Assessments | A.R.S. §§ 33-1256, 33-1247, 33-1803 | 2 CA-CV 2025-0183
Division Two affirms summary judgment foreclosing a condominium assessment lien, holding that an owner cannot self-help by withholding assessments even when alleging the association failed to maintain or repair the unit.
Last updated June 30, 2026. Case: Barcelona Manor Association, Inc. v. Travis L. Nolte, 2 CA-CV 2025-0183.
Scope note: This page covers Barcelona Manor Association, Inc. v. Travis L. Nolte (2 CA-CV 2025-0183) as a public Arizona Court of Appeals HOA case guide. The downloadable source-document index below is generated from local raw source files when a PDF opinion is available. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The takeaway
A condominium unit owner has no self-help remedy to withhold monthly assessments, even when alleging that the association breached its statutory maintenance duty under A.R.S. § 33-1247(A); the owner cited no authority granting such a right, and the court found none. Any affirmative defense of setoff failed because the owner submitted only unsworn descriptions, photos, fire department reports, and county permits without authentication, and thus produced no admissible evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 56 and Ariz. R. Evid. 901(a); self-representation does not excuse compliance with the rules of procedure and evidence. The 20% annual assessment-increase limit in A.R.S. § 33-1803 applies only to planned communities, from which condominiums are expressly excluded under A.R.S. § 33-1802(6)(b)(ii), and A.R.S. § 33-1242 imposes no limit on assessment increases. The owner’s argument that assessments could not be charged while the property was condemned was not considered because it was raised for the first time in a motion for reconsideration. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a stay where the owner posted no supersedeas bond, did not move for a stay in the appellate court, and had not yet filed his contemplated damages action. Summary judgment and the decree of foreclosure were affirmed.
Case Participants
Neutral Parties
- Barcelona Manor Association, Inc. (Party)
- Travis L. Nolte (Party)
- John J. Halk (Counsel)
Halk, Oetinger and Brown PLLC - Andrea J. Miska (Counsel)
Halk, Oetinger and Brown PLLC - Travis Nolte (Counsel)
In Propria Persona - Judge Sklar (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two - Presiding Judge Kelly (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two - Judge Brearcliffe (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two - The Honorable Greg Sakall (Judge)
Pima County Superior Court
What happened
Travis Nolte purchased a condominium unit in Barcelona Manor in 2017, subject to a Declaration of CC&Rs requiring monthly assessments.
Nolte stopped paying assessments; in July 2022 the association recorded a lien notice for nonpayment and later obtained a money judgment against him for breach of contract.
Nolte alleged that since 2020 three floods and a fire (linked to a shared drainage pipe serving units above his) left the unit without drywall or cabinets and filled with mold, and that the county condemned the property between 2022 and 2024.
In May 2024 the association sued to foreclose its assessment lien; Nolte answered, contending he was excused from paying because the association failed to repair the property.
The association moved for summary judgment under A.R.S. § 33-1256(A) and the CC&Rs; Nolte argued he could withhold assessments until repairs were made.
The trial court ordered supplemental briefing on whether Nolte’s negligence allegations, if true, would create a legally recognizable defense or counterclaim, then granted summary judgment for the association.
Nolte’s motion for reconsideration was denied; his motion to stay collection was denied in the final order and decree of foreclosure; Nolte appealed.
The Court of Appeals, Division Two, affirmed on February 10, 2026, and awarded the association its appellate attorney fees and costs under the CC&Rs.
Procedural timeline
Complete uploaded source-document index
This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/barcelona-manor-association-v-nolte/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.
Memorandum Decision
Type: Decision or judgment
Memorandum decision holding that a condominium unit owner has no self-help remedy to withhold monthly assessments, even when alleging that the association breached its statutory maintenance duty under A.R.S. § 33-1247(A); the owner cited no authority granting such a right, and the court found none.
FAQ
Can a condominium owner stop paying assessments if the association fails to make repairs?
No. The Court of Appeals held there is no self-help remedy that lets a condominium owner withhold monthly assessments, even if the association breached its statutory duty under A.R.S. § 33-1247(A) to maintain, repair, and replace common elements. Nolte cited no authority granting such a right, and the court found none. An owner who believes the association breached its duties must pursue a recognized legal claim rather than simply not paying.
Why did the owner’s claim that the property was uninhabitable not defeat the foreclosure?
The court treated his theory as a possible setoff defense but held he failed to create a genuine dispute of material fact. To oppose summary judgment, a party must cite specific, admissible evidence. Nolte offered only an unsworn description of the damage, photos, fire department reports, and county permits, none of which were authenticated under Ariz. R. Evid. 901(a), so they were inadmissible and could not be considered.
Does the 20% annual cap on assessment increases apply to condominiums?
No. The 20% one-year limit on regular assessment increases in A.R.S. § 33-1803 is part of the statutory scheme governing planned communities, and A.R.S. § 33-1802(6)(b)(ii) expressly excludes condominiums from that scheme. The court also noted that A.R.S. § 33-1242 authorizes a condominium association to collect common-expense assessments but does not cap increases.
Why didn’t the court address the argument about assessments accruing while the unit was condemned?
The court declined to reach that argument because Nolte raised it for the first time in his motion for reconsideration in the trial court. Under Arizona law, an appellate court generally will not consider issues raised for the first time on reconsideration unless the facts or arguments were unavailable when the challenged ruling was entered.
Does representing yourself change the rules that apply?
No. The court emphasized that although Nolte was not represented by counsel, he was still required to comply with the rules of civil procedure and evidence. Self-represented litigants must, for example, authenticate exhibits and support disputed facts with admissible evidence just as represented parties must.
Is this decision binding precedent in Arizona?
No. The decision is an unpublished memorandum decision marked NOT FOR PUBLICATION. It does not create legal precedent and may not be cited except as authorized by applicable rules (see Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c) and Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 28). It is useful as an educational example rather than as binding authority.
Case Dossier
This generated dossier mirrors the structured data surfaced on the OAH/ADRE case pages. It is added from the curated court-case record and the custom page source package, while the hand-authored analysis below remains intact.
Case Summary
| Case ID / citation | 2 CA-CV 2025-0183 |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Court of Appeals |
| Decision / key date | February 10, 2026 |
| Judge / panel | Peter J. Eckerstrom Sklar (Judge Sklar, author), Presiding Judge Kelly, Judge Brearcliffe |
| Parties | A condominium association (Barcelona Manor Association, Inc.) sued to foreclose its assessment lien against a unit owner (Travis L. Nolte), who argued he could withhold assessments because the association failed to repair flood and fire damage that left his unit uninhabitable. |
| Governing law | |
| Topics | assessmentsforeclosureprocedureattorneys-fees |
| Outcome / holding | A condominium unit owner has no self-help remedy to withhold monthly assessments, even when alleging that the association breached its statutory maintenance duty under A.R.S. § 33-1247(A); the owner cited no authority granting such a right, and the court found none. Any affirmative defense of setoff failed because the owner submitted only unsworn descriptions, photos, fire department reports, and county permits without authentication, and thus produced no admissible evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 56 and Ariz. R. Evid. 901(a); self-representation does not excuse compliance with the rules of procedure and evidence. The 20% annual assessment-increase limit in A.R.S. § 33-1803 applies only to planned communities, from which condominiums are expressly excluded under A.R.S. § 33-1802(6)(b)(ii), and A.R.S. § 33-1242 imposes no limit on assessment increases. The owner’s argument that assessments could not be charged while the property was condemned was not considered because it was raised for the first time in a motion for reconsideration. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a stay where the owner posted no supersedeas bond, did not move for a stay in the appellate court, and had not yet filed his contemplated damages action. Summary judgment and the decree of foreclosure were affirmed. |
| Primary public source | View source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Uploaded source package | 1 PDF |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 6 roadmap entries |
| Video overview | No video embed currently configured |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 6 questions |
| Curated download aliases | 1 download link |
Key Issues & Findings
Travis Nolte bought a condominium in Barcelona Manor in 2017, subject to CC&Rs requiring monthly assessments. After he stopped paying, the association recorded an assessment lien in July 2022, obtained a money judgment for breach of contract, and in May 2024 sued to foreclose the lien. Nolte argued he was excused from paying because the association allegedly failed to repair shared-drainage flooding and fire damage that left the unit moldy, gutted, and condemned by the county from 2022 to 2024. The trial court granted summary judgment for the association and denied Nolte’s request to stay collection. The Court of Appeals, Division Two, affirmed. It held that Arizona law gives a condominium owner no self-help right to withhold assessments even if the association breached its maintenance duty under A.R.S. § 33-1247(A); that any setoff defense failed because Nolte offered no admissible, authenticated evidence; that the 20% assessment-increase cap in A.R.S. § 33-1803 governs planned communities and does not apply to condominiums; and that his condemnation argument was waived because he raised it for the first time on reconsideration. The court also upheld the denial of a stay and awarded the association its appellate attorney fees under the CC&Rs.
The court reviewed summary judgment de novo, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Nolte, and addressed his three challenges in turn. On the central question, it agreed with the trial court that nothing in Arizona law lets a condominium owner withhold assessments as self-help. Even assuming the association violated its duty under A.R.S. § 33-1247(A) to maintain, repair, and replace common elements, that statute supplies no remedy of nonpayment, and Nolte identified no other authority creating such a right. The court next considered whether his position could be recast as the affirmative defense of setoff, citing Granmo v. Superior Court. It assumed without deciding that setoff might be theoretically available, but held Nolte failed to create a genuine dispute of material fact because a party opposing summary judgment must support each disputed fact with specific, admissible evidence under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Nolte’s unsworn narrative, photographs, fire department reports, and county work permits were not authenticated under Ariz. R. Evid. 901(a) and were therefore inadmissible, and his self-represented status did not relieve him of compliance with the rules.
The court then rejected Nolte’s statutory cap argument. The 20% one-year limit on regular assessment increases in A.R.S. § 33-1803 sits within the statutory scheme for planned communities, and A.R.S. § 33-1802(6)(b)(ii) expressly excludes condominiums from that scheme, so the cap did not constrain Barcelona Manor. A.R.S. § 33-1242 was also unavailing because, while it authorizes a condominium association to collect common-expense assessments, it imposes no ceiling on increases. The court declined to reach Nolte’s argument that no assessments could accrue while the unit was condemned, applying the rule from RT Automotive Center v. Westlake Services that an appellate court will not consider issues raised for the first time in a motion for reconsideration absent newly available facts or arguments.
Finally, the court upheld the denial of a stay, reviewed for abuse of discretion. A defendant seeking to halt enforcement of a judgment may post a supersedeas bond under Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 7(a) or move for a stay in the appellate court under Rule 7(c); Nolte did neither, and he cited no authority allowing a stay to persist past issuance of the appellate mandate. Even assuming a stay were available, the discretionary factors from Apache Produce Imports and Tonnemacher did not favor Nolte because he had not yet filed a separate damages action and judgment had already been entered. As the prevailing party, the association was entitled to its appellate attorney fees and costs under Section 13.2(B) of the CC&Rs upon compliance with Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 21(b).
This memorandum decision illustrates, in the condominium context, a principle that closely parallels Arizona HOA assessment disputes: an owner generally cannot engage in self-help by simply withholding assessments, even when alleging that the association neglected its own maintenance and repair obligations. The court explains that the statutory maintenance duty (A.R.S. § 33-1247(A)) does not carry a built-in remedy of nonpayment, and that an owner who believes the association breached its duties must pursue a recognized legal avenue and support it with admissible evidence rather than treating unpaid assessments as leverage. The decision also clarifies that the 20% annual assessment-increase cap in A.R.S. § 33-1803 applies to planned communities, not condominiums, a distinction owners and boards frequently confuse. For self-represented owners, it underscores that the rules of civil procedure and evidence apply equally to them, that exhibits must be authenticated to be considered on summary judgment, and that arguments must be preserved (not raised for the first time on reconsideration) to be reviewed on appeal. Because the decision is unpublished, it does not create binding precedent, but it is a useful educational example of how Arizona courts approach assessment-lien foreclosures and condition-of-property defenses.