Author Archives: [email protected]

Federoff v. Pioneer Title & Trust Co.

Posted on by

Federoff v. Pioneer Title & Trust Co.

166 Ariz. 383, 803 P.2d 104 (1990) · Arizona Supreme Court · December 6, 1990

At a Glance

Parties Owners within a restricted area sued a developer and others to enforce recorded land-use covenants against a denser subdivision plan.

Summary

Federoff is a major Arizona case on recorded restrictions, notice, and enforceability against later purchasers. The dispute involved restrictive covenants created by adjoining landowners and later challenged by developers whose deeds apparently did not repeat the restrictions. The Arizona Supreme Court held that the covenants were still enforceable. It classified them as mutual covenants running with the land and said that, in this setting, the failure to restate the restrictions in every later deed did not automatically make them personal or extinguish them. What mattered was that the original recorded agreement showed intent to bind successors and that later owners had constructive or actual notice of the restrictions. The court distinguished the common-grantor cases that require closer attention to deed language and held those authorities did not control here. Federoff remains important whenever HOA lawyers confront old recorded restrictions, title-report notice, or developer arguments that omitted deed language wiped the slate clean.

Holding

Recorded mutual restrictive covenants between adjoining landowners can remain enforceable against later owners with notice even if later deeds omit reference to the covenants.

Reasoning

The court relied on Arizona’s three-category framework for restrictive covenants and placed the case in the class involving mutual covenants between adjoining landowners. In that setting, the key questions were whether the original parties created enforceable land-related promises, intended them to bind successors, and whether later purchasers had notice.

The court rejected the developers’ attempt to import rules from common-grantor and common-scheme cases where the first deed and later deed language play a different role. Here, the restrictions were properly recorded, touched and concerned the land, and were known or chargeable to the later owners through title materials and record notice.

Why This Matters for HOAs

Federoff matters whenever a community is dealing with old restrictions and a buyer or developer claims the covenant disappeared because it was omitted from a later deed. In Arizona, omission alone is not always enough.

For HOA counsel, the case underscores the importance of title review and record notice. For owners, it confirms that older recorded covenants can still be very much alive if the original instrument and later notice support enforcement.

Topics

CC&RsDisclosure

View the original opinion →

← Back to Arizona Supreme Court cases

Powell v. Washburn

Posted on by

Powell v. Washburn

211 Ariz. 553, 125 P.3d 373 (2006) · Arizona Supreme Court · January 5, 2006

At a Glance

Parties Subdivision owners sued other owners and the developer over whether the CC&Rs allowed RVs to be used as residences in an airpark community.
Panel Justice Michael D. Ryan

Summary

Powell is the Arizona Supreme Court’s foundational case on how to interpret restrictive covenants and CC&Rs. Owners in an aviation-themed planned community argued that the covenants barred the use of recreational vehicles as residences even though the county zoning ordinance later permitted them. The court used the case to reset Arizona law. It rejected the old habit of mechanically construing covenants against restrictions and in favor of free use whenever there was uncertainty. Instead, it adopted the Restatement approach: restrictive covenants should be read to carry out the parties’ intent, as shown by the document as a whole, the surrounding circumstances, and the purpose for which the covenants were created. Applying that standard, the court held the airpark covenants did not allow RV residences because that use conflicted with the development’s design and purpose. Powell still anchors Arizona HOA disputes over rentals, home use, architectural controls, and declaration meaning.

Holding

Arizona courts must interpret restrictive covenants to give effect to the parties’ intent and the purpose of the covenants, rather than reflexively resolving uncertainty in favor of unrestricted land use.

Reasoning

The court reviewed Arizona’s older covenant cases and concluded that the state’s real law had long been more intent-focused than some broad free-use language suggested. Because restrictive covenants are central to modern planned developments, the court found the Restatement’s purpose-and-intent approach better matched contemporary property practice.

Using that framework, the court read the airpark declaration as a whole. The community was designed around aviation-related residential and commercial uses, and the challenged interpretation would have undermined that plan. The court therefore enforced the covenant in a way that preserved the development’s intended character.

Why This Matters for HOAs

If Kalway is Arizona’s leading amendment case, Powell is its leading interpretation case. Lawyers still start with Powell when arguing what a declaration means.

For boards and owners, the practical lesson is simple: Arizona courts will not read CC&Rs sentence by sentence in a vacuum. They will ask what the covenants were trying to accomplish. That can help both sides, depending on the text, the overall plan, and the property’s recorded purpose.

Topics

CC&Rs

View the original opinion →

← Back to Arizona Supreme Court cases

Duffy v. Sunburst Farms East Mutual Water & Agricultural Co.

Posted on by

Duffy v. Sunburst Farms East Mutual Water & Agricultural Co.

124 Ariz. 413, 604 P.2d 1124 (1979) · Arizona Supreme Court · November 28, 1979

At a Glance

Parties Subdivision owners and a mutual association disputed the validity of an amendment to recorded restrictions.

Summary

Duffy is an important Arizona Supreme Court decision on how amendment clauses in recorded restrictions actually work. The dispute centered on whether subdivision restrictions could be changed or revoked by a vote of the lot owners under the amendment language in the declaration, and whether extra meeting procedures found elsewhere in association documents had to be layered onto that process. The court enforced the amendment framework written into the recorded restrictions themselves. It treated the declaration as controlling and did not let separate bylaws override the declaration’s stated amendment mechanism. The opinion is also widely cited for two broader propositions: courts read restrictive covenants by looking at both the words used and the surrounding circumstances, and changes to restrictions must be grounded in the recorded document rather than in later procedural improvisation. Arizona courts and HOA lawyers still cite Duffy whenever the validity of a covenant amendment process is at issue.

Holding

When a recorded declaration expressly authorizes amendment or revocation by the specified vote of owners, Arizona courts will generally enforce that mechanism, and separate bylaws do not add requirements that the declaration itself does not impose.

Reasoning

The court approached the recorded restrictions as the operative contract running with the land. Because the declaration itself spelled out how amendments could occur, that language controlled the analysis. The court would not rewrite the amendment clause by importing additional procedural conditions from other association documents unless the declaration itself required that result.

The opinion also read restrictive covenants in context, not by isolated words alone. That contextual approach later fed into Arizona’s broader covenant-interpretation cases and remains important in disputes about amendment power, owner voting rights, and the relationship between declarations and bylaws.

Why This Matters for HOAs

Duffy is still useful in modern HOA litigation whenever parties argue over whether an amendment was adopted under the right document and by the right vote. It reminds boards that the declaration usually sits at the top of the governing-document hierarchy for land-use restrictions.

For homeowners, Duffy cuts both ways. It can support enforcement of a clearly written amendment clause, but it also limits boards from inventing amendment authority or procedures that the declaration never gave them.

Subsequent treatment: The strict-construction-of-covenants rule relied on here was disapproved by name in Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553 (2006). To that extent, Duffy no longer states current Arizona law on the interpretation of restrictive covenants.

Topics

CC&RsBoard GovernanceElections

View the original opinion →

← Back to Arizona Supreme Court cases

Ahwatukee Custom Estates Management Association, Inc. v. Bach

Posted on by

Ahwatukee Custom Estates Management Association, Inc. v. Bach

193 Ariz. 401, 973 P.2d 106 (1999) · Arizona Supreme Court · January 28, 1999

At a Glance

Parties An HOA and a homeowner disputed what litigation expenses could be shifted after a CC&R enforcement case.
Panel Justice Ruth V. McGregor, Chief Justice Thomas A. Zlaket, Vice Chief Justice Charles E. Jones, Justice Stanley G. Feldman, Justice Frederick J. Martone
Statutes interpreted
  • A.R.S. § 12-341.01
  • A.R.S. § 12-332

Summary

This is the Arizona Supreme Court’s most cited HOA fee-shifting decision. After an HOA enforcement case, the prevailing side sought not only attorney fees but also a list of other litigation expenses such as delivery charges, copying, faxing, postage, and similar out-of-pocket costs. The court drew a sharp line. It held that non-taxable costs are not recoverable merely by labeling them part of attorney fees under A.R.S. § 12-341.01 or under a standard private fee provision. At the same time, the court treated computerized legal research differently because it substitutes for lawyer time and is part of the legal service itself. So Westlaw-style research costs could be included, but routine overhead and non-taxable litigation expenses could not. The result matters in nearly every Arizona HOA lawsuit because fee requests often drive settlement and post-judgment strategy.

Holding

Non-taxable litigation expenses are not recoverable as attorney fees under A.R.S. § 12-341.01 merely because they were incurred in the case, but computerized legal research may be recoverable as part of attorney fees.

Reasoning

The court began with Arizona’s long-standing distinction between costs and fees. Costs are limited by statute. Attorney fees compensate for professional legal services. The court refused to blur those categories by allowing ordinary litigation expenses to ride along under the label of fees.

But the court treated computerized research as different in character. When a lawyer uses paid electronic research, that expense replaces lawyer time that otherwise would have been billed more heavily. Because it directly relates to legal analysis rather than office overhead, the court allowed it as part of a reasonable attorney-fee award.

Why This Matters for HOAs

Boards and homeowners routinely fight about fee awards after CC&R cases. This decision gives both sides a clear rule: do not assume courier bills, postage, copies, travel-type charges, and similar items are recoverable unless some other authority clearly allows them.

For counsel, the drafting point is practical. If an association wants broader cost-shifting in its documents, the provision should be explicit. Otherwise, Arizona courts will likely follow Ahwatukee and limit recovery to fees and statutory taxable costs.

Topics

Attorney FeesProcedure

View the original opinion →

← Back to Arizona Supreme Court cases

Bolton Anderson, et al. v. Recreation Centers of Sun City Inc.

Posted on by

Bolton Anderson, et al. v. Recreation Centers of Sun City Inc.

CV2015-012458 (see also 2019 Ariz. Sess. Laws Ch. 185 / SB 1094) · Superior Court · October 10, 2019

At a Glance

Parties Sun City residents sued the nonprofit corporation that operates Sun City recreational facilities and imposes mandatory charges tied to residential ownership.
Panel Hon. Roger E. Brodman
Statutes interpreted

Summary

CURRENT STATUS: This case is a cautionary saga in which a homeowner trial-court win was retroactively nullified by the Legislature and then lost on summary judgment. In a September 4, 2018 ruling, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Roger Brodman held that Recreation Centers of Sun City, Inc. (RCSC) qualified as an ‘association’ subject to Arizona’s Planned Community Act because it owned and operated Sun City’s recreational facilities and funded them through mandatory charges tied to residential ownership. In direct response, the Arizona Legislature enacted SB 1094 (2019 Ariz. Sess. Laws, Ch. 185), signed May 7, 2019 and made retroactive to July 16, 1994, amending the A.R.S. §§ 33-1801 and 33-1802 definitions to exclude entities like RCSC from the Planned Community Act. Judge Brodman’s later order observed that SB 1094 ‘was enacted to legislatively overrule this court’s interpretation of the act.’ Applying the amended statute, on October 10, 2019 the court granted summary judgment in favor of RCSC on all motions — a defense sweep. The operative trial-court outcome is therefore the 2019 judgment for RCSC, not the 2018 ruling, and the 2018 ‘association’ determination no longer reflects Arizona law.

Holding

The court’s September 2018 determination that RCSC was an ‘association’ under the Planned Community Act was legislatively overruled by SB 1094 (2019, retroactive to 1994), and on October 10, 2019 the court entered summary judgment for RCSC; the operative result is that RCSC is not subject to the Planned Community Act on these facts.

Reasoning

The 2018 ruling looked past corporate labels and treated RCSC as a planned-community operator because home ownership in Sun City effectively required membership and mandatory payments. That substance-over-form reasoning produced a homeowner win on statutory applicability. The Legislature responded almost immediately. SB 1094 rewrote the §§ 33-1801/1802 definitions of ‘association’ and ‘planned community’ and expressly applied the change retroactively to July 16, 1994, sweeping in pending cases like this one.

With the statutory ground changed beneath the 2018 ruling, the court reconsidered the merits under the amended definitions and, on October 10, 2019, granted RCSC summary judgment on all motions. The episode is a textbook example of the Legislature stepping in to overturn a trial-court statutory interpretation by retroactive amendment, and of how that change controls the final judgment.

Why This Matters for HOAs

For Arizona HOA practice, the lasting lesson is twofold. First, a favorable trial-court statutory interpretation is not the end of the story: the Legislature can, and here did, retroactively amend the governing definitions to nullify it, which is why this database now shows the 2019 defense judgment rather than the 2018 homeowner win. Second, after SB 1094, recreation corporations and similar hybrids structured like RCSC are generally outside the Planned Community Act under the amended A.R.S. §§ 33-1801/1802 definitions, so substance-over-form arguments that succeeded in 2018 will not by themselves bring such entities under Title 33. Counsel relying on the 2018 ruling should treat it as superseded.

Topics

Board GovernanceAssessmentsAmendmentsProcedure

View the original opinion →

← Back to Superior Court cases

Sunrise Meadows Estates Community Association v. Erlinda B. Isip

Posted on by

Sunrise Meadows Estates Community Association v. Erlinda B. Isip

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Sunrise Meadows Estates Community Association v. Erlinda B. Isip (LC2012-000034-001 DT). Improper service justified setting aside the HOA default judgment in an assessment collection case. 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 Sunrise Meadows Estates Community Association v. Erlinda B. Isip. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

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

Complete uploaded source-document index

This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/sunrise-meadows-estates-community-assn-v-isip/raw/: 1 PDF. Files are ordered by the date/sequence embedded in the normalized filename; AI-generated review materials are labeled separately and should not be treated as court filings.

Source 1 2013-06-21

Opinion

Type: Decision or judgment

Record appeal ruling/remand affirming the San Marcos Justice Court order setting aside the HOA default judgment after finding improper service and a supported ownership/inheritance defense.

Download source file
2013-06-21_001_opinion.pdf

Case Dossier

This generated dossier mirrors the structured data surfaced on the OAH/ADRE case pages. It is added from the curated court-case record and the custom page source package, while the hand-authored analysis below remains intact.

Case Summary

Case ID / citationLC2012-000034-001 DT
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateJune 21, 2013
Judge / panelHon. Myra Harris
PartiesAn HOA sought unpaid assessments from a woman it claimed inherited the property, and appealed after justice court set aside its default judgment.
Governing law
  • A.R.S. § 22-242
Topics
AssessmentsProcedure
Outcome / holding

The superior court affirmed the order setting aside the HOA’s default judgment because the record supported the lower court’s conclusion that service was improper.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package1 PDF
Step-by-step docket roadmapNo separate litigation roadmap table on this page
Video overviewSunrise Meadows Estates Community Association v. Erlinda B. Isip
Study / briefing material0 sections
FAQ / homeowner questions0 questions
Curated download aliases0 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

This Maricopa County Superior Court appeal involved a very common HOA move: suing for delinquent assessments, obtaining a default, and then trying to preserve that default after the defendant appears. The HOA alleged Erlinda Isip owed assessments because she inherited the property after her husband’s death. It obtained a default judgment after substituted service, and later pursued garnishment. Isip then moved to set the judgment aside, arguing service was improper and that she did not actually own the property or owe the debt. The justice court agreed and vacated the default. On record appeal, the superior court first held the HOA’s appeal itself was timely, but then affirmed the lower court on the merits. The ruling is useful because it shows that collection cases against surviving spouses, heirs, or other possible successors are not plug-and-play. Ownership, succession, waiver documents, and especially valid service all have to be handled correctly before an HOA can rely on default procedures.

Key Issues & Findings

The ruling centered on the idea that a default judgment cannot stand if the defendant was not properly brought before the court. The HOA had used substituted service and then proceeded to default and garnishment, but the lower court found the service defective. On review, the superior court did not disturb that determination.

The background dispute over whether Isip had any enforceable ownership interest also mattered because the HOA’s theory of liability depended on inheritance and succession. The defendant consistently maintained that she had no obligation for the assessments because she was not the owner. That ownership dispute made the service and default problems even more serious: the association was trying to collect from a person whose legal responsibility was itself contested.

Why It Matters

For Arizona HOAs, this ruling is a warning against aggressive default practice in succession cases. If the association is trying to collect from a surviving spouse, heir, devisee, or occupant after an owner’s death, it needs to confirm who actually holds title or obligation before filing and serving the case.

For homeowners and successors, the case shows that improper service is still one of the strongest defenses to an HOA default judgment. And if the judgment is void for service reasons, the fact that time has passed may not save the association.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Mesa Sierra Ranch II Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Juan Escobedo

Posted on by

Mesa Sierra Ranch II Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Juan Escobedo

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Mesa Sierra Ranch II Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Rosales M. Escobedo (LC2013-000373-001 DT). The superior court dismissed the HOA’s record appeal as untimely, leaving the justice court’s dismissal and fee… 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 Mesa Sierra Ranch II Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Rosales M. Escobedo. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

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

Complete uploaded source-document index

This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/mesa-sierra-ranch-ii-homeowners-assn-v-escobedo/raw/: 1 PDF. Files are ordered by the date/sequence embedded in the normalized filename; AI-generated review materials are labeled separately and should not be treated as court filings.

Source 1 2013-12-06

Opinion

Type: Decision or judgment

Higher court ruling/remand reversing the Arcadia Biltmore Justice Court default judgment and remanding because the homeowner defendant was not properly served, with fee eligibility left for a supported application.

Download source file
2013-12-06_001_opinion.pdf

Case Dossier

This generated dossier mirrors the structured data surfaced on the OAH/ADRE case pages. It is added from the curated court-case record and the custom page source package, while the hand-authored analysis below remains intact.

Case Summary

Case ID / citationLC2013-000373-001 DT
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateJanuary 23, 2014
Judge / panelHon. Lisa Ann VandenBerg
PartiesAn HOA appealed from justice court after its assessment-collection case against a homeowner was dismissed with prejudice.
Topics
AssessmentsProcedureAttorney Fees
Outcome / holding

The superior court dismissed the HOA’s record appeal as untimely, leaving the justice court’s dismissal and fee consequences in place.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package1 PDF
Step-by-step docket roadmapNo separate litigation roadmap table on this page
Video overviewMesa Sierra Ranch II Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Rosales M. Escobedo
Study / briefing material0 sections
FAQ / homeowner questions0 questions
Curated download aliases0 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

This Maricopa County Superior Court ruling came out of a routine HOA collection case that turned into a procedural loss for the association. The HOA sued homeowner Rosales Escobedo for unpaid assessments in justice court. During the lower-court proceedings, the homeowner relied on evidence that the HOA, through counsel, had accepted or at least entertained a payment arrangement, and the justice court dismissed the collection action with prejudice and awarded fees. Instead of reaching the collection dispute on the merits, the superior court focused on whether the HOA had properly invoked appellate review. It held that the HOA’s record appeal was untimely and therefore had to be dismissed. That meant the superior court never revisited the homeowner’s merits arguments or the lower court’s fee ruling. The case is useful because it shows how fast appeal deadlines can shut down an HOA’s attempt to rescue a failed collection action.

Key Issues & Findings

The ruling treated appellate timing as jurisdictional. Once the lower court entered the operative signed ruling, the HOA had only the short appeal window allowed in lower-court record appeals. Because the notice of appeal was not filed within that deadline, the superior court concluded it lacked authority to review the merits.

That procedural conclusion mattered more than anything else in the file. Even if the HOA believed the justice court had mishandled the payment-plan evidence, dismissed too aggressively, or awarded fees incorrectly, the superior court would not reach those issues after finding the appeal late. The ruling is a reminder that in HOA assessment cases, a missed deadline can permanently foreclose appellate review.

Why It Matters

For HOA boards and collection counsel, this is a hard lesson in litigation discipline. If a collection case goes sideways in justice court, the first question is not whether the lower court was wrong. The first question is whether the appeal was filed on time. If that deadline is missed, the merits usually do not matter.

For homeowners, the case shows that ordinary contract and procedure defenses can still matter in HOA collection suits. Payment-plan communications, dismissal orders, and fee rulings can become decisive if the association mishandles the next procedural step.

← Back to Superior Court cases

McNally v. Sun Lakes HOA: Elected Directors and Executive Sessions

Posted on by

Arizona HOA Board Governance | Executive Sessions | 1 CA-CV 15-0744

McNally limits a majority board’s power to sideline an elected director. The Court of Appeals held the Sun Lakes board lacked authority to exclude Colette McNally from all executive sessions as an ad hoc discipline tool.

Last updated June 3, 2026. Case: Colette McNally v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc., Arizona Court of Appeals No. 1 CA-CV 15-0744; Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2014-009496.

Download appellate opinion Download trial ruling Watch video overview Source-file index FAQ

Scope note: This page covers the published Court of Appeals opinion and the uploaded trial/appellate record. The complete uploaded source-document index below is generated from the local raw source folder, including court PDFs, court DOC/DOCX notices, and AI/source CSVs where present. AI-generated CSV summaries were reviewed only as orientation and are not treated as court authority.

The rule in one sentence

An HOA board cannot invent a blanket executive-session exclusion that strips an elected director of core board participation rights without legal authority in statutes, bylaws, or a proper removal process.

Case snapshot

Court result

Denial of preliminary injunction was reversed and remanded.

Board action

Sun Lakes excluded McNally from all executive sessions for the balance of her term.

Core statutes

A.R.S. 10-3801, 10-3822, 10-3825, 10-3810, and 33-1804.

Practical use

Director discipline must follow real authority, not majority convenience.

Case Dossier

This generated dossier mirrors the structured data surfaced on the OAH/ADRE case pages. It is added from the curated court-case record and the custom page source package, while the hand-authored analysis below remains intact.

Case Summary

Case ID / citation1 CA-CV 15-0744
Court / tribunalCourt of Appeals
Decision / key dateOctober 13, 2016
Judge / panelPresiding Judge Andrew W. Gould, Judge Peter B. Swann, Judge Patricia A. Orozco
PartiesA duly elected board member sued the HOA after the board voted to exclude her from executive sessions.
Topics
board-governancemeetings-and-records
Outcome / holding

The court held that the HOA board lacked authority to exclude a duly elected director from executive sessions and reversed the denial of injunctive relief.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package134 PDFs, 3 other source files
Step-by-step docket roadmap4 roadmap entries
Video overviewMcNally v. Sun Lakes HOA: Can an HOA Board Exclude an Elected Director?
Study / briefing material2 sections
FAQ / homeowner questions3 questions
Curated download aliases3 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

After internal conflict on the board, Sun Lakes voted to bar one of its own elected directors from executive sessions. The excluded director sought injunctive relief, arguing the board had no authority to cut her out of board deliberations simply because other directors believed she had breached confidentiality or loyalty duties. The Court of Appeals agreed with her and reversed. The court treated board membership as carrying the right to participate in board meetings, including executive sessions, unless some legally valid removal or other recognized mechanism had been used. It would not let the rest of the board create an ad hoc punishment that effectively stripped an elected director of core board functions without following the governing legal framework.

Key Issues & Findings

The court focused on the nature of board office itself. A director is elected to participate in governing the corporation, and executive sessions are still board meetings, not separate private clubs for a board majority. Without a valid removal, suspension, or other recognized authority, the majority could not invent a partial-disqualification remedy.

The association argued that exclusion was justified by the director’s alleged misconduct and by the board’s need to protect confidential matters. The court was not persuaded that those concerns created authority where none existed. Governance has to follow the corporation’s legal structure and governing documents, not improvisation by fellow directors.

Why It Matters

McNally is highly useful in HOA board-power disputes. It limits majority control tactics against dissident directors and reinforces that board process must track real authority, not political convenience.

For directors and members, the case supports the idea that elected office in an HOA carries enforceable participation rights unless the association follows the proper path to remove or discipline the director.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Colette McNally (Plaintiff/Appellant)
    Board member excluded from Sun Lakes HOA executive sessions.
  • Steven W. Cheifetz (Counsel)
    Cheifetz Iannitelli Marcolini PC
    Counsel for McNally on appeal.
  • Jacob A. Kubert (Counsel)
    Cheifetz Iannitelli Marcolini PC
    Counsel for McNally on appeal.

Respondent Side

  • Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc. (Defendant/Appellee)
    Association party defending the executive-session ruling.
  • Robert Grasso Jr. (Counsel)
    Grasso Law Firm PC
    Counsel for Sun Lakes Homeowners Association.
  • Stephanie L. Samuelson (Counsel)
    Grasso Law Firm PC
    Co-counsel for Sun Lakes Homeowners Association.

Neutral Parties

  • James T. Blomo (Judge)
    Superior Court judge listed in the appeal.
  • Andrew W. Gould (Presiding Judge)
    Authored the Court of Appeals opinion.
  • Peter B. Swann (Judge)
    Joined the Court of Appeals opinion.
  • Patricia A. Orozco (Judge)
    Joined the Court of Appeals opinion.

Why this case matters

McNally is one of the strongest Arizona HOA board-governance cases because it treats board service as a real office with enforceable participation rights. The board had confidentiality concerns, but the court held that excluding an elected director from every executive session prevented her from performing director duties.

The opinion does not say a director may disclose confidential information. It says the remedy for confidentiality concerns must come from lawful tools such as recusal in a particular conflict, judicial removal, or an injunction tailored to confidentiality, not a blanket board-created exclusion.

Video overview: elected HOA directors and executive sessions

Watch this overview for McNally v. Sun Lakes HOA, where the Court of Appeals held that a board majority could not use confidentiality concerns to impose a blanket executive-session ban on a duly elected director.

Homeowner study guide: director rights and executive sessions

Homeowner or director questionStudy-guide answerPractical lesson
What topics may an Arizona planned-community board discuss in executive session?A.R.S. 33-1804 allows closed discussion for limited subjects such as legal advice, pending or contemplated litigation, personal or financial information, employee matters, and member appeals.Executive session is limited-purpose; it is not a general substitute for open board governance.
Can a board exclude an elected director from all executive sessions because it distrusts that director?No. McNally held the board lacked statutory or bylaw authority to impose that blanket exclusion.A board majority cannot use self-help to strip an elected director of core management participation rights.
Can a board create a committee of everyone except the targeted director?Not as a workaround to eliminate the director’s management role.Committee authority cannot be used to make the director-participation statutes meaningless.
What lawful remedies exist if a director may disclose confidential information?The association can seek tailored injunctive relief, conflict-specific recusal, or judicial removal where statutory grounds exist.The remedy has to match lawful authority; it cannot be an invented blanket ban.
Does McNally give directors permission to disclose confidential information?No. The case addresses the board’s lack of authority for the exclusion, not a license to publish protected information.Confidentiality duties and participation rights both matter.
Can a director be forced to sign a confidentiality oath as a condition of attending meetings?McNally rejected conditioning participation on terms that effectively preserved the unauthorized exclusion.Boards should use lawful, specific confidentiality tools rather than broad participation waivers.
What was the appellate outcome?The Court of Appeals reversed the denial of preliminary injunctive relief and held the board had no authority to ban McNally from executive sessions.The parties later settled after the appellate ruling.

Briefing notes from the review packet

Triggering dispute

The conflict began after former employee Jeannie Martens sent an email alleging staff misconduct, and McNally later attempted to read it during an open board meeting.

Board sanction

On September 20, 2013, the board approved screening McNally out of executive sessions for the balance of her term.

Conditioned re-entry

The briefing materials state the board offered readmission only if McNally acknowledged wrongdoing and signed a confidentiality pledge.

Association theory

The association framed the exclusion as a confidentiality and fiduciary-duty remedy, and argued it could operate as a special committee without McNally.

Director theory

McNally argued the board majority had no statutory or bylaw authority to strip an elected director of management participation rights.

Post-opinion status

After the appellate reversal, the parties filed a notice of settlement in November 2016, and McNally withdrew her fee application.

Director-rights analysis from the briefing

Legal pointCourt’s treatmentPractical meaning
Director participationA.R.S. 10-3801(B) requires directors to participate in managing the corporation.A blanket executive-session exclusion interferes with core director duties.
Meeting noticeA.R.S. 10-3822(B) requires notice of meetings to directors.A notice right is hollow if the board can invite a director but bar attendance.
Special committee theoryThe court rejected use of A.R.S. 10-3825 to make the full board minus one director the functional decision-maker.A committee statute cannot be used to nullify a director’s elected office.
Lawful alternativesThe opinion pointed to judicial removal, tailored injunctions, and conflict-specific recusal as available tools.Boards need a real legal remedy, not self-help discipline.

Litigation roadmap

Step 1 2013-2014

Sun Lakes excluded McNally from executive sessions after confidentiality and loyalty disputes.

Filed by: Board and director

Creates the board-power conflict that drove the case.

Download source
Trial ruling
Step 2 July 2014

Filed suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief plus damages claims.

Filed by: McNally

Shows how the director framed the exclusion as unlawful board action.

Download source
Source index
Step 3 August 12, 2015

Denied preliminary injunction after an evidentiary hearing.

Filed by: Superior Court

This was the order McNally appealed.

Download source
Hearing minute entry
Step 4 October 13, 2016

Reversed and directed further proceedings because the board lacked authority to exclude her.

Filed by: Court of Appeals

This is the controlling appellate result.

Download source
Opinion

Complete uploaded source-document index

This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/mcnally-v-sun-lakes-homeowners-association-1/raw/: 134 PDFs, 3 other source files. Files are ordered by the date/sequence embedded in the normalized filename; AI-generated review materials are labeled separately and should not be treated as court filings.

Source 3 2015-11-10

Case Management Statement

Type: Court/source PDF

Case-management filing; it tells the court how the parties propose to schedule and manage the case.

Download source file
2015-11-10_000_case-management-statement.pdf
Source 4 2015-11-10

Notice Of Payment

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2015-11-10_000_notice-of-payment.pdf
Source 5 2015-11-10

Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2015-11-10_001_certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 7 2015-11-10

Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2015-11-10_002_certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 8 2015-11-24

Index Of Record

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
2015-11-24_000_index-of-record.pdf
Source 9 2015-11-24

Verified Complaint

Type: Opening pleading

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

Download source file
2015-11-24_001_verified-complaint.pdf
Source 11 2015-11-24

Civil Cover Sheet

Type: Court/source PDF

Court intake document classifying the case for filing and assignment purposes.

Download source file
2015-11-24_003_civil-coversheet.pdf
Source 12 2015-11-24

Summons

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2015-11-24_004_summons.pdf
Source 17 2015-11-24

Rule 38 Demand For Jury Trial

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
2015-11-24_009_rule-38-demand-for-jury-trial.pdf
Source 18 2015-11-24

Notice Of Change Of Address

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2015-11-24_010_notice-of-change-of-address.pdf
Source 19 2015-11-24

Minute Entry 150 Day Minute Entry 12062014

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2015-11-24_011_me-150-day-minute-entry-12062014.pdf
Source 20 2015-11-24

Minute Entry 100 Day Minute Entry 12102014

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2015-11-24_012_me-100-day-minute-entry-12102014.pdf
Source 24 2015-11-24

Stipulation Re Briefing On Plainti

Type: Briefing paper

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

Download source file
2015-11-24_016_stipulation-re-briefing-on-plainti.pdf
Source 35 2015-11-24

Minute Entry Ruling 02232015

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2015-11-24_027_me-ruling-02232015.pdf
Source 39 2015-11-24

Minute Entry Case On Inactive Calendar 040420

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
2015-11-24_031_me-case-on-inactive-calendar-040420.pdf
Source 45 2015-11-24

Joint Report

Type: Court/source PDF

Case-management filing; it tells the court how the parties propose to schedule and manage the case.

Download source file
2015-11-24_037_joint-report.pdf
Source 49 2015-11-24

Minute Entry Status Conference Set 05112015

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
2015-11-24_041_me-status-conference-set-05112015.pdf
Source 51 2015-11-24

Minute Entry Hearing Set 05122015

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
2015-11-24_043_me-hearing-set-05122015.pdf
Source 52 2015-11-24

Stipulation For Entry Of Protectiv

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
2015-11-24_044_stipulation-for-entry-of-protectiv.pdf
Source 53 2015-11-24

Stipulated Protective Order

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2015-11-24_045_stipulated-protective-order.pdf
Source 55 2015-11-24

Minute Entry Status Conference Set 08052015

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
2015-11-24_047_me-status-conference-set-08052015.pdf
Source 56 2015-11-24

Part 1 of 4 Joint Hearing Statement

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
2015-11-24_048_part-1-of-4-joint-hearing-statement.pdf
Source 57 2015-11-24

Part 2 of 4 Joint Hearing Statement

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
2015-11-24_049_part-2-of-4-joint-hearing-statement.pdf
Source 58 2015-11-24

Part 3 of 4 Joint Hearing Statement

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
2015-11-24_050_part-3-of-4-joint-hearing-statement.pdf
Source 59 2015-11-24

Part 4 of 4 Joint Hearing Statement

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
2015-11-24_051_part-4-of-4-joint-hearing-statement.pdf
Source 60 2015-11-24

Original Deposition Of Colette Mcn

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
2015-11-24_052_original-deposition-of-colette-mcn.pdf
Source 61 2015-11-24

Trial Hearing Worksheet

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
2015-11-24_053_trial-hearing-worksheet.pdf
Source 62 2015-11-24

Exhibit Worksheet Hd 08122015

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
2015-11-24_054_exhibit-worksheet-hd-08122015.pdf
Source 63 2015-11-24

Minute Entry Status Conference 08102015

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
2015-11-24_055_me-status-conference-08102015.pdf
Source 64 2015-11-24

Minute Entry Hearing 08122015

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
2015-11-24_056_me-hearing-08122015.pdf
Source 65 2015-11-24

Minute Entry Settlement Conference Set 08172

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
2015-11-24_057_me-settlement-conference-set-08172.pdf
Source 66 2015-11-24

Notice Of Settlement Conference

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2015-11-24_058_notice-of-settlement-conference.pdf
Source 68 2015-11-24

Scheduling Order

Type: Court order/minute entry

Sets or changes case deadlines, hearing dates, disclosure dates, or other procedural milestones.

Download source file
2015-11-24_060_scheduling-order.pdf
Source 70 2015-11-24

Proposed Order

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2015-11-24_062_proposed-order.pdf
Source 73 2015-11-24

Defendantappellees Designation O

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
2015-11-24_066_defendantappellees-designation-o.pdf
Source 76 2015-11-30

Defendantappellee Sun Lakes Homeo

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
2015-11-30_000_defendantappellee-sun-lakes-homeo.pdf
Source 77 2015-11-30

Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2015-11-30_001_certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 80 2015-12-01

Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2015-12-01_001_certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 81 2015-12-11

Order Re Motion To File Under Seal

Type: Court order/minute entry

A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.

Download source file
2015-12-11_000_order-re-motion-to-file-under-seal.pdf
Source 82 2015-12-17

Order Re Motion To Expedite Appeal

Type: Court order/minute entry

A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.

Download source file
2015-12-17_000_order-re-motion-to-expedite-appeal.pdf
Source 84 2016-01-20

Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2016-01-20_001_certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 88 2016-03-25

Appellants Reply Brief

Type: Briefing paper

Reply paper; usually the final written response before the court takes the issue under advisement.

Download source file
2016-03-25_000_appellants-reply-brief.pdf
Source 89 2016-03-25

Certificate Of Compliance

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2016-03-25_001_certificate-of-compliance.pdf
Source 90 2016-03-25

Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2016-03-25_002_certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 92 2016-03-29

Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2016-03-29_001_certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 94 2016-04-08

Court Of Appeals Receipt

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
2016-04-08_069_court-of-appeals-receipt.pdf
Source 95 2016-04-08

Electronic Index Of Record

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
2016-04-08_070_electronic-index-of-record.pdf
Source 96 2016-04-08

Court Of Appeals Letter Of Transmit

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
2016-04-08_071_court-of-appeals-letter-of-transmit.pdf
Source 98 2016-04-08

Court Of Appeals Memorandum

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
2016-04-08_073_court-of-appeals-memorandum.pdf
Source 99 2016-04-15

Defendantappellee Sun Lakes Homeo

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
2016-04-15_000_defendantappellee-sun-lakes-homeo.pdf
Source 100 2016-04-15

Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2016-04-15_001_certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 102 2016-04-29

Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2016-04-29_001_certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 105 2016-07-18

Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2016-07-18_001_certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 106 2016-08-08

Order Re Oral Argument

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2016-08-08_000_order-re-oral-argument.pdf
Source 110 2016-09-09

Notice Of Appearance

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2016-09-09_000_notice-of-appearance.pdf
Source 111 2016-09-09

Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2016-09-09_001_certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 112 2016-09-14

Sign-in Sheetcase Is Under Adviseme

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
2016-09-14_000_signin-sheetcase-is-under-adviseme.pdf
Source 113 2016-10-13

Enotification Of Opinion

Type: Court notice/document

Court notice or document from the appellate upload; read it with the surrounding docket filings.

Download source file
2016-10-13_000_enotification-of-opinion.doc
Source 114 2016-10-13

Enotification Of Opinion

Type: Court notice/document

Court notice or document from the appellate upload; read it with the surrounding docket filings.

Download source file
2016-10-13_000_enotification-of-opinion.docx
Source 115 2016-10-13

Opinion

Type: Decision or judgment

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

Download source file
2016-10-13_000_opinion.pdf
Source 117 2016-10-27

Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2016-10-27_001_certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 118 2016-10-27

Affidavit Of Steven Wcheifetz In Su

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2016-10-27_002_affidavit-of-steven-wcheifetz-in-su.pdf
Source 120 2016-11-02

Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2016-11-02_001_certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 125 2016-11-03

Certificate Of Service 2

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2016-11-03_001_certificate-of-service-2.pdf
Source 126 2016-11-03

Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2016-11-03_001_certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 127 2016-11-03

Amended Affidavit Of Steven Wcheif

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2016-11-03_002_amended-affidavit-of-steven-wcheif.pdf
Source 128 2016-11-22

Notice Of Settlement

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2016-11-22_000_notice-of-settlement.pdf
Source 129 2016-11-22

Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2016-11-22_001_certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 131 2016-11-23

Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2016-11-23_001_certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 132 2016-12-05

Stipulation To Dismiss With Prejud

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
2016-12-05_000_stipulation-to-dismiss-with-prejud.pdf
Source 133 2016-12-05

Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2016-12-05_001_certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 134 2016-12-07

Div 1 Civil Termination Transmitta

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
2016-12-07_000_div-1-civil-termination-transmitta.pdf
Source 135 2016-12-07

Order Dismissing Appeal

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2016-12-07_000_order-dismissing-appeal.pdf

For homeowners and directors

  • Use McNally when a board majority tries to silence or sideline an elected director without following removal procedures.
  • Separate confidentiality rules from participation rights. A director may have duties, but the board needs authority for the remedy it chooses.
  • Preserve meeting notices, executive-session exclusions, board minutes, and any conditions imposed on re-entry.

For boards and managers

  • Do not use a blanket executive-session ban as informal discipline against a director.
  • Use conflict-specific recusals, confidentiality orders, bylaws, or judicial remedies where legally supported.
  • Document the legal authority for any limit placed on a director before voting on it.

FAQ

Did McNally say directors can ignore confidentiality?

No. The opinion acknowledged confidentiality concerns but held the board lacked authority for a blanket exclusion from executive sessions.

Can a director ever be recused?

Yes. The opinion distinguished conflict-specific recusal from a blanket exclusion from all executive sessions.

Why is this case useful?

It gives directors and members a concrete Arizona authority for the idea that elected board service includes participation in board deliberations unless a lawful removal or restriction process is used.

← Back to Court of Appeals cases

Windrose Estates Homeowners Association v. Justin T. Wright; Justin T. Wright v. Sunstate Acquisitions, LLC and SV 1, LLC

Posted on by

Windrose Estates Homeowners Association v. Justin T. Wright; Justin T. Wright v. Sunstate Acquisitions, LLC and SV 1, LLC

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Windrose Estates Homeowners Association v. Justin T. Wright; and Justin T. Wright v. Sunstate Acquisitions, LLC and SV 1, LLC (2 CA-CV 2024-0074 and 2 CA-CV 2025-0058). A.R.S. § 33-1807 implicitly abrogates the usual common-law authority to undo an HOA foreclosure sale for grossly… 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 Windrose Estates Homeowners Association v. Justin T. Wright; and Justin T. Wright v. Sunstate Acquisitions, LLC and SV 1, LLC. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

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

Complete uploaded source-document index

This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/windrose-estates-homeowners-association-v-wright/raw/: 1 PDF. Files are ordered by the date/sequence embedded in the normalized filename; AI-generated review materials are labeled separately and should not be treated as court filings.

Source 1 2025-12-15

Opinion

Type: Decision or judgment

Court of Appeals opinion affirming denial of Rule 60(b) relief, reversing the order setting aside the HOA foreclosure sale, and remanding to reinstate the sale because A.R.S. § 33-1807 abrogates the gross-inadequacy set-aside remedy for HOA lien foreclosures.

Download source file
2025-12-15_001_opinion.pdf

Case Dossier

This generated dossier mirrors the structured data surfaced on the OAH/ADRE case pages. It is added from the curated court-case record and the custom page source package, while the hand-authored analysis below remains intact.

Case Summary

Case ID / citation2 CA-CV 2024-0074 and 2 CA-CV 2025-0058
Court / tribunalCourt of Appeals
Decision / key dateDecember 15, 2025
Judge / panelJudge Sklar, Vice Chief Judge Eppich, Judge O’Neil
PartiesAn HOA foreclosure purchaser and the homeowner fought over whether a completed HOA foreclosure sale could be set aside because the price was grossly inadequate and the owner was allegedly misled.
Governing law
Topics
ForeclosureAssessmentsProcedureLiens
Outcome / holding

The court held that A.R.S. § 33-1807 implicitly abrogates the usual common-law authority to undo an HOA foreclosure sale for grossly inadequate price and that the sale should be reinstated.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package1 PDF
Step-by-step docket roadmapNo separate litigation roadmap table on this page
Video overviewWindrose Estates Homeowners Association v. Justin T. Wright; and Justin T. Wright v. Sunstate Acquis
Study / briefing material0 sections
FAQ / homeowner questions0 questions
Curated download aliases0 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

CURRENT STATUS (June 2026): NOT FINAL — a petition for review is pending at the Arizona Supreme Court (CV-26-0021-PR). Windrose is a major 2025 Arizona HOA foreclosure case. After an HOA foreclosed and the home sold, the trial court set the sale aside and quieted title back to the owner partly because the sale price was grossly inadequate. The Court of Appeals reversed that core ruling. It held that although Arizona courts ordinarily have common-law power to set aside foreclosure sales for gross inadequacy, that power is implicitly displaced in the HOA-lien setting by A.R.S. § 33-1807’s more specific statutory scheme. The court also rejected setting aside the sale based on the owner’s claim of surprise or misleading circumstances and reinstated the sale. The decision sharply narrows post-sale equitable rescue arguments in Arizona HOA foreclosure litigation.

Key Issues & Findings

The court began with the general equitable principle that foreclosure sales can sometimes be set aside when the price is shockingly low. But it treated HOA lien foreclosures as a distinct statutory regime. In the panel’s view, the legislature’s detailed rules in § 33-1807 left no room for importing that general common-law remedy in a way that would destabilize completed HOA sales.

The court also rejected the alternative theory that the homeowner was sufficiently misled or surprised to justify undoing the sale. And in the related consolidated action, it upheld the refusal to set aside the default judgment authorizing foreclosure, including the service-related rulings. The combined effect was to restore finality to the completed sale.

Why It Matters

Windrose is likely to become a central Arizona authority on post-sale challenges to HOA foreclosures. It gives purchasers and associations a strong finality argument once a sale has been completed.

For homeowners, the case means defenses and cure efforts need to happen earlier. After the sale, equitable arguments that might work in other foreclosure contexts may not work in the HOA statutory framework.

← Back to Court of Appeals cases

Kalway v. Calabria Ranch HOA, LLC: HOA Court Case Guide

Posted on by

Arizona Supreme Court · CC&R Amendments

How a five-lot Tucson subdivision’s fight over majority-vote amendments produced Arizona’s leading rule on the limits of an HOA’s power to change its CC&Rs.

Arizona Supreme Court | 252 Ariz. 532; 506 P.3d 18 (2022) | Decided 2022-03-22

Download the ruling PDF FAQ

Scope note: This educational page summarizes Kalway v. Calabria Ranch HOA, LLC, a Arizona Supreme Court HOA-related authority. It is not legal advice.

The takeaway

A general-amendment-power provision in an HOA’s CC&Rs may be used to amend only those restrictions for which the original declaration provided sufficient notice. Because restrictive covenants are construed narrowly to reflect homeowners’ reasonable expectations, non-consensual amendments adopted by majority vote must be reasonable and foreseeable, and A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)—which permits majority-vote amendment when the declaration so provides—does not displace this common-law notice limitation. New restrictions that are entirely different in character from the original covenants and adopted without notice are invalid; the Court blue-penciled the CC&Rs to strike the severable unforeseeable provisions.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Maarten Kalway (Plaintiff/Appellant/Petitioner)
    Owner of Lot 2, the largest lot (nearly 23 acres); sued to invalidate the 2018 CC&R amendments and prevailed on review, obtaining an award of attorney fees.
  • Gerard R. O’Meara (Counsel)
    Gust Rosenfeld P.L.C.
    Counsel for petitioner Maarten Kalway.
  • Charles W. Wirken (Counsel)
    Gust Rosenfeld P.L.C.
    Counsel for petitioner Maarten Kalway; argued the case.

Respondent Side

  • Calabria Ranch HOA, LLC (Defendant/Appellee/Respondent)
    Arizona limited liability company; the homeowners’ association whose members adopted the challenged CC&R amendments.
  • Mark A. Reid (Defendant/Appellee/Respondent)
    One of the other Calabria Ranch lot owners who voted for the amendments; sued with his wife Florence J. Clark.
  • Florence J. Clark (Defendant/Appellee/Respondent)
    Other Calabria Ranch lot owner; wife of Mark A. Reid.
  • Edward A. Phlaum (Defendant/Appellee/Respondent)
    Other Calabria Ranch lot owner, individually and as co-trustee of the Edward A. and Diane Lyn Phlaum Revocable Trust dated April 10, 2017.
  • Diane Lyn Phlaum (Defendant/Appellee/Respondent)
    Other Calabria Ranch lot owner, individually and as co-trustee of the Edward A. and Diane Lyn Phlaum Revocable Trust dated April 10, 2017.
  • Stuart J. Scibetta (Defendant/Appellee/Respondent)
    Other Calabria Ranch lot owner, individually and as trustee of the Stuart J. Scibetta Living Trust dated April 1, 2015.
  • Craig L. Cline (Counsel)
    Thompson Krone P.L.C.
    Counsel for respondents Calabria Ranch HOA, LLC and the other lot owners; argued the case.

Neutral Parties

  • Chief Justice Robert M. Brutinel (Judge)
    Authored the unanimous opinion of the Court.
  • Vice Chief Justice Ann A. Timmer (Judge)
    Joined the opinion.
  • Justice Clint Bolick (Judge)
    Joined the opinion.
  • Justice John R. Lopez IV (Judge)
    Joined the opinion.
  • Justice James P. Beene (Judge)
    Joined the opinion.
  • Justice Bill Montgomery (Judge)
    Joined the opinion.
  • Justice Andrew W. Gould (Ret.) (Judge)
    Participated in oral argument but retired before issuance and did not take part in drafting the opinion.

What happened

Calabria Ranch Estates is a residential subdivision of five lots located east of Tucson in Pima County. Maarten Kalway owned Lot 2, which at nearly twenty-three acres was the largest lot; the remaining lots ranged from about 3.3 to 6.6 acres, with two of them jointly owned and together comprising 11.65 acres. All of the lots were subject to CC&Rs first recorded in an original declaration in 2015.

The 2015 original declaration stated that its purpose was to “protect[] the value, desirability, attractiveness and natural character of the Property,” and it allowed the CC&Rs to be amended “at any time by an instrument executed and acknowledged by the [m]ajority [v]ote of the owners.” A majority vote consisted of at least four of the six possible votes; each lot had one vote except Kalway’s lot, which had two.

In January 2018, the other property owners amended the CC&Rs by majority vote without Kalway’s consent or knowledge. The amendments changed some definitions and added others, created new restrictions—including limits on owners’ ability to convey or subdivide their lots, restrictions on the size and number of buildings on each lot, and reductions in the permitted livestock—and enacted new enforcement measures against owners who violated the covenants.

Kalway sued Calabria Ranch and the other owners in Pima County Superior Court, seeking a declaratory judgment to invalidate the amendments. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The superior court granted them in part and denied them in part, invalidating two sections in their entirety and partially invalidating two more, and found the invalid provisions severable from the rest of the CC&Rs. No party challenged the trial court’s ruling striking those particular provisions.

Kalway appealed, arguing that all of the amendments were invalid without unanimous consent. In a memorandum decision filed March 13, 2020, the Court of Appeals, Division Two, affirmed in a 2-1 decision, relying on Dreamland Villa Community Club, Inc. v. Raimey. The majority concluded that the general-purpose statement in the original declaration was enough to give notice of the amendments. Judge Brearcliffe, concurring in part and dissenting in part, warned that letting a “gauzy statement of purpose” justify any new amendment would render Dreamland’s notice requirement a nullity.

The Arizona Supreme Court granted review because the case raised issues of statewide importance regarding the scope of an HOA’s authority to amend CC&Rs. Reviewing questions of law de novo, the Court held that A.R.S. § 33-1817(A) allows majority-vote amendments but does not displace the common law: the original declaration must give sufficient notice of a future amendment, meaning amendments must be reasonable and foreseeable. It reasoned that CC&Rs are a special type of contract not enforced as to terms beyond the range of reasonable expectation, and that a broad amendment clause and subjective purpose statement could not supply the required notice.

Applying these principles and the “blue pencil” rule, the Court examined each challenged amendment separately. It upheld provisions that merely refined restrictions already foreshadowed (for example, defining “Garage,” which the original declaration had referenced) and struck those that imposed wholly new obligations—dwelling-size limits, an expanded “Improvement” definition affecting setbacks, non-dwelling-structure caps, a mandatory improvement-plan approval process, subdivision and building-sequencing restrictions, a drastic redefinition of “livestock,” and new fire-hazard maintenance duties. The Court reversed in part and remanded, vacated the Court of Appeals’ decision, and awarded Kalway his attorney fees in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals.

Kalway is a landmark decision on the outer limits of an HOA’s power to amend its CC&Rs by majority vote. It establishes a statewide common-law rule: a general grant of amendment authority, no matter how broadly worded, lets a majority amend only those restrictions of which the original declaration gave the affected owners fair notice, and any amendment must be reasonable and foreseeable. A vague statement of purpose cannot bootstrap brand-new, non-consensual burdens onto a dissenting minority. The decision cements the notice principle first articulated by the Court of Appeals in Dreamland Villa v. Raimey and confirms that A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)’s authorization of majority-vote amendments does not override that common-law protection. For homeowners, boards, and drafters, the practical takeaway is that amendments introducing categories of restriction the original declaration never mentioned—new architectural-review approval processes, building-size or building-count caps, subdivision prohibitions, or entirely redefined use limits—are vulnerable to challenge if adopted without unanimous consent. Associations that want flexibility to add such restrictions later should say so clearly in the original declaration, and boards should assess whether a proposed amendment merely refines an existing covenant or creates a new one. The Court’s use of the “blue pencil” rule also signals that courts may surgically strike the offending, severable portions of an amendment rather than voiding an entire amendment package, and the fee award to the prevailing owner underscores the litigation exposure of overreaching amendments.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Kalway v. Calabria Ranch HOA, LLC (252 Ariz. 532; 506 P.3d 18 (2022)). HOA amendments must be reasonable and foreseeable from the original CC&Rs, not entirely new obligations. 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 Kalway v. Calabria Ranch HOA, LLC. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

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

Litigation record

Step 1 2015

Original declaration of CC&Rs recorded for Calabria Ranch Estates, a five-lot subdivision east of Tucson; it includes a general-purpose statement and a general-amendment-power provision permitting amendment by majority vote.

Filed by: Court record

Part of the record summarized for homeowners, boards, and counsel.

Step 2 2018-01

The other lot owners amend the CC&Rs by majority vote, without Kalway’s consent or knowledge, adding new use restrictions, definitions, and enforcement measures.

Filed by: Court record

Part of the record summarized for homeowners, boards, and counsel.

Step 3 2018

Kalway files a declaratory-judgment action in Pima County Superior Court (No. C20181284) seeking to invalidate the amendments.

Filed by: Court record

Part of the record summarized for homeowners, boards, and counsel.

Step 4 2019

On cross-motions for summary judgment, the superior court invalidates two sections entirely and partially invalidates two more, finding the invalid provisions severable; Kalway appeals to the Court of Appeals, Division Two (No. 2 CA-CV 2019-0106).

Filed by: Court record

Part of the record summarized for homeowners, boards, and counsel.

Step 5 2020-03-13

The Court of Appeals, Division Two, affirms in a 2-1 memorandum decision, with Judge Brearcliffe concurring in part and dissenting in part.

Filed by: Court record

Part of the record summarized for homeowners, boards, and counsel.

Step 6 2022-03-22

The Arizona Supreme Court issues its opinion, adopting the notice/foreseeability requirement, blue-penciling the CC&Rs, reversing in part and remanding, vacating the Court of Appeals’ decision, and awarding Kalway his attorney fees.

Filed by: Court record

Part of the record summarized for homeowners, boards, and counsel.

Download source
2026-07-01_001_opinion.pdf

Complete uploaded source-document index

This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/kalway-v-calabria-ranch-hoa/raw/: 28 PDFs. Files are ordered by the date/sequence embedded in the normalized filename; AI-generated review materials are labeled separately and should not be treated as court filings.

Source 1 2019-07-09

Civil Fees Order

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2019-07-09_001_civil-fees-order.pdf
Source 2 2019-07-10

Appellant Fee Receipt

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
2019-07-10_002_appellant-fee-receipt.pdf
Source 3 2019-07-16

Notice Of Appearance

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2019-07-16_003_notice-of-appearance.pdf
Source 4 2019-08-29

Opening Brief

Type: Briefing paper

Opening merits brief; this is where the appellant or moving party frames the legal argument.

Download source file
2019-08-29_004_opening-brief.pdf
Source 5 2019-09-04

Cross Appellant Fee Receipt

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
2019-09-04_005_cross-appellant-fee-receipt.pdf
Source 8 2019-11-08

Answering Brief

Type: Responsive pleading

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

Download source file
2019-11-08_008_answering-brief.pdf
Source 9 2019-12-02

Reply Brief

Type: Briefing paper

Reply paper; usually the final written response before the court takes the issue under advisement.

Download source file
2019-12-02_009_reply-brief.pdf
Source 10 2019-12-02

Request For Oral Argument

Type: Motion/application

A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.

Download source file
2019-12-02_010_request-for-oral-argument.pdf
Source 11 2020-01-09

Order Setting Oral Argument

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2020-01-09_011_order-setting-oral-argument.pdf
Source 12 2020-01-09

Order Oral Argument Granted

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2020-01-09_012_order-oral-argument-granted.pdf
Source 13 2020-01-10

Oral Argument Acknowledgment

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
2020-01-10_013_oral-argument-acknowledgment.pdf
Source 14 2020-02-05

Oral Argument Sign In Sheet

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
2020-02-05_014_oral-argument-sign-in-sheet.pdf
Source 15 2020-03-13

Court Of Appeals Memorandum Decision

Type: Decision or judgment

Memorandum decision holding that a general-amendment-power provision in an HOA’s CC&Rs may be used to amend only those restrictions for which the original declaration provided sufficient notice.

Download source file
2020-03-13_015_court-of-appeals-memorandum-decision.pdf
Source 16 2020-03-23

Statement Of Costs

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
2020-03-23_016_statement-of-costs.pdf
Source 17 2020-03-23

Cline Affidavit Supporting Costs

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2020-03-23_017_cline-affidavit-supporting-costs.pdf
Source 18 2020-03-27

Motion For Publication

Type: Motion/application

A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.

Download source file
2020-03-27_018_motion-for-publication.pdf
Source 21 2020-04-03

Reply Supporting Costs

Type: Briefing paper

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

Download source file
2020-04-03_021_reply-supporting-costs.pdf
Source 25 2020-05-06

Order Denying Publication

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2020-05-06_025_order-denying-publication.pdf
Source 26 2020-05-12

Order Awarding Fees And Costs

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2020-05-12_026_order-awarding-fees-and-costs.pdf
Source 27 2022-03-22

Arizona Supreme Court Opinion

Type: Decision or judgment

Opinion holding that a general-amendment-power provision in an HOA’s CC&Rs may be used to amend only those restrictions for which the original declaration provided sufficient notice.

Download source file
2022-03-22_110_arizona-supreme-court-opinion.pdf
Source 28 2026-07-01

Opinion

Type: Decision or judgment

Opinion holding that a general-amendment-power provision in an HOA’s CC&Rs may be used to amend only those restrictions for which the original declaration provided sufficient notice.

Download source file
2026-07-01_001_opinion.pdf

FAQ

What did the Arizona Supreme Court decide in Kalway v. Calabria Ranch HOA?

The Court held that a general-amendment-power provision in an HOA’s CC&Rs lets a majority amend only those restrictions for which the original declaration gave owners sufficient notice. Amendments must be reasonable and foreseeable, so wholly new restrictions adopted by majority vote without notice are invalid. The Court struck the offending amendments and awarded the challenging owner his attorney fees.

Can an HOA add any new restriction it wants by majority vote?

No. Even a broad “amend at any time by majority vote” clause does not let a majority impose brand-new burdens on a dissenting minority. Under Kalway, an amendment must refine, correct, fill a gap in, or change a covenant the original declaration already put owners on notice of; it cannot be “entirely new and different in character” and untethered to an existing covenant.

What is A.R.S. § 33-1817(A), and did it decide the case?

A.R.S. § 33-1817(A) permits amending CC&Rs by majority vote when the original declaration provides for that voting scheme. The Court held the statute does not displace the common law, which still bars some amendments even if the required majority approves. So the statute authorizes majority-vote amendments but does not eliminate the notice-and-foreseeability requirement.

What is the “blue pencil” rule the Court used?

Blue-penciling means a court strikes the grammatically severable, unreasonable portions of a restrictive covenant while leaving the valid language intact, rather than voiding an entire amendment. The Court used it to delete the unforeseeable words and whole sections from several Calabria Ranch amendments while preserving the parts that were valid.

Which amendments survived and which were struck?

The Court upheld amendments that merely refined restrictions already foreshadowed—for example, defining “Garage,” a term the original declaration had referenced. It struck new, unforeseeable provisions, including dwelling-size limits, an expanded “Improvement” definition affecting setbacks, non-dwelling-structure caps, mandatory improvement-plan approval, subdivision restrictions, a drastic redefinition of “livestock,” and new fire-hazard maintenance duties.

What does Kalway mean for Arizona homeowners and HOA boards?

Homeowners gained a strong defense against non-consensual amendments that introduce restrictions the original CC&Rs never mentioned. Boards and drafters should state clearly in the original declaration if they want the ability to add particular restrictions later, and should assess whether a proposed amendment refines an existing covenant or creates a new one. Because the prevailing owner was awarded attorney fees, overreaching amendments also carry litigation risk. This is general information, not legal advice.

Case Dossier

This generated dossier mirrors the structured data surfaced on the OAH/ADRE case pages. It is added from the curated court-case record and the custom page source package, while the hand-authored analysis below remains intact.

Case Summary

Case ID / citation252 Ariz. 532; 506 P.3d 18 (2022)
Court / tribunalArizona Supreme Court
Decision / key dateMarch 22, 2022
Judge / panelChief Justice Robert M. Brutinel (author), Vice Chief Justice Ann A. Timmer, Justice Clint Bolick, Justice John R. Lopez IV, Justice James P. Beene, Justice Bill Montgomery, Justice Andrew W. Gould (Ret.) (participated at oral argument only; retired before issuance and did not join the opinion)
PartiesIndividual lot owner Maarten Kalway challenged Calabria Ranch HOA, LLC and the other lot owners over whether they could impose new CC&R restrictions on him by majority vote without his consent.
Governing law
Topics
CC&RsAmendmentsCovenantsAttorney FeesProcedure
Outcome / holding

A general-amendment-power provision in an HOA’s CC&Rs may be used to amend only those restrictions for which the original declaration provided sufficient notice. Because restrictive covenants are construed narrowly to reflect homeowners’ reasonable expectations, non-consensual amendments adopted by majority vote must be reasonable and foreseeable, and A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)—which permits majority-vote amendment when the declaration so provides—does not displace this common-law notice limitation. New restrictions that are entirely different in character from the original covenants and adopted without notice are invalid; the Court blue-penciled the CC&Rs to strike the severable unforeseeable provisions.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package28 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap6 roadmap entries
Video overviewKalway v. Calabria Ranch HOA, LLC
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions6 questions
Curated download aliases1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Kalway v. Calabria Ranch HOA, LLC arose from Calabria Ranch Estates, a five-lot residential subdivision east of Tucson governed by covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) first recorded in a 2015 original declaration. That declaration allowed the CC&Rs to be amended “at any time” by a majority vote of the owners. In January 2018, the other lot owners amended the CC&Rs by majority vote, without the consent or knowledge of Maarten Kalway, who owned Lot 2, the largest lot at nearly twenty-three acres. The amendments changed and added definitions, created new use restrictions—limiting owners’ ability to subdivide or convey lots, restricting the size and number of buildings, and reducing permitted livestock—and added new enforcement measures. Kalway sued for a declaratory judgment to invalidate the amendments, arguing they required unanimous consent. On cross-motions for summary judgment the superior court struck some provisions and upheld others, and a divided Court of Appeals largely affirmed. The Arizona Supreme Court granted review to resolve the statewide question of an HOA’s authority to amend CC&Rs. Construing restrictive covenants narrowly to reflect homeowners’ reasonable expectations, the Court held that a general-amendment-power provision permits amendment only of restrictions for which the original declaration gave sufficient notice; amendments must be reasonable and foreseeable, and a broad general-purpose statement does not supply notice of wholly new restrictions. The Court reaffirmed the notice principle of Dreamland Villa v. Raimey and confirmed that A.R.S. § 33-1817(A) does not displace this common-law limitation. Applying the “blue pencil” rule, it struck the severable unforeseeable restrictions, reversed in part, remanded, vacated the Court of Appeals’ decision, and awarded Kalway his attorney fees.

Key Issues & Findings

The Court reasoned that CC&Rs form a contract among all landowners bound by the restrictions, but they are a special type of contract that will not be enforced as to “unknown terms which are beyond the range of reasonable expectation.” Although A.R.S. § 33-1817(A) permits majority-vote amendment when the original declaration provides for it, that statute does not displace the common law, which bars some amendments even when passed by the required majority. Notice turns on the original declaration in effect when the owner purchased: an amendment must give notice that a covenant exists and can be refined, corrected, or changed in a particular way, but it cannot be “entirely new and different in character” and untethered to an original covenant. Because a broad general-amendment-power provision and a subjective general-purpose statement (to “protect the value, desirability, attractiveness and natural character of the Property”) would supply limitless justification for new restrictions, they cannot alone provide the required notice. Applying an objective test, the Court analyzed each challenged amendment individually, striking those that imposed wholly new obligations—expanded setback and “Improvement” definitions, non-dwelling-structure caps, a mandatory improvement-plan approval process, subdivision restrictions, a drastic redefinition of “livestock,” and new fire-hazard duties—while upholding amendments, such as the definition of “Garage,” that merely refined restrictions already foreshadowed by the original declaration.

Why It Matters

Kalway is a landmark decision on the outer limits of an HOA’s power to amend its CC&Rs by majority vote. It establishes a statewide common-law rule: a general grant of amendment authority, no matter how broadly worded, lets a majority amend only those restrictions of which the original declaration gave the affected owners fair notice, and any amendment must be reasonable and foreseeable. A vague statement of purpose cannot bootstrap brand-new, non-consensual burdens onto a dissenting minority. The decision cements the notice principle first articulated by the Court of Appeals in Dreamland Villa v. Raimey and confirms that A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)’s authorization of majority-vote amendments does not override that common-law protection.

For homeowners, boards, and drafters, the practical takeaway is that amendments introducing categories of restriction the original declaration never mentioned—new architectural-review approval processes, building-size or building-count caps, subdivision prohibitions, or entirely redefined use limits—are vulnerable to challenge if adopted without unanimous consent. Associations that want flexibility to add such restrictions later should say so clearly in the original declaration, and boards should assess whether a proposed amendment merely refines an existing covenant or creates a new one. The Court’s use of the “blue pencil” rule also signals that courts may surgically strike the offending, severable portions of an amendment rather than voiding an entire amendment package, and the fee award to the prevailing owner underscores the litigation exposure of overreaching amendments.

← Back to Arizona Supreme Court cases