when the land patent was issued. Silence regarding access in the 1912 land patent was insufficient to prove the lack of an outlet, particularly since a historical 1909 survey depicted roads crossing the mining claims.

Finally, the court addressed the statutory private condemnation claim under A.R.S. § 12-1202(A). Because private condemnation only comes into existence if no other access exists by common law implication, Vanyo's failure to establish an implied way of necessity cleared the path for statutory condemnation. Since the jury, having found for Vanyo on the waiver claim, did not decide whether removing the CC&R restriction was reasonably necessary for Vanyo's proper use and enjoyment of Mamie Maude, or what just compensation was due, the court remanded the statutory private condemnation claim for a new trial.

Why It Matters

This decision is highly significant for Arizona homeowners' associations, boards, and their legal counsel because it strongly reinforces the enforceability of clear and unambiguous non-waiver clauses within CC&Rs. The ruling establishes that an HOA's prior failure to enforce a covenant, or even its affirmative granting of historical variances, does not constitute a wholesale waiver of those covenants unless the violations are so rampant as to completely destroy the neighborhood's character. At the same time, it reminds associations that their discretionary design-control and enforcement powers are always constrained by duties of fairness and reasonableness, which protects members against arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement.

For property litigation counsel, the case highlights the high evidentiary hurdles required to establish a common law implied way of necessity in Arizona. Specifically, it confirms that silence in a century-old federal land patent is legally insufficient to prove that a parcel was historically landlocked at severance. Lastly, the case confirms that restrictive covenants represent valid property rights that can be privately condemned under A.R.S. § 12-1202(A), opening a potential, though costly, pathway for landlocked owners to acquire access by paying just compensation to all affected lot owners in the subdivision.

← Back to Court of Appeals cases

Cao v. PFP Dorsey Investments: Arizona Supreme Court Limits on Condominium Termination Forced Sales

Posted on June 29, 2026 by [email protected]

cc-and-rs | A.R.S. § 33-1228 | 257 Ariz. 82 (2024)

This Arizona Supreme Court decision sets the constitutional and statutory ground rules for forcing the buyout of minority condominium owners after a supermajority votes to terminate. It upholds the termination statute against a takings challenge but requires that the entire condominium — not individual holdout units — be sold.

Last updated June 30, 2026. Case: Cao, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-22-0228-PR, 257 Ariz. 82 (2024); Court of Appeals decision vacated, superior court affirmed in part and remanded. A later order (No. CV-25-0071-PR, Aug. 20, 2025) sent the unit’s valuation to binding arbitration.

Download the Arizona Supreme Court opinion (2024) Download the Supreme Court order on remand (Aug. 2025) Download the Court of Appeals opinion (now vacated) Download the record index Source-file index FAQ

Current-status note: This page is published as a litigation record based on the source files available through 2025-08-20. Later filings, appeals, mandates, settlements, or dismissal orders may change the posture; the linked court records control.

Scope note: This page covers the Arizona Supreme Court’s resolution of a condominium-termination forced sale — the March 22, 2024 opinion (257 Ariz. 82), which vacated the Court of Appeals decision, and the follow-on August 20, 2025 per curiam order (No. CV-25-0071-PR) sending the unit’s valuation to binding arbitration. The Court of Appeals’ 2022 opinion has been vacated and is no longer controlling. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The Arizona Supreme Court held that a forced sale following a supermajority condominium termination under A.R.S. § 33-1228 does not violate the eminent-domain (private-takings) provision of the Arizona Constitution as applied to owners who agreed to a recorded declaration incorporating the Condominium Act. However, the Court also held that, under these circumstances, § 33-1228 required the sale of the entire condominium upon termination, not the sale of only the minority owners’ individual unit. It vacated the Court of Appeals’ decision, affirmed the superior court except as to that issue, and remanded.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Jie Cao (Plaintiff)
Minority condominium unit owner of Unit 106 at Dorsey Place Condominiums who challenged the condominium termination and forced sale.
Haining "Frazer" Xia (Plaintiff)
Minority condominium unit owner of Unit 106, husband of Jie Cao, who challenged the termination and forced sale.
Stone Xia (Plaintiff)
Son of Jie Cao and Haining Xia, residing in Fountain Hills, Arizona, named as a plaintiff in the complaints.
Dennis I. Wilenchik (Counsel)
Wilenchik & Bartness, P.C.
Trial counsel representing Plaintiffs Jie Cao, Haining Xia, and Stone Xia in Maricopa County Superior Court.
John "Jack" D. Wilenchik (Counsel)
Wilenchik & Bartness, P.C.
Trial counsel representing Plaintiffs Jie Cao, Haining Xia, and Stone Xia in Maricopa County Superior Court.
Ross P. Meyer (Counsel)
Wilenchik & Bartness, P.C.
Trial and appellate counsel representing Plaintiffs in both Superior Court and Court of Appeals proceedings.
Eric M. Fraser (Counsel)
Osborn Maledon, P.A.
Appellate counsel representing Plaintiffs/Appellants Jie Cao and Haining Xia before the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court.
John S. Bullock (Counsel)
Osborn Maledon, P.A.
Appellate counsel representing Plaintiffs/Appellants Jie Cao and Haining Xia before the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court.
Thomas L. Hudson (Counsel)
Osborn Maledon, P.A.
Appellate attorney with Osborn Maledon, P.A. who assisted on the appellate briefing and oral argument preparation.
James M. Manley (Counsel)
Pacific Legal Foundation
Amicus curiae counsel representing the Pacific Legal Foundation in support of Plaintiffs/Appellants.

Respondent Side

PFP Dorsey Investments, LLC (Defendant)
Majority investor entity that acquired 90 of the 96 units at Dorsey Place Condominiums and voted to terminate the condominium.
Dorsey Place Condominium Association (Defendant)
The homeowners association for the condominium complex that executed and recorded the termination agreement and warranty deed.
Lorne Polger (Board Member)
Pathfinder Partners / Dorsey Place Condominium Association
Principal of Pathfinder Partners and self-appointed Secretary of the Dorsey Place HOA; initially named as an individual defendant.
Matt Quinn (Association President)
Pathfinder Partners / Dorsey Place Condominium Association
Vice President of Pathfinder Partners and self-appointed President of the Dorsey Place HOA; initially named as an individual defendant.
Michael A. Schern (Counsel)
Schern Richardson Finter, PLC
Trial attorney who represented PFP Dorsey and the individual defendants; initially named as an individual defendant before being dismissed.
Shawna M. Woner (Counsel)
Woner Hoffmaster Peshek & Gintert, PC
Counsel representing Defendant/Appellee PFP Dorsey Investments, LLC.
Stephanie K. Gintert (Counsel)
Woner Hoffmaster Peshek & Gintert, PC
Counsel representing Defendant/Appellee PFP Dorsey Investments, LLC.
Edith I. Rudder (Counsel)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
Counsel representing Defendant/Appellee Dorsey Place Condominium Association.
Nicholas C.S. Nogami (Counsel)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
Counsel representing Defendant/Appellee Dorsey Place Condominium Association.
Aaron M. Finter (Counsel)
Schern Richardson Finter, PLC
Co-counsel representing defendants Lorne Polger, Matt Quinn, and Michael A. Schern in Superior Court.
Aaron R. Clouse (Counsel)
Schern Richardson Finter, PLC
Co-counsel representing defendants Lorne Polger, Matt Quinn, and Michael A. Schern in Superior Court.
Jennifer Barry (Board Member)
Pathfinder Partners
General Counsel for Pathfinder Partners who coordinated defense strategy, mediation, and client representation.

Neutral Parties

Hon. Theodore Campagnolo (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court
Trial court judge originally assigned to the civil action in Maricopa County Superior Court.
Hon. Gary L. Popham Jr. (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court
Trial commissioner/judge who heard and ruled on early default and consolidation motions.
Hon. Daniel G. Martin (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court
Commercial Court judge who dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice and awarded taxable costs.
Hon. Paul J. McMurdie (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One
Presiding Appellate Judge who delivered the court's published opinion reversing and remanding the case.
Hon. Kent E. Cattani (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One
Chief Appellate Judge who sat on the Division One panel and joined the opinion.
Hon. David B. Gass (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One
Appellate Judge who sat on the Division One panel and joined the opinion.
Justice Clint Bolick (Judge)
Arizona Supreme Court
Arizona Supreme Court Justice who authored the unanimous March 22, 2024 opinion (257 Ariz. 82).
Amy M. Wood (Other)
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One
Clerk of the Court of Appeals Division One who issued appellate clerk notices, record transmittals, and schedules.
Jeff Fine (Other)
Maricopa County Superior Court
Clerk of the Maricopa County Superior Court who certified and transmitted the electronic record on appeal.
Chief Justice Robert M. Brutinel (Judge)
Arizona Supreme Court
Joined the unanimous 2024 opinion.
Vice Chief Justice Ann A. Scott Timmer (Judge)
Arizona Supreme Court
Joined the 2024 opinion; as Chief Justice, signed the August 20, 2025 per curiam Decision Order.
Justice John R. Lopez IV (Judge)
Arizona Supreme Court
Joined the unanimous 2024 opinion.
Justice James P. Beene (Judge)
Arizona Supreme Court
Joined the unanimous 2024 opinion.
Justice William G. Montgomery (Judge)
Arizona Supreme Court
Joined the unanimous 2024 opinion.
Justice Kathryn H. King (Judge)
Arizona Supreme Court
Joined the unanimous 2024 opinion.

What happened

In January 2018, Jie Cao and Haining Xia purchased Unit 106 of the Dorsey Place Condominiums in Tempe, Arizona, subject to the recorded Condominium Declaration. In November 2018, PFP Dorsey Investments, LLC acquired 90 of the 96 units in the complex, gaining approximately 94% of the voting power.

In March 2019, the Association notified members of a meeting to terminate the condominium, proposing to sell the entire complex to PFP Dorsey. At the April 4, 2019 meeting, the Association presented a modified termination agreement to sell only the minority-owned units to PFP Dorsey. Utilizing its 94% vote, PFP Dorsey ratified the agreement, and the Association recorded a deed transferring the Xias’ unit to PFP Dorsey.

The Xias sued PFP Dorsey and the Association, claiming the forced sale was an unconstitutional private taking and a breach of fiduciary duty. The Maricopa County Superior Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, and the Court of Appeals reversed on the theory that an older version of the termination statute governed. The Arizona Supreme Court granted review.

On March 22, 2024, the Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals’ decision. It rejected the owners’ constitutional argument but held that A.R.S. § 33-1228 required selling the entire condominium, not just the Xias’ unit, and remanded. After the parties disputed the meaning of the mandate on remand, the Court issued a per curiam order on August 20, 2025 (No. CV-25-0071-PR) affirming the superior court, limiting the remaining issue to the unit’s fair market value as the owners’ total compensation, and sending that valuation to final and binding arbitration under § 33-1228.

Video overview of the case record

An AI-generated video overview of Cao v. PFP Dorsey Investments (257 Ariz. 82, 545 P.3d 459 (2024)). Condo termination statute allowed forced sale procedures, subject to constitutional compensation limits. This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own ruling controls.

Listen: audio deep dive on the case record

An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the court record and procedural posture in Cao v. PFP Dorsey Investments. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked case records below.

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

Procedural timeline

2019-11-20

Plaintiffs Jie Cao, Haining Xia, and Stone Xia file their initial Civil Complaint in Maricopa County Superior Court.

2019-12-18

Defendants file a Notice Requesting Assignment to Commercial Court and a Motion for More Definite Statement.

2019-12-20

Defendants file their formal Answer to the initial Complaint.

2020-01-03

Carpenter Hazlewood files a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Lorne Polger and Matt Quinn.

2020-01-17

Minute Entry orders the case referred for reassignment to Commercial Court.

2020-01-22

Plaintiffs file a Motion requesting a sheriff lock up of Unit 106 and an injunction on Defendants.

2020-01-24

Case is officially reassigned to the Commercial Court under Hon. Daniel Martin.

2020-02-25

Minute Entry from status conference orders Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint, denies Defendants' MTD as moot, and Plaintiffs withdraw their injunction motion.

2020-03-27

Plaintiffs file their First Amended Complaint.

2020-07-06

Plaintiffs file their Second Amended Complaint.

2020-07-24

Hon. Daniel Martin signs an order dismissing defendants Lorne Polger, Matt Quinn, and Michael A. Schern without prejudice.

2020-08-13

PFP Dorsey and Dorsey Place Condominium Association file separate Motions to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.

2020-09-16

Plaintiffs file their Response to the Motions to Dismiss.

2020-10-05

Defendants file their Reply briefs in support of the Motions to Dismiss.

2020-12-15

Virtual Oral Argument is held on the Motions to Dismiss before Hon. Daniel Martin.

2020-12-18

Court files a Minute Entry Under Advisement Ruling dated Dec 15, 2020, granting both Motions to Dismiss with prejudice.

2021-01-07

Defendants file separate Applications for Attorneys' Fees and Costs.

2021-03-15

Hon. Daniel Martin issues a Minute Entry Ruling denying the defendants' fee applications but granting taxable costs.

2021-03-18

Court enters signed judgments in favor of both defendants under Rule 54(b).

2021-04-19

Plaintiffs file their first Notice of Appeal from the March 18 judgments.

2021-04-27

Court enters revised final judgment under Rule 54(c).

2021-05-12

Type: Decision or judgment

Decision holding that the Arizona Supreme Court held that a forced sale following a supermajority condominium termination under A.R.S. § 33-1228 does not violate the eminent-domain (private-takings) provision of the Arizona Constitution as applied to owners who agreed to a recorded declaration incorporating the Condominium Act.

Download source file

2025-08-20_196_0000-supreme-court-decision-order.pdf

FAQ

Is Cao v. PFP Dorsey Investments binding precedent in Arizona?

Yes. The controlling decision is now the Arizona Supreme Court’s published opinion, Cao v. PFP Dorsey Investments, LLC, 257 Ariz. 82 (2024), which vacated the earlier Court of Appeals decision. The Supreme Court’s opinion is binding statewide; the 2022 Court of Appeals opinion is no longer good law.

Can a supermajority investor force minority condo owners to sell their units?

Under A.R.S. § 33-1228, a supermajority can vote to terminate a condominium. The Supreme Court held this forced sale does not violate Arizona’s constitutional ban on takings for private use, because the owners agreed to the recorded Declaration, which incorporates the Condominium Act. However, the Court held the statute requires the sale of the entire condominium upon termination — not the sale of only the holdout owners’ individual unit.

Did the unit owners win or lose?

It was a split result. The owners (Jie Cao and Haining ‘Frazer’ Xia) lost their constitutional eminent-domain argument but won on the statutory ground: because only their unit was force-sold while the investor kept the other 90 units, the sale was improper under § 33-1228. The case was remanded, and a later order limited the remaining issue to the fair market value of their unit as their total compensation.

What did the August 2025 Supreme Court order decide?

In a per curiam order (No. CV-25-0071-PR, Aug. 20, 2025), the Court clarified its mandate: the superior court was affirmed, the sole remaining issue is the fair market value of the owners’ unit (paid as their total compensation), and the matter was remanded for final and binding arbitration under A.R.S. § 33-1228 and the Condominium Termination Agreement.

What happened to the Court of Appeals' 'older statute governs' reasoning?

The Supreme Court rejected it. The Court of Appeals had held that the 1986 version of § 33-1228 governed because the owners bought before the 2018 amendments. The Supreme Court disagreed: the Declaration incorporated the Condominium Act ‘as amended from time to time,’ that amendment was anticipated, and Kalway v. Calabria Ranch did not apply because the Declaration itself was never amended — so the 2018 version of the statute applied.

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

Case ID / citation	257 Ariz. 82, 545 P.3d 459 (2024)
Court / tribunal	Arizona Supreme Court
Decision / key date	March 22, 2024
Judge / panel	Justice Clint Bolick (author), Chief Justice Robert M. Brutinel, Vice Chief Justice Ann A. Scott Timmer, Justice John R. Lopez IV, Justice James P. Beene, Justice William G. Montgomery, Justice Kathryn H. King
Parties	Jie Cao and Haining 'Frazer' Xia (condominium unit owners) v. PFP Dorsey Investments, LLC (majority investor) and Dorsey Place Condominium Association (homeowners association)
Governing law	A.R.S. § 33-1228 A.R.S. § 33-1201 Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 17
Topics	CC&RsBoard GovernanceProcedureAttorney Fees
Outcome / holding	The Arizona Supreme Court held that a forced sale following a supermajority condominium termination under A.R.S. § 33-1228 does not violate the eminent-domain (private-takings) provision of the Arizona Constitution as applied to owners who agreed to a recorded declaration incorporating the Condominium Act. However, the Court also held that, under these circumstances, § 33-1228 required the sale of the entire condominium upon termination, not the sale of only the minority owners' individual unit. It vacated the Court of Appeals' decision, affirmed the superior court except as to that issue, and remanded.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package	193 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	48 roadmap entries
Video overview	Cao v. PFP Dorsey Investments
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	5 questions
Featured download links	4 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Jie Cao and Haining 'Frazer' Xia owned one of 96 units at Dorsey Place Condominiums. After PFP Dorsey Investments acquired 90 units (about 94% of the vote), it invoked A.R.S. § 33-1228 to terminate the condominium and force the sale of the remaining minority units to itself. The Xias sued, arguing the forced sale was an unconstitutional private taking. The superior court dismissed the complaint; the Court of Appeals reversed on a statutory-retroactivity theory. The Arizona Supreme Court vacated that decision. It held the forced sale did not violate Arizona's eminent-domain clause, because the owners agreed to the recorded Declaration incorporating the Condominium Act, but it also held that § 33-1228 required selling the entire condominium, not just the holdout unit. It remanded; a later 2025 order limited the remaining issue to the unit's fair market value as the owners' total compensation, to be fixed by binding arbitration.

Key Issues & Findings

Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Bolick first addressed the constitutional challenge. The Xias argued that A.R.S. § 33-1228 — which lets a supermajority terminate a condominium and force the sale of objecting owners' units — authorized an unconstitutional taking of private property for private use under Article 2, Section 17 of the Arizona Constitution. The Court disagreed. The sale authority derived not from the State's eminent-domain power but from the recorded Declaration, a contract to which the Xias voluntarily agreed when they purchased their unit; the Declaration expressly submitted the property to the Condominium Act and provided for partition upon dissolution. Because the arrangement was contractual, it was not a governmental taking.

The Court then held, however, that the forced sale as carried out was not authorized by the statute. Termination under § 33-1228 required the sale of all of the condominium property, not the sale of individual holdout units while the terminating owner retained the rest. Here PFP Dorsey force-sold only the Xias' unit and kept the other ninety units, which the statute did not permit. The Court therefore vacated the Court of Appeals' decision, affirmed the superior court except as to this issue (Part II of the opinion), and remanded.

Finally, the Court rejected the Court of Appeals' premise that an older (1986) version of the statute governed because the Xias purchased before the 2018 amendments. The Declaration incorporated the Condominium Act 'as amended from time to time,' so the possibility of statutory amendment was anticipated; Kalway v. Calabria Ranch — which barred unforeseen amendments to a declaration itself — did not apply because the Declaration was never amended, only the incorporated statutes were. Accordingly, the 2018 version of § 33-1228 controlled. On remand the parties disputed the scope of the mandate, and in a per curiam order dated August 20, 2025 (No. CV-25-0071-PR), the Supreme Court clarified that the superior court was affirmed, the only remaining issue is the fair market value of the Xias' unit as their total compensation, and the matter must proceed to final and binding arbitration under § 33-1228 and the Condominium Termination Agreement.

Why It Matters

For Arizona condominium owners, associations, and investors, this decision sets the ground rules for 'bulk buyout' terminations. It confirms that a supermajority may use A.R.S. § 33-1228 to terminate a condominium and that the resulting forced sale is not an unconstitutional taking, because owners agree to the Condominium Act through their recorded declaration. Investors cannot defeat a buyout simply by labeling it a private taking.

But the decision also imposes a critical limit: on termination, the statute requires selling the entire condominium, not cherry-picking and force-selling only holdout units while the majority owner keeps the rest. And owners who are bought out are entitled to the fair market value of their unit as total compensation, which — per the Court's 2025 order — may be fixed through binding arbitration under the termination agreement. Boards and counsel structuring a termination must follow the whole-property sale mechanism and a defensible valuation process, or risk having the sale undone.

← Back to Arizona Supreme Court cases

Multari v. Gress: Developer Private Deed Restrictions Held Invalid

Posted on June 29, 2026 by [email protected]

CC&Rs | A.R.S. §§ 12-2101, 12-120.21 | 1 CA-CV 06-0221

This case highlights the strict limits placed on residential developers in Arizona. It illustrates that uniform subdivision covenants cannot be selectively altered by recording non-uniform private deed restrictions on individual lots without a proper vote.

Last updated June 29, 2026. Case: Multari, Court of Appeals No. 1 CA-CV 06-0221; reversed and remanded.

Download the appellate opinion Download the appellate mandate Download the record index Source-file index FAQ

Current-status note: Allegations, settlements, procedural dismissals, and notices are not findings of liability unless a cited court order expressly makes that finding.

Scope note: This page covers the Arizona Court of Appeals decision declaring lot-specific private deed restrictions invalid when they selectively alter uniform subdivision covenants. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The Arizona Court of Appeals held that a developer cannot utilize private deed restrictions on multiple lots in a residential subdivision to alter uniform covenants and restrictions otherwise applicable to those lots without following the uniform declaration’s formal amendment procedures.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Dominick Multari (Plaintiff)
Husband of Lynn Multari, owner of lot 290 in the Ocotillo Hills subdivision, and successor-in-interest to the 1973 Private Deed Restrictions.
Lynn Multari (Plaintiff)
Wife of Dominick Multari, owner of lot 290 in the Ocotillo Hills subdivision, and successor-in-interest to the 1973 Private Deed Restrictions.
John Maston O’Neal (Counsel)
Quarles & Brady Streich Lang LLP
Counsel representing Plaintiffs/Appellees/Cross-Appellants Dominick and Lynn Multari.
David E. Funkhouser III (Counsel)
Quarles & Brady Streich Lang LLP
Counsel representing Plaintiffs/Appellees/Cross-Appellants Dominick and Lynn Multari.

Respondent Side

Richard D. Gress (Defendant)
Husband of Carmen Gress, trustee under agreement dated April 15, 1998, and owner of lot 285 in the Ocotillo Hills subdivision, subject to the contested 1976 Private Deed Restrictions.
Carmen Gress (Defendant)
Wife of Richard D. Gress, trustee under agreement dated April 15, 1998, and owner of lot 285 in the Ocotillo Hills subdivision, subject to the contested 1976 Private Deed Restrictions.
Timothy J. Thomason (Counsel)
Mariscal, Weeks, McIntyre & Friedlander, P.A.
Counsel representing Defendants/Appellants/Cross-Appellees Richard D. and Carmen Gress.
Charles H. Oldham (Counsel)
Mariscal, Weeks, McIntyre & Friedlander, P.A.
Counsel representing Defendants/Appellants/Cross-Appellees Richard D. and Carmen Gress.

Neutral Parties

Daniel A. Barker (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Authoring Appellate Judge on Department B who delivered the Court's opinion reversing the summary judgment.
Patricia K. Norris (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Presiding Appellate Judge for Department B on Department B.
Jon W. Thompson (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Appellate Judge for Department B.
Janet E. Barton (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court
Trial Court Judge who presided over the underlying case (Cause No. CV 2005-009405) and granted summary judgment in favor of the Multaris.
Philip G. Urry (Other)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Clerk of the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One.
Rachelle M. Resnick (Other)
Arizona Supreme Court
Clerk of the Arizona Supreme Court who received the transmittal of the Petition for Review.
Michael K. Jeanes (Other)
Maricopa County Superior Court
Clerk of the Maricopa County Superior Court.
Patricia Sanderman (Other)
Maricopa County Superior Court
Supervisor of the Appeals Section of the Maricopa County Superior Court.
Minnesota Title Company (Other)
Original developer and legal owner of lots 244 through 297, which recorded the uniform 1973 Declaration of Deed Restrictions and subsequent lot-specific private deed restrictions.

What happened

In April 1973, Minnesota Title Company, the original legal owner of lots 244 through 297 in the Ocotillo Hills subdivision, recorded a uniform ‘Declaration of Deed Restrictions’ permitting accessory structures of any size and requiring a two-thirds vote of lot owners to change the covenants. Subsequently, between 1973 and 1978, the developer recorded individual ‘private deed restrictions’ on thirty-two of the fifty-four lots as they were sold.

In 1976, Minnesota Title recorded private deed restrictions on lot 285 (later owned by the Gresses) prohibiting structures under 1,400 square feet or higher than 13 feet, with a clause allowing the owner of lot 290 (later owned by the Multaris) to sue for violations and recover attorneys’ fees. In 2005, the Gresses began building a small accessory building. The Multaris sued to stop construction and enforce the 1976 restrictions. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Multaris, which the Gresses appealed.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Multari v. Gress (1 CA-CV 06-0221). A developer cannot utilize private deed restrictions on multiple lots in a residential subdivision to alter uniform… 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 Multari v. Gress. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

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

Procedural timeline

1973-04-04

Minnesota Title Company records the uniform Declaration of Deed Restrictions (1973 Declaration) for the Ocotillo Hills subdivision.

1973-04-17

Minnesota Title conveys Lot 290 and records the 1973 Private Deed Restrictions.

1975-12-16

Minnesota Title sells Lot 285 to the Gresses' predecessors in interest.

1976-01-06

Minnesota Title records the deed and the 1976 Private Deed Restrictions for Lot 285.

2005-02-15

Richard and Carmen Gress begin construction of a small accessory building behind their home.

2005-04-15

Dominick and Lynn Multari send a letter to the Gresses requesting that they cease construction.

2005-06-08

The Multaris file a complaint in Maricopa County Superior Court to enforce the 1976 Private Deed Restrictions.

2005-09-19

A trial court transcript of proceedings is recorded in the Maricopa County Superior Court.

2006-04-11

Superior Court Clerk files the index of record, and the Court of Appeals, Division One docket assigns Case No. 1 CA-CV 06-0221.

Download source

0000 Div 1 Civil Notice To Counsel Appell

2006-04-14

The Gresses pay their appellant filing fee in the Court of Appeals.

2006-05-02

Court of Appeals issues notice reminding of appellant's opening brief and appellee's fee deadlines.

Download source

0000 Div 1 Notice To Counsel Appellees Fe

2006-08-02

Court of Appeals orders the Superior Court Clerk to transmit the trial court record on appeal.

2006-08-09

The record inventory from the Maricopa County Superior Court is filed with the Court of Appeals.

2007-01-16

Court of Appeals issues Notice of Oral Argument setting the hearing for February 27, 2007.

Decision document; read it to understand the controlling result before moving to later filings.

Download source file

2008-01-31_012_0000-div-1-civil-mandate-package.pdf

Source 13 2008-01-31

0000 Div 1 Westmeadbureau Package Lette

Type: Court/source PDF

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file

2008-01-31_013_0000-div-1-westmeadbureau-package-lette.pdf

FAQ

Is the court's decision in Multari v. Gress precedential?

Yes. This is a published Arizona Court of Appeals opinion, which makes it binding legal precedent in Arizona. It can be cited as authoritative case law in disputes involving subdivision deed restrictions.

Can a developer record separate private restrictions on individual lots that conflict with uniform CC&Rs?

No. The court held that a developer cannot use lot-specific private deed restrictions to alter or restrict rights granted under a previously recorded uniform declaration of covenants without following the formal amendment procedures specified in that uniform declaration.

What happens if a developer tries to bypass formal CC&R amendment procedures?

Any lot-specific private restrictions recorded by a developer that effectively change or restrict the rights guaranteed under the uniform subdivision declaration will be declared invalid and unenforceable if they did not follow the uniform declaration’s formal amendment processes.

Why did the Multaris lose their lawsuit to enforce the 13-foot structure height limit against the Gresses?

Although the Multaris had a private restriction recorded on the Gresses’ lot in 1976 that limited accessory structures to 13 feet in height, the court ruled this restriction invalid because it conflicted with the 1973 subdivision-wide uniform declaration, which allowed accessory buildings of any dimension and required a two-thirds owner vote to amend.

Can a homeowner recover attorneys' fees if they sue based on an invalid private deed restriction?

No. Because the lot-specific private deed restriction was ruled invalid, the Multaris were not the successful party and could not recover attorneys’ fees or costs under either the statutory provision (A.R.S. § 12-341.01) or the invalid restriction itself.

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

Case ID / citation	1 CA-CV 06-0221
Court / tribunal	Court of Appeals
Decision / key date	April 24, 2007
Judge / panel	Hon. Daniel A. Barker, Hon. Patricia K. Norris, Hon. Jon W. Thompson
Parties	Dominick and Lynn Multari (Plaintiffs/Appellees/Cross-Appellants) vs. Richard D. and Carmen Gress, as trustees (Defendants/Appellants/Cross-Appellees)
Governing law	A.R.S. § 12-2101 A.R.S. § 12-120.21 A.R.S. § 12-341.01 A.R.S. § 12-341
Topics	CC&RsArchitectural ReviewProcedureAttorney Fees
Outcome / holding	The Arizona Court of Appeals held that a developer cannot utilize private deed restrictions on multiple lots in a residential subdivision to alter uniform covenants and restrictions otherwise applicable to those lots without following the uniform declaration's formal amendment procedures.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package	13 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	22 roadmap entries
Video overview	Multari v. Gress
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	5 questions
Featured download links	3 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Dominick and Lynn Multari sued their neighbors, Richard and Carmen Gress, seeking to enforce private deed restrictions recorded by the subdivision's developer in 1976. The 1976 restrictions limited the size and height of accessory structures on the Gresses' lot. The Gresses argued that these restrictions were invalid because they conflicted with a 1973 Declaration of Deed Restrictions that applied uniformly to all lots in the subdivision and permitted accessory buildings of any dimension. The 1973 Declaration required a two-thirds vote of lot owners to change the covenants. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Multaris, enforcing the restrictions and awarding attorneys' fees. On appeal, the Arizona Court of Appeals reversed. The court held that the developer could not bypass the 1973 Declaration's amendment procedure by recording non-uniform private deed restrictions on individual lots. The private restrictions were declared invalid, and the case was remanded to enter judgment for the Gresses.

Key Issues & Findings

The Court of Appeals reasoned that the 1973 Declaration established uniform covenants and restrictions for the benefit of 'each and every' lot in the subdivision, which explicitly permitted accessory structures of any size. The subsequent 1976 Private Deed Restrictions placed by the developer on some but not all lots took away this right, which constituted an alteration or 'change in part' of the 1973 Declaration. Permitting developers to use private deed restrictions to bypass the formal amendment process would destroy the right of property owners to rely on restrictive covenants and completely upset the orderly plan of the subdivision.

Since the 1973 Declaration required a two-thirds vote of lot owners to change the covenants, and the developer's private restrictions did not comply with this exclusive procedure, the non-uniform private restrictions limiting structure dimensions were held to be an invalid amendment. The court noted that this decision does not address scenarios in which a subsequent private property owner, rather than the developer acting on multiple lots, records private restrictions different from the uniform ones.

Why It Matters

For Arizona HOAs and homeowners, this case establishes that a developer cannot selectively or unilaterally impose non-uniform private deed restrictions on individual lots that conflict with or alter rights granted under a previously recorded uniform declaration, unless they adhere strictly to the declaration's specified amendment procedures. This enforces the predictability and environmental stability of subdivisions by protecting the rights of lot owners to rely on the original uniform covenants.

For legal counsel and boards, the ruling serves as a warning that restrictive covenants must be uniform and amended only via the formal processes established in the original declarations. Unilateral developer carve-outs or non-uniform lot restrictions are highly vulnerable to being declared invalid. Furthermore, litigation to enforce such invalid restrictions will result in the loss of any contractual right to attorneys' fees and costs.

← Back to Court of Appeals cases

Garden Lakes v. Madigan: HOA Aesthetic Rules vs. Arizona Solar Rights

Posted on June 29, 2026 by [email protected]

Architectural Review | A.R.S. §§ 33-439, 44-1761 | 1 CA-CV 00-0570

This landmark Arizona case demonstrates the legal limits of an HOA’s power to enforce aesthetic architectural restrictions against solar installations. It establishes a case-by-case factual standard for evaluating whether association guidelines ‘effectively prohibit’ solar devices. Crucially, the decision confirms that courts can consider compliance costs to determine if a restriction is void under state law.

Last updated June 29, 2026. Case: Garden Lakes Community Association, Inc. v. Madigan, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, No. 1 CA-CV 00-0570 (204 Ariz. 234, 62 P.3d 983); review denied by the Arizona Supreme Court.

Download appellate opinion Download petition for review Download docket & case information Source-file index FAQ

Scope note: This page covers the published Arizona Court of Appeals opinion in Garden Lakes Community Association v. Madigan (1 CA-CV 00-0570), which the Arizona Supreme Court declined to review, together with the uploaded appellate record (briefs, amicus filings, petition for review, and orders). The complete uploaded source-document index below is generated from the local raw source folder; AI-generated review materials were reviewed only as orientation and are not treated as court authority. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The Arizona Court of Appeals held that whether a homeowners association’s architectural guidelines ‘effectively prohibit’ the installation or use of a solar energy device under A.R.S. § 33-439(A) is a question of fact to be decided on a case-by-case basis. The court further held that while the homeowner bears the burden of proof, the trial court may properly consider the increased cost of complying with aesthetic restrictions as a relevant factor in determining whether an effective prohibition exists.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Garden Lakes Community Association, Inc. (Plaintiff)
Garden Lakes Community Association, Inc.
The homeowners association (an Arizona non-profit corporation) that brought separate lawsuits (later consolidated) against the homeowners to compel the removal of roof-mounted solar energy devices.
Neal B. Thomas (Counsel)
Thomas & Elardo, P.C.
Represented Plaintiff-Appellant Garden Lakes Community Association, Inc.
Beth Mulcahy (Counsel)
Mulcahy Law Firm, P.C.
Represented Plaintiff-Appellant Garden Lakes Community Association, Inc.
James Howard Barnes (Witness)
Garden Lakes Community Association, Inc.
First chairman of the Garden Lakes Architectural Review Committee (ARC); testified on behalf of the Association.
Robert Hammond (Witness)
Solar expert with 20 years of experience hired by the Association to investigate alternative designs; admitted that several alternative screening designs were not viable.
Walter M. Mikitowicz (Witness)
Construction expert who testified on behalf of the Association regarding the costs of constructing proposed alternative screens and patio covers.

Respondent Side

William E. Madigan (Defendant)
Homeowner in Garden Lakes who installed a solar pool heater without ARC approval; passed away before trial, resulting in his case being dismissed after the solar equipment was removed.
Joan M. Madigan (Defendant)
Wife of William E. Madigan and co-owner of the property; removed the solar panels after her husband's death, leading to dismissal of the case against her.
Henry T. Speak (Defendant)
Homeowner with arthritis who installed terra-cotta colored roof-mounted solar panels to heat his pool for therapeutic exercise; successfully defended under A.R.S. § 33-439.
LaVonne M. Speak (Defendant)
Wife of Henry T. Speak and co-owner of the property; prevailed alongside her husband.
Hyung S. Choi (Counsel)
Choi Rhee & Fabian, PLC
Attorneys for Defendants-Appellees Madigan and Speak. Also shown as Choi & Rhee, PLLC in Court of Appeals award order.
Gerald Pollock (Counsel)
Law Office of Gerald A. Pollock
Represented Defendants-Appellees Madigan and Speak.
John Gilchrist (Witness)
Solar expert with 20 years of experience who testified on behalf of the homeowners; testified regarding screening feasibility, setback issues, and efficiency loss.

Neutral Parties

Curtis S. Ekmark (Counsel)
Ekmark & Ekmark, L.L.C.
Represented Applicant/Amicus Curiae Sun City Grand Community Association, Inc.
Hon. David M. Talamante (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court
Superior court trial judge who presided over the consolidated trials and entered final judgment in favor of the homeowners.
Hon. John C. Gemmill (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Appellate judge who authored the published opinion affirming the trial court's judgment.
Hon. Ann A. Scott Timmer (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Presiding appellate judge of Department B who concurred in the opinion.
Hon. Noel Fidel (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Appellate judge who concurred in the opinion; also appointed pro tempore by the Arizona Supreme Court to participate in and sign decisions on this case.
Bruce E. Meyerson (Other)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Appellate mediator assigned to conduct the appellate settlement conference on February 8, 2001.
Tom Brantner (Other)
Listed as a deponent in the record on appeal.
Donald LaMontague (Other)
Listed as a deponent in the record on appeal.
Bruce Bartley (Other)
Listed as a deponent in the record on appeal.
Kelly Dancer (Other)
Listed as a deponent in the record on appeal.
Michael Neary (Other)
Listed as a deponent in the record on appeal.

What happened

William and Joan Madigan and Henry and LaVonne Speak owned homes in the Garden Lakes subdivision in Avondale, Arizona. Both families installed solar panels on their roofs to heat their swimming pools without seeking prior approval from the Garden Lakes Community Association’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC). The Association’s guidelines required roof-mounted solar equipment to match the roof material, be integrated into the roof design, and be screened from public view. Believing the homeowners violated these restrictions and breached the community’s Declaration, the Association filed separate lawsuits seeking permanent injunctions to compel the removal of the solar panels, along with over $100,000 in cumulative fines, and attorneys’ fees. The homeowners asserted that the guidelines were void and unenforceable under A.R.S. § 33-439(A) because they effectively prohibited solar energy devices.

The lawsuits were consolidated. Before trial, the Association waived the fines, and William Madigan passed away, prompting Joan Madigan to remove her solar panels and resulting in the dismissal of her case. The remaining case against the Speaks was tried to the court with an advisory jury. The advisory jury found that the Speaks installed the panels without prior approval, that the Association’s guidelines were not reasonable and unambiguous, but also found (under a confusingly worded interrogatory) that the guidelines did not effectively prohibit solar devices. Treating the jury’s findings as merely advisory, the trial court entered final judgment in favor of the Speaks, concluding that the guidelines and the Association’s conduct ‘effectively prohibited’ the solar devices. The Association appealed, and the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment and awarded attorneys’ fees to the homeowners.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Garden Lakes Community Association, Inc. v. Madigan and Speak (204 Ariz. 234, 62 P.3d 983 (Ct. App. 2003), 1 CA-CV 00-0570). Whether a homeowners association’s architectural guidelines ‘effectively prohibit’ the installation or use of a… 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 Garden Lakes Community Association, Inc. v. Madigan and Speak. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

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

Procedural timeline

1986-01-28

The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements for Garden Lakes is recorded.

1997-01-15

Henry Speak submits an application to the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) for a solar pool heater, which is rejected. Henry Speak proceeds with the roof installation regardless.

1997-05-15

The Garden Lakes Community Association files separate lawsuits in Maricopa County Superior Court against homeowners Henry Speak and William Madigan to compel removal of their solar panels.

2000-01-11

The consolidated trial begins in the Maricopa County Superior Court.

2000-12-29

Garden Lakes Community Association files a Notice of Appeal in the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, after the trial court enters judgment in favor of the homeowners.

2001-02-21

Garden Lakes Community Association files its Opening Brief on appeal.

2001-04-06

Appellees file their Answering Brief on appeal.

2001-05-01

Garden Lakes Community Association files its Reply Brief.

2001-08-10

Sun City Grand Community Association files an Amicus Curiae Brief.

2001-09-06

Division One of the Court of Appeals hears oral arguments and takes the case under advisement.

2003-02-18

Arizona Court of Appeals issues its published opinion affirming the trial court's judgment.

Download 3 sources

Final Appellate Opinion Opinion Affirmed Opinion Affirmed

2003-03-21

Garden Lakes Community Association files a Petition for Review with the Arizona Supreme Court.

Download source

Petition For Review

2003-04-18

Appellees file their Response in Opposition to the Petition for Review with the Supreme Court.

Download source

Response In Opposition To Petition For Review

2003-04-24

Court of Appeals enters an order awarding Appellees their attorneys' fees and costs totaling $20,024.05.

2003-07-01

Arizona Supreme Court denies the Petition for Review and grants Appellees' request for Supreme Court attorneys' fees.

2003-07-22

Original Mandate is issued, returning the record to the Maricopa County Superior Court and terminating the appeal.

View all 11 source documents for this case ↓

Complete source-document index

This index contains 11 PDFs from the reviewed public source packet. Byte-identical copies are listed once. Files are ordered by the date and sequence in the public filename, and party filings or research materials are labeled separately from court rulings.

Source 1 2000-12-19

Docket And Case Information

Type: Court/source PDF

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file

2000-12-19_001_docket-and-case-information.pdf

Source 2 2001-09-04

Response To Amicus Brief

Type: Briefing paper

Opposing or responsive paper; compare it to the motion or request filed immediately before it.

Download source file

2001-09-04_002_response-to-amicus-brief.pdf

Source 3 2003-02-18

Final Appellate Opinion

Type: Decision or judgment

Opinion holding that whether a homeowners association's architectural guidelines 'effectively prohibit' the installation or use of a solar energy device under A.R.S. § 33-439(A) is a question of fact to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

Download source file

2003-02-18_003_final-appellate-opinion.pdf

Source 4 2003-02-18

Opinion Affirmed

Type: Decision or judgment

Download source file

2003-02-18_004_opinion-affirmed.pdf

Source 5 2003-02-18

Type: Court/source PDF

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file

undated_011_undated-case-caption.pdf

FAQ

Is the Garden Lakes v. Madigan decision binding precedent for Arizona HOAs?

Yes. The decision was published as a precedential opinion by Division One of the Arizona Court of Appeals, meaning it is binding on all Arizona homeowners associations and trial courts.

Can an Arizona HOA completely ban roof-mounted solar panels for aesthetic reasons?

No. Under A.R.S. § 33-439(A), any covenant, restriction, or guideline that effectively prohibits the installation or use of a solar energy device is void and unenforceable. While HOAs can regulate solar placement, they cannot use aesthetic rules to force a complete ban or make installation practically impossible.

Can an HOA enforce guidelines that make solar installation significantly more expensive?

It depends, but generally no if the cost is unreasonable. The Court of Appeals held that while cost is not the sole factor, courts must consider the increased financial burden of complying with HOA guidelines. If complying with aesthetic demands (like building massive screens or custom patios) drastically increases the system’s cost, those guidelines may be ruled an invalid ‘effective prohibition’ under A.R.S. § 33-439(A).

What factors do Arizona courts look at to decide if an HOA rule 'effectively prohibits' solar use?

The Court of Appeals established a flexible, ten-factor test. These factors include the language of the guidelines, the association’s conduct, the availability of feasible solar alternatives, the comparative cost and performance of those alternatives, the physical limits of the property, and whether the restrictions impose too great a cost relative to what a typical homeowner in the community is willing to spend.

Who has the burden of proving that an HOA rule effectively prohibits solar devices in court?

The homeowner bears the burden of proving that the HOA’s guidelines or conduct ‘effectively prohibit’ the installation or use of their solar energy device. In this case, the Speaks successfully met their burden by presenting expert testimony showing that the HOA’s proposed screening and patio cover alternatives were technically unfeasible, violated city setback rules, and added thousands of dollars in unnecessary costs.

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

Case ID / citation	204 Ariz. 234, 62 P.3d 983 (Ct. App. 2003), 1 CA-CV 00-0570
Court / tribunal	Court of Appeals
Decision / key date	February 18, 2003
Judge / panel	Hon. John C. Gemmill, Hon. Ann A. Scott Timmer, Hon. Noel Fidel
Parties	Plaintiff-Appellant Garden Lakes Community Association, Inc. vs. Defendants-Appellees William E. & Joan M. Madigan and Henry T. & LaVonne M. Speak (homeowners)
Governing law	A.R.S. § 33-439 A.R.S. § 44-1761 A.R.S. § 12-341.01
Topics	CC&RsArchitectural ReviewAttorney Fees
Outcome / holding	The Arizona Court of Appeals held that whether a homeowners association's architectural guidelines 'effectively prohibit' the installation or use of a solar energy device under A.R.S. § 33-439(A) is a question of fact to be decided on a case-by-case basis. The court further held that while the homeowner bears the burden of proof, the trial court may properly consider the increased cost of complying with aesthetic restrictions as a relevant factor in determining whether an effective prohibition exists.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package	11 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	16 roadmap entries
Video overview	Garden Lakes Community Association, Inc. v. Madigan and Speak
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	5 questions
Featured download links	3 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

The Garden Lakes Community Association (the Association) brought separate lawsuits against homeowners Henry and LaVonne Speak, and William and Joan Madigan (which were later consolidated), seeking a permanent injunction to compel the removal of roof-mounted solar energy devices installed without Architectural Review Committee (ARC) approval. The homeowners defended under A.R.S. § 33-439(A), which voids any deed restriction that 'effectively prohibits' the installation or use of solar energy devices. Before trial, the Association waived $100,000 in alleged fines, and the Madigans were dismissed after removing their system following William Madigan's death. Following a trial with an advisory jury, the court entered judgment in favor of the Speaks, finding that the Association's aesthetic guidelines combined with its conduct effectively prohibited solar device installation. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed, establishing that whether a restriction 'effectively prohibits' solar use is a case-by-case question of fact, and that courts may properly consider the added costs of compliance.

Key Issues & Findings

First, the Court of Appeals interpreted the statutory phrase 'effectively prohibits' under A.R.S. § 33-439(A) by rejecting the Association's argument that it required 'inevitable preclusion' of solar devices. Instead, the court adopted a practical, flexible standard, emphasizing that the Arizona Legislature intended to encourage solar energy use by offering incentives and limiting disincentives. The court identified a non-exhaustive list of ten potentially relevant factors for evaluating these disputes, including the content of the guidelines, the association's conduct, the availability of feasible alternatives, and the increased cost of compliance in relation to what typical homeowners in the community are willing to spend.

Second, the court explained that although the burden of proof remains on the homeowner, cost cannot be ignored in an effective prohibition analysis. It noted that with enough money, any solar system could be custom-engineered to meet strict architectural guidelines, but such exorbitant expenses would dissuade average homeowners from adopting solar energy. Thus, while cost alone is not dispositive, it is a proper factor to analyze, focusing on the motivation of the average homeowner within that specific community.

Finally, applying these factors, the court found that substantial evidence supported the trial court's ruling in favor of the Speaks. The Association's suggested alternatives—building a massive patio cover that would violate city pool setbacks, or constructing an experimental roof screen that matched the home's stucco but reduced solar efficiency—were cost-prohibitive, impractical, and visually unappealing even to the Association's own architectural review committee members.

Why It Matters

For Arizona homeowners and HOA boards, this case serves as a landmark ruling establishing that HOAs cannot use heavy-handed aesthetic guidelines or unreasonable conduct to block solar energy installations. Boards must adopt a cooperative and reasonable approach, as rigid screening or integration requirements that add substantial costs (such as doubling the system price) will be declared void under A.R.S. § 33-439(A). Additionally, the ruling clarifies that HOA decisions are not entitled to administrative-like judicial deference, protecting homeowners from unchecked board power.

For legal counsel, the opinion provides a clear blueprint of ten factors to utilize when evaluating, litigating, or settling solar-related HOA disputes. It highlights the importance of presenting detailed evidence regarding the technical feasibility, city setback restrictions, and comparative costs of alternative designs. It also underscores the risk to HOAs of facing significant attorney's fee awards under A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A) if they unsuccessfully attempt to force homeowners to remove solar devices.

← Back to Court of Appeals cases

Trilogy at Power Ranch v. John Doe: An HOA’s Anonymous-Critic Suit Dies on Service

Posted on June 22, 2026 by [email protected]

Arizona HOA vs. Anonymous Critics | Maricopa County Superior Court CV2025-036877

An HOA sued 50 anonymous ‘John Doe’ email critics, got leave to take discovery to identify them, but never completed service. The court dismissed the case without prejudice.

Last updated June 22, 2026. Case: Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association v. John Doe #1-50, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2025-036877 (Hon. Michael J. Herrod).

Download dismissal order Download complaint

Current-status note: This page is published as a litigation record based on the source files available through 2026-03-04. Later filings, appeals, mandates, settlements, or dismissal orders may change the posture; the linked court records control.

Allegations, settlements, procedural dismissals, and notices are not findings of liability unless a cited court order expressly makes that finding.

Scope note: This page covers a Maricopa County Superior Court trial-court matter (CV2025-036877) that was dismissed without prejudice for lack of service — the court never reached the merits. The complaint contained allegations against unidentified defendants; none were proven. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The rule in one sentence

An association cannot keep an injunction case alive against unidentified ‘John Doe’ defendants it never serves; without personal service inside the court’s deadline, the case is dismissed.

Case snapshot

Case name

Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association v. John Doe #1-50.

Superior Court docket

Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2025-036877 (Hon. Michael J. Herrod).

Result

Dismissed without prejudice on March 4, 2026 for failure to serve the defendants within the court-ordered deadline.

Relationship to CV2025-036771

Companion case filed the same day; the association’s identified-defendant claims continued in CV2025-036771 (Berman), which was itself later dismissed and settled.

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

Case ID / citation	CV2025-036877
Court / tribunal	Superior Court
Decision / key date	March 4, 2026
Judge / panel	Hon. Michael J. Herrod
Parties	The companion suit Trilogy at Power Ranch filed the same day, targeting 50 unidentified 'John Doe' senders of the anonymous 'Trilogy News' emails and seeking to declare the emails unlawful and enjoin them.
Governing law	42 U.S.C. § 3601 (Fair Housing Act)
Topics	Board GovernanceFree SpeechProcedure
Outcome / holding	An association cannot keep an injunction case alive against unidentified 'John Doe' defendants it never serves; absent personal service within the court-ordered deadline, the case is dismissed without prejudice.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package	3 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	3 roadmap entries
Video overview	Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association v. John Doe #1-50
Study / briefing material	0 sections
FAQ / homeowner questions	0 questions
Featured download links	3 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Filed the same day as CV2025-036771, this companion case targeted 50 anonymous 'John Doe' defendants behind the 'Trilogy News' email campaign, again pleading tortious interference, injurious falsehood, and (as to one sender) hostile housing harassment. The court granted the association leave to take discovery to identify the senders and set a service deadline, but the association never completed personal service. Judge Michael Herrod vacated the order-to-show-cause hearing on November 14, 2025 and dismissed the case without prejudice on March 4, 2026 for failure to serve. The court never reached the merits.

Key Issues & Findings

Recognizing the defendants were anonymous, the court granted limited discovery to identify them and set a deadline for service. The association did not effect personal service within that window, and email service on anonymous accounts was inadequate. Under the civil rules governing failure to serve, the court dismissed the case without prejudice rather than reaching whether the emails were actually wrongful.

Why It Matters

The case shows how hard it is for an association to weaponize the courts against anonymous online criticism: identification, personal jurisdiction, and service are real procedural hurdles that frequently end a case before any judge evaluates whether the speech crossed a legal line. 'Without prejudice' means the claims were not decided on the merits, but as a practical matter the anonymous-critic suit ended here while the identified-defendant case (CV2025-036771) was itself later dismissed and settled.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association (Plaintiff)
Association party that sued unidentified John Doe defendants.
Scott B. Carpenter (Counsel)
Carpenter Law Firm
Counsel for Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association.
Keegan Klein (Counsel)
Carpenter Law Firm
Counsel for Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association.

Respondent Side

John Doe #1-50 (Defendants) (Defendants)
Unidentified anonymous defendants named in the complaint.

Neutral Parties

Michael J. Herrod (Judge)
Superior Court judge who dismissed the John Doe case without prejudice.

Why this case matters

On the same day in October 2025, Trilogy at Power Ranch filed two suits over the anonymous ‘Trilogy News’ email campaign criticizing its board, staff, and committees. This one, CV2025-036877, targeted 50 unnamed ‘John Doe’ defendants and asked the court to declare the emails unlawful and enjoin them. The association alleged tortious interference, injurious falsehood, and (as to one sender) hostile housing harassment under the Fair Housing Act.

The problem was procedural and basic: you cannot sue people you cannot identify and serve. The court granted the association leave to take discovery to unmask the senders and set a service deadline, but the association never completed personal service. Judge Michael Herrod vacated the show-cause hearing in November 2025 and dismissed the case without prejudice in March 2026.

For homeowners, the case illustrates how hard it is for an association to weaponize the courts against anonymous online criticism. Identification, jurisdiction, and service are real hurdles that often end a case before any judge weighs whether the speech was actually wrongful.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association v. John Doe #1-50 (CV2025-036877). An association cannot keep an injunction case alive against unidentified ‘John Doe’ defendants it never serves… 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 Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association v. John Doe #1-50. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

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

What the court decided

Discovery to identify, granted

The court let the association take limited discovery to try to identify the anonymous senders.

Service never completed

The association did not personally serve the defendants within the court-ordered window, and email service on anonymous accounts was inadequate.

Dismissed without prejudice

Under the civil rules, Judge Herrod dismissed the case for lack of service; ‘without prejudice’ means it could in theory be refiled.

Filing roadmap and PDF downloads

Step 1 Oct 9, 2025

Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against John Doe #1-50.

Filed by: Association

The association sued 50 unidentified email senders.

Download source

2025-10-09_001_complaint.pdf

Step 2 Nov 14, 2025

Order vacating the order-to-show-cause hearing; leave to take discovery to identify defendants.

Filed by: Superior Court

With no one served, the court called off the injunction hearing and allowed discovery to find the senders.

Download source

2025-11-14_002_order-vacating-show-cause-hearing.pdf

Step 3 Mar 4, 2026

Order dismissing the case without prejudice for lack of service.

Filed by: Superior Court

Because no defendant was served by the deadline, Judge Herrod dismissed the case.

Download source

2026-03-04_003_order-of-dismissal-without-prejudice.pdf

View all 3 source documents for this case ↓

Complete source-document index

This index contains 3 PDFs from the reviewed public source packet. Byte-identical copies are listed once. Files are ordered by the date and sequence in the public filename, and party filings or research materials are labeled separately from court rulings.

Source 1 2025-10-09

Complaint

Type: Opening pleading

Starts or reframes the case and identifies the claims or relief requested.

Download source file

2025-10-09_001_complaint.pdf

Source 2 2025-11-14

Order Vacating Show Cause Hearing

Type: Court order/minute entry

Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.

Download source file

2025-11-14_002_order-vacating-show-cause-hearing.pdf

Source 3 2026-03-04

Order Of Dismissal Without Prejudice

Type: Court order/minute entry

Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.

Download source file

2026-03-04_003_order-of-dismissal-without-prejudice.pdf

Primary sources

← Back to Superior Court cases

Trilogy at Power Ranch v. Berman: When an Arizona HOA Sues a Critic and Loses

Posted on June 22, 2026 by [email protected]

Arizona HOA vs. Critic | Maricopa County Superior Court CV2025-036771

A self-managed 2,035-home HOA sued a vocal resident over critical mass emails. The Superior Court dismissed the claims, and the case settled with each side paying its own fees.

Last updated June 22, 2026. Case: Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association v. Steve Berman, et al., Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2025-036771 (Hon. Greg S. Como).

Download dismissal ruling Download first amended complaint Download stipulation of dismissal

Current-status note: This page is published as a litigation record based on the source files available through 2026-06-18. Later filings, appeals, mandates, settlements, or dismissal orders may change the posture; the linked court records control.

Pipeline note: the public raw-source folder contains source files that were not in the last staged NotebookLM source set. The page remains a source-linked record, but generated media should be rebuilt or rechecked after the staged source manifest catches up.

Allegations, settlements, procedural dismissals, and notices are not findings of liability unless a cited court order expressly makes that finding.

Video/audio is held until the missing or conflicting source issue is resolved and release QA is rerun.

Scope note: This page covers a Maricopa County Superior Court trial-court matter (CV2025-036771) that was dismissed and then settled. The association’s complaint contained allegations against the defendants; those allegations were never proven, and the case ended without any finding that the defendants did anything unlawful. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The rule in one sentence

An Arizona HOA cannot turn a member’s critical emails about board spending, salaries, and governance into a lawsuit by labeling them ‘tortious interference with business operations’ — a tort Arizona does not recognize — or ‘hostile housing harassment’; criticism of how an association is run is generally protected, not actionable.

Case snapshot

Case name

Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association v. Steve Berman, et al. (originally filed against John Doe defendants).

Superior Court docket

Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2025-036771 (Hon. Greg S. Como).

Result

Motion to dismiss granted on June 1, 2026; the parties then stipulated to dismiss with prejudice, each side bearing its own fees, on June 18, 2026.

What was at stake

The association sought declaratory and injunctive relief to stop a resident’s mass ‘Trilogy News’ emails criticizing the board, staff, and committees.

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

Case ID / citation	CV2025-036771
Court / tribunal	Superior Court
Decision / key date	June 1, 2026
Judge / panel	Hon. Greg S. Como
Parties	A self-managed 2,035-home Gilbert HOA sued a vocal resident (former Gilbert mayor Steve Berman) and Marc Herbener over a campaign of anonymous, critical 'Trilogy News' mass emails, seeking to declare the emails unlawful and to enjoin them.
Governing law	42 U.S.C. § 3601 (Fair Housing Act)
Topics	Board GovernanceFree SpeechProcedure
Outcome / holding	An Arizona HOA cannot convert member criticism — even repeated, anonymous, and harsh mass emails about board spending, salaries, and governance — into a civil claim by labeling it 'tortious interference with business operations' (a tort Arizona does not recognize) or 'hostile housing harassment'; on the association's pleadings the court found no viable legal theory and dismissed.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package	15 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	15 roadmap entries
Video overview	Temporarily unavailable while the expanded case record is reviewed
Study / briefing material	0 sections
FAQ / homeowner questions	0 questions
Featured download links	4 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association — a self-managed, 2,035-home active-adult HOA in Gilbert — sued resident Steve Berman (a former Gilbert mayor) and Marc Herbener over a series of anonymous 'Trilogy News' mass emails criticizing the board's spending, executive and manager salaries, water management, contractor bidding, and committee appointments. The association sought declaratory relief and an injunction, pleading 'tortious interference with business operations,' injurious falsehood, and 'hostile housing harassment' under the Fair Housing Act, and amended its complaint three times. On June 1, 2026, Judge Greg Como granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, and on June 18, 2026 the parties stipulated to dismiss the remaining case with prejudice, each side bearing its own attorney fees and costs. The complaint's allegations were never proven.

Key Issues & Findings

The court concluded the operative complaint failed to identify a viable cause of action. Arizona does not recognize a freestanding tort of 'interference with business operations,' a core theory of the suit; the 'hostile housing harassment' framing under the Fair Housing Act did not fit what was, in substance, members criticizing how a nonprofit board governs and spends; and the gravamen of the case was protected commentary on association governance. The court therefore granted dismissal, after which the parties stipulated to a dismissal with prejudice with no fee award to either side. Because the case was resolved at the pleading stage and by stipulation, no factual findings were made about the truth of the emails.

Why It Matters

For Arizona homeowners and critics, the case is a clear marker that an association's displeasure with a critic is not, by itself, a cause of action: speech about how a board spends money, pays staff, and appoints volunteers is ordinary community participation, not a tort, and boards that sue over it risk a quick dismissal and the 'SLAPP' label that this community's own board raised when it voted to settle. For boards and managers, it is a caution that litigation is a costly and weak response to an unflattering email campaign. It does not immunize defamation — false statements of fact about identifiable people can still carry consequences — but the association here lost on the theories it chose.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association (Plaintiff)
Association party that sued Steve Berman and other defendants.
Adrian Gordon (Association Principal)
Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association
Listed as a Trilogy principal present at oral argument.
Lisa Gurtler (Association Principal)
Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association
Listed as a Trilogy principal present at oral argument.
Scott B. Carpenter (Counsel)
Carpenter Law Firm
Counsel for Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association.
Keegan Klein (Counsel)
Carpenter Law Firm
Counsel for Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association.

Respondent Side

Geoffrey G. Collins (Counsel)
Childers, Hanlon & Hudson, PLC
Counsel of record for Steve Berman in later minute entries and the dismissal stipulation.
Steve Berman (Defendant)
Named defendant accused of sending critical emails.
Jane Doe Berman (Defendant)
Spouse defendant named in the second amended complaint.
Marc Herbener (Defendant)
Named defendant accused of authoring or sending Trilogy News emails.
Kevin R. Harper (Counsel)
Minute entries list him at the show-cause hearing for Steve Berman.

Neutral Parties

Greg S. Como (Judge)
Superior Court judge who granted the motion to dismiss.

Why this case matters

Trilogy at Power Ranch is a self-managed, 2,035-home active-adult community in Gilbert run by a volunteer board and its own staff. Beginning in 2025, residents received a stream of mass emails — branded as ‘Trilogy News’ and sent from a rotating set of anonymous accounts — that sharply criticized the board’s spending, executive and manager salaries, water management, contractor bidding, and committee appointments. The association attributed the campaign to former Gilbert mayor Steve Berman and resident Marc Herbener and took them to court.

Rather than answer the criticism through normal community channels, the association sued, asking a judge to declare the emails unlawful and to enjoin the defendants from sending more. It styled the claims as ‘tortious interference with business operations,’ ‘injurious falsehood,’ and even ‘hostile housing harassment’ under the Fair Housing Act. After three rounds of amended complaints, Judge Greg Como dismissed the case, and the parties settled with each side walking away and paying its own fees.

For homeowners, the case is a clean example of why an association’s displeasure with a critic is not, by itself, a lawsuit. When a board reaches for litigation to silence unflattering emails about governance, it risks a quick dismissal — and the ‘SLAPP’ label that the community itself raised when its board voted to settle.

What Judge Como decided

No 'interference with business operations' tort

The court found Arizona does not recognize a freestanding tort of interference with business operations — a core theory of the association’s complaint.

Harassment theory failed

The ‘hostile housing harassment’ framing did not fit a dispute that was, at bottom, members criticizing how a nonprofit board governs and spends.

Dismissed, then settled

After the dismissal, the parties stipulated to dismiss the remaining case with prejudice, waiving fees and costs on both sides.

For homeowners and critics

Speaking out about how an association spends money, pays staff, and picks committee members is ordinary community participation, not a tort. This case shows that even repeated, anonymous, and harsh email campaigns are difficult for an association to convert into civil liability — and that a board that sues over them may end up dismissed and labeled as bringing a SLAPP-style suit.

It is not a license to defame: false statements of fact about identifiable people can still carry consequences under defamation law. But the association here did not win on that ground; its chosen theories failed at the pleading stage.

For HOA boards and managers

Stipulation Of Dismissal With Prejudice

Type: Court/source PDF

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file

2026-06-18_015_stipulation-of-dismissal-with-prejudice.pdf

Primary sources

← Back to Superior Court cases

Rodriguez v. Gardens-Gilbert Community Association: CC&Rs as Contract, Negligence, and the Limits of HOA Tort Claims

Posted on June 19, 2026 by [email protected]

Arizona HOA Litigation | PENDING | A.R.S. § 33-1805 | CV2024-005940

Rodriguez is an active, heavily litigated case on remand from the Court of Appeals. The latest substantive ruling narrowed it to negligence and CC&R-based contract claims, dismissed the retaliation, discrimination, and conspiracy theories, and sanctioned the pro se plaintiff. No final judgment has been entered.

Last updated June 19, 2026. Case: Sandra Rodriguez v. Gardens-Gilbert Community Association, et al., Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2024-005940 (consolidated with CV2024-013806; Hon. Christopher Coury). Status: pending / not final.

Download omnibus ruling Download motion to dismiss Source-file index FAQ

Current-status note: This page is published as a litigation record based on the source files available through 2026-06-11. Later filings, appeals, mandates, settlements, or dismissal orders may change the posture; the linked court records control.

Allegations, settlements, procedural dismissals, and notices are not findings of liability unless a cited court order expressly makes that finding.

Status: PENDING / NOT FINAL (June 2026). This is an active Maricopa County Superior Court case on remand from the Court of Appeals; no final judgment has been entered and rulings may change. This page summarizes the uploaded record and is educational, not legal advice.

The takeaways so far

An HOA’s CC&Rs are the contract between owner and association, so breach-of-contract claims survive only against the association and only as to specific recorded CC&R terms — not against a management company that is not a party to that contract. Arizona recognizes no standalone tort of ‘retaliation,’ and the economic-loss doctrine can bar tort claims that merely restate CC&R breaches. But negligence and gross-negligence claims tied to common-area maintenance and management duties, and records-access claims under A.R.S. § 33-1805, can still proceed.

What the case is about

Sandra Rodriguez, a Gilbert homeowner appearing pro se, sued the Gardens-Gilbert Community Association, its management company (Focus HOA Management, LLC), and three individual agents, alleging they failed to maintain common areas and address health-and-safety hazards, obstructed remediation of water-intrusion damage at her property, denied her access to records and meetings under A.R.S. § 33-1805, and retaliated against her.

After the trial court dismissed several defendants, the Court of Appeals (1 CA-CV 24-0790/25-0040, August 2025 memorandum decision) reinstated her negligence, gross-negligence, and intentional-tort claims and remanded. On remand, Judge Coury’s May 27, 2026 omnibus ruling narrowed the case to surviving negligence and CC&R-based contract claims, dismissed the discrimination, retaliation, and conspiracy theories, sanctioned the plaintiff for a missed deposition, and imposed a filing restriction; a summary-judgment motion remains pending and a third appeal was filed June 1, 2026.

Video overview of the case record

An AI-generated video overview of Sandra Rodriguez v. Gardens-Gilbert Community Association, et al. (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2024-005940 (consolidated with CV2024-013806)). On the operative pleading, the court held that an HOA’s CC&Rs are the contract between owner and association, so… This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own ruling controls.

Listen: audio deep dive on the case record

An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the court record and procedural posture in Sandra Rodriguez v. Gardens-Gilbert Community Association, et al.. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked case records below.

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

Procedural timeline

2024-03-21

Complaint filed (CV2024-005940)

2025-08-12

Court of Appeals reinstates negligence/gross-negligence/intentional-tort claims; remands (1 CA-CV 24-0790/25-0040)

Download source

Memorandum Decision

2025-09-03

Cases CV2024-005940 and CV2024-013806 consolidated

2026-05-27

Omnibus ruling: claims narrowed; retaliation/discrimination/conspiracy dismissed; plaintiff sanctioned; filing restriction imposed

Download 3 sources

Motion Motion Notice Of Appeal

2026-06-01

Plaintiff files a third notice of appeal; summary-judgment motion pending

Download 8 sources

Type: Procedural/service filing

Service document used to notify a defendant or respondent that the case has been filed.

Download source file

undated_218_summons.pdf

Source 219 Undated

Verified Answer

Type: Responsive pleading

Responding party's first substantive response to the complaint or petition.

Download source file

undated_219_verified-answer.pdf

Key holdings (so far)

Breach-of-contract claims run against the association, limited to recorded CC&R terms.
A management company is not a party to that contract.

Arizona recognizes no standalone HOA retaliation tort.
The economic-loss doctrine bars tort claims that merely restate CC&R breaches.

Negligence and gross negligence tied to common-area maintenance.
Records-access theory under A.R.S. § 33-1805.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Sandra Rodriguez (Plaintiff)
Self-represented homeowner plaintiff.

Respondent Side

Gardens-Gilbert Community Association (Defendant/Appellee)
Association party named in Rodriguez’s complaint and appeal.
Focus HOA Management, LLC (Defendant/Appellee)
Management-company defendant in the case record.
Harman Cadis (Defendant)
Focus HOA Management
Individual defendant named in the verified partial answer.
Brooke Sortor (Defendant)
Focus HOA Management
Individual defendant named in the verified partial answer.
Anna Schultz (Defendant)
Focus HOA Management
Individual defendant named in the verified partial answer.
Augustus H. Shaw IV (Counsel)
Counsel for defendants in the verified partial answer.
Dominick D. Detente (Counsel)
Counsel for defendants in the verified partial answer.

Neutral Parties

Rodrick Coffey (Judge)
Superior Court judge listed in one order.
David McDowell (Judge)
Superior Court judge assigned in later pleadings.
Christopher Coury (Judge)
Superior Court judge addressed in later notices.

FAQ

Is this case final?

No. It is active and pending on remand, with a summary-judgment motion outstanding and a third appeal filed June 1, 2026. Nothing here is a final ruling and the outcome may change.

Can I sue my HOA's management company for breach of contract?

Generally not on the CC&Rs alone. This ruling holds the CC&Rs are the contract between the owner and the association; a management company that is not a party to that contract is not liable for breach of it.

Does Arizona recognize an HOA 'retaliation' claim?

This ruling holds it does not as a standalone tort, and that the economic-loss doctrine can bar tort claims that simply restate CC&R breaches.

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

Case ID / citation	Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2024-005940 (consolidated with CV2024-013806)
Court / tribunal	Superior Court
Decision / key date	May 27, 2026
Judge / panel	Hon. Christopher Coury
Parties	A Gilbert homeowner, appearing pro se, sued her HOA, its management company, and three individual agents over common-area maintenance, records access, and alleged retaliation; the case is active on remand from the Court of Appeals.
Governing law	A.R.S. § 33-1805 A.R.S. § 12-1809
Topics	ProcedureCC&RsNegligenceRecords RequestsEconomic Loss DoctrinePro Se Litigant
Outcome / holding	On the operative pleading, the court held that an HOA's CC&Rs are the contract between owner and association, so breach-of-contract claims survive only against the association and only as to specific recorded CC&R terms (not against the non-contracting management company); the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing requires a contract; Arizona recognizes no standalone tort of 'retaliation' and the economic-loss doctrine bars tort claims that merely restate CC&R breaches; but the plaintiff's negligence and gross-negligence claims tied to common-area maintenance and management duties, and her § 33-1805 records theory, survive for further litigation.

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package	219 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	5 roadmap entries
Video overview	Sandra Rodriguez v. Gardens-Gilbert Community Association, et al.
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	3 questions
Featured download links	3 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

CURRENT STATUS (June 2026): NOT FINAL — this is an active, heavily litigated Maricopa County Superior Court case on remand from the Court of Appeals; no final judgment has been entered. Sandra Rodriguez, a homeowner in the Gardens-Gilbert community, sued the association, its management company (Focus HOA Management, LLC), and three individual agents, alleging the defendants failed to maintain common areas and address health-and-safety hazards, obstructed remediation of water-intrusion damage at her property, denied her access to records and meetings under A.R.S. § 33-1805, and retaliated against her. The trial court initially dismissed several defendants, but in August 2025 the Court of Appeals (1 CA-CV 24-0790/25-0040, memorandum decision) reinstated her negligence, gross-negligence, and intentional-tort claims and remanded. On remand, the latest substantive ruling is Judge Coury's May 27, 2026 omnibus order, which narrowed the case to surviving negligence and CC&R-based contract claims, dismissed the discrimination, retaliation, and conspiracy theories, sanctioned the plaintiff for a missed deposition, and imposed a filing restriction; a summary-judgment motion remains pending and a third appeal was filed June 1, 2026.

Key Issues & Findings

Taking the well-pleaded allegations as admitted, the court held that several counts failed as a matter of law: breach of contract requires a contract, so claims against the management entity and individuals failed and the association claim was limited to the recorded CC&Rs; the implied covenant cannot exist without a contract; Arizona does not recognize a tort of retaliation, and to the extent the retaliation theory rested on CC&R duties the economic-loss doctrine barred it; and the discrimination count failed for lack of any protected-characteristic facts. The court rejected the defendants' argument that the appellate remand was narrow, reviewing each claim de novo because the earlier dismissal had been without prejudice. Applying the four-factor injunction test, it denied the plaintiff's request for a temporary restraining order and harassment injunction, finding no likelihood of success or irreparable harm and noting the request appeared aimed at avoiding a deposition; it also denied her motion to declare defense counsel vexatious, imposed an intermediate sanction for the missed deposition, and restricted further motion practice pending decision on summary judgment.

Why It Matters

For Arizona HOA disputes, the case reinforces that CC&Rs are the contract between owner and association — breach-of-contract claims are confined to specific recorded CC&R terms and generally cannot be brought against a management company that is not a party to that contract. It confirms that Arizona recognizes no standalone tort of HOA 'retaliation' and that the economic-loss doctrine can bar tort claims that simply restate CC&R breaches, while showing that records-access claims under A.R.S. § 33-1805 and common-area maintenance failures can still proceed as negligence theories. It is also a cautionary example of how a sprawling pro se HOA case can draw sanctions, filing restrictions, and repeated appeals. Because the case is ongoing, nothing here is a final ruling.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Gayer v. Willo Neighborhood Association: Challenging an HOA Bylaw-Amendment Vote for Lack of Quorum

Posted on June 19, 2026 by [email protected]

Arizona HOA Bylaws & Quorum | A.R.S. §§ 10-3722, 10-11023 | CV2008-029900

Gayer is a practical, non-precedential illustration of a member challenging an Arizona nonprofit community association’s bylaw-amendment election for lack of statutory quorum and improper meeting notice. The court dismissed the claims against the association president individually but let the quorum claim against the association proceed past the pleading stage; the plaintiff then voluntarily dismissed the case.

Last updated June 19, 2026. Case: Richard Gayer v. Willo Neighborhood Association, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2008-029900 (Hon. A. Craig Blakey II).

Download dismissal ruling Download complaint Source-file index FAQ

Allegations, settlements, procedural dismissals, and notices are not findings of liability unless a cited court order expressly makes that finding.

Scope note: This is a trial-level matter that ended on the plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal without prejudice, so it set no binding precedent. This page summarizes the pleadings and the court’s motion-to-dismiss ruling from the uploaded record and is educational, not legal advice.

The takeaway

On a motion to dismiss, a member’s allegation that a bylaw-amendment election lacked the statutory quorum and was held at an improperly noticed meeting (A.R.S. §§ 10-3722 and 10-11023(A)) was legally sufficient to proceed against the association; claims against the association president individually were dismissed because the complaint alleged no personal wrongdoing by him and sought relief that ran against the corporation.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Richard Gayer (Plaintiff)
Self-represented member who challenged the bylaw vote.

Respondent Side

Willo Neighborhood Association (Defendant)
Association party defending the bylaw-amendment vote.
Jon D. Schneider (Counsel)
Schneider & Onofry, P.C.
Counsel for Willo Neighborhood Association and Bradley Brauer.
Luane Rosen (Counsel)
Schneider & Onofry, P.C.
Counsel for Willo Neighborhood Association and Bradley Brauer.
Bradley Brauer (Association President)
Willo Neighborhood Association
Individual defendant dismissed from the complaint.

Neutral Parties

A. Craig Blakey II (Judge)
Superior Court judge who ruled on the motion to dismiss.

What happened

In June 2008 the Willo Neighborhood Association held an election that amended its bylaws — redrawing the eastern service-area boundary and shifting from automatic membership to an opt-in model with a lower voting quorum. Richard Gayer, a member appearing pro se, alleged the meeting was improperly noticed as a ‘board meeting’ rather than the required membership meeting and that only about 143 votes were cast against a statutory minimum near 270. He sought a declaratory judgment invalidating the election and an injunction restoring the prior bylaws.

The association and its president moved to dismiss. On July 8, 2009, the court dismissed the claims against the president but denied dismissal of the quorum/notice claim against the association, observing it might not survive summary judgment but passed the motion-to-dismiss standard. Because Gayer had already filed a Rule 41(a)(1) voluntary dismissal without prejudice on June 19, 2009, the case ended without a merits decision.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Richard Gayer v. Willo Neighborhood Association (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2008-029900). On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the member’s bylaw-amendment quorum and notice claim against the association stated a… 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 Richard Gayer v. Willo Neighborhood Association. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

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

Procedural timeline

2008-11-24

Gayer files complaint challenging the bylaw-amendment election (CV2008-029900)

Download 2 sources

Arbitration Statement Rule 72 A R C P Complaint

2009-03-13

Association and president move to dismiss

Download 2 sources

Credit Memo Defendant Rule 12 Motion To Dismiss

2009-06-19

Gayer files notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice (Rule 41(a)(1))

Download source

Plaintiff Notice Of Dismissal Of Entire Action Without Prejudice

2009-07-08

Court dismisses claims against the president; denies dismissal of the quorum claim against the association

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file

2009-07-16_016_letter-to-court.pdf

Source 17 Undated

Summons

Type: Procedural/service filing

Service document used to notify a defendant or respondent that the case has been filed.

Download source file

undated_017_summons.pdf

FAQ

Is this case binding precedent?

No. It is an unpublished trial-court matter that ended on the plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal without prejudice. It is useful as an illustration, not as controlling authority.

Can a member challenge a bylaw-amendment vote in Arizona?

Yes. This case shows such a challenge — based on lack of statutory quorum and improper meeting notice under A.R.S. §§ 10-3722 and 10-11023(A) — can survive a motion to dismiss against the association.

Why were the claims against the president dismissed?

The complaint alleged nothing the president personally did wrong and sought relief that ran against the corporation, so he was not a proper individual defendant.

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

Case ID / citation	Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2008-029900
Court / tribunal	Superior Court
Decision / key date	July 8, 2009
Judge / panel	Hon. A. Craig Blakey II
Parties	A neighborhood-association member, appearing pro se, sued the association and its president to invalidate a bylaw-amendment election he alleged was held without the statutory quorum and proper meeting notice.
Governing law	A.R.S. § 10-3722 A.R.S. § 10-11023
Topics	AmendmentsQuorumNonprofit CorporationProcedureBoard Governance
Outcome / holding	On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the member's bylaw-amendment quorum and notice claim against the association stated a claim and survived dismissal, while the claims against the association president individually were dismissed for failure to allege any wrongful conduct by him personally; the action ultimately terminated on the plaintiff's voluntary dismissal without prejudice, so no merits ruling was entered.

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package	17 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	4 roadmap entries
Video overview	Richard Gayer v. Willo Neighborhood Association
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	3 questions
Featured download links	3 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

This Maricopa County Superior Court matter is a useful, if non-precedential, illustration of how an Arizona nonprofit community-association member can challenge a bylaw-amendment vote for lack of quorum and improper meeting procedure. In June 2008 the Willo Neighborhood Association held an election that amended its bylaws — redrawing the eastern service-area boundary and shifting from automatic membership to an opt-in model with a lower voting quorum. Gayer, a member, alleged the meeting was improperly noticed as a 'board meeting' rather than the required membership meeting and that only about 143 votes were cast against a statutory minimum near 270 (ten percent of roughly 2,700 voting-age residents). He sought a declaratory judgment invalidating the election and an injunction restoring the prior bylaws. The association and its president moved to dismiss. The court dismissed the claims against the president individually but allowed the quorum/notice claim against the association to proceed past the pleading stage. Because Gayer had already filed a voluntary dismissal without prejudice, the case ended without a merits judgment.

Key Issues & Findings

Applying the motion-to-dismiss standard and accepting the well-pleaded allegations as true, the court concluded that Gayer's allegations under A.R.S. §§ 10-3722 and 10-11023(A) — that the amendment vote lacked the required quorum and was conducted at an improperly noticed meeting — were legally sufficient to state a claim against the corporation, even while observing that the claim might not survive summary judgment on a fuller record. As to the president, the court held the complaint alleged nothing he personally did wrong and sought relief that ran against the corporation rather than against him, so the individual claims were dismissed. Because a Rule 41(a)(1) voluntary dismissal without prejudice is effective on filing, the case ended without a decision on the merits, leaving the member free to refile.

Why It Matters

For homeowners and members of Arizona nonprofit community associations, the ruling illustrates that a member has standing to challenge a bylaw-amendment election for failure to meet statutory quorum and meeting-notice requirements, and that such a challenge can survive a motion to dismiss. For boards, it is a reminder that volunteer officers generally cannot be held individually liable for governance disputes absent specific personal wrongdoing — the proper defendant is the association. Because the case ended in a voluntary dismissal, it sets no binding precedent, but it remains a practical example of quorum-based bylaw-amendment challenges and officer-immunity pleading in the HOA context.

← Back to Superior Court cases