CC&R Amendments & Pleading Procedure | A.R.S. §§ 33-1804, 33-1812, 33-1817 | 2 CA-CV 2021-0091
An unpublished Division Two decision affirming dismissal of a homeowner fiduciary-duty claim while reviving CC&R-amendment claims, holding a court cannot order a more definite statement of a meeting the HOA concedes never happened.
Last updated July 1, 2026. Case: Keith and Kathy Campbell, husband and wife, Plaintiffs/Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. Florence Gardens Mobile Home Association, an Arizona non-profit corporation; Gail and Steven Haskett; Nick and JoAnn Treinen; Emily J. Webster; Gerald C. and Patricia M. Palmatier; Judith A. and Martin C. Weber, Defendants/Appellees/Cross-Appellants; 2 CA-CV 2021-0091; S1100CV201901839.
Scope note: This educational case page summarizes a court ruling for Arizona HOA homeowners, boards, and counsel. It is not legal advice.
The rule in one sentence
The court affirmed dismissal of the homeowners’ breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim, holding the allegations were conclusory and the challenged conduct — counting written CC&R concurrences after the 30-day window — did not involve any collection or misuse of funds giving rise to a fiduciary duty. It held, however, that the trial court erred in ordering a more definite statement, because the Association’s own motion admitted no membership or board meeting ever occurred, so it was impossible for the homeowners to supply a meeting date; the striking of the amended complaint and dismissal of the remaining claims were therefore vacated and remanded.
Case Participants
Neutral Parties
- Florence Gardens Mobile Home Association (Appellee)
Arizona non-profit corporation and mobile-home community HOA (Defendant below; Appellee/Cross-Appellant); counted the written concurrences and adopted the amended CC&Rs. - Keith Campbell (Appellant)
Homeowner and former board president (Plaintiff below; Appellant/Cross-Appellee) who objected to counting late concurrences and resigned from the board. - Kathy Campbell (Appellant)
Homeowner and co-plaintiff (Appellant/Cross-Appellee); Keith Campbell’s wife. - Gail Haskett (Appellee)
Individual board-member defendant named in the caption. - Steven Haskett (Appellee)
Individual defendant named in the caption (spouse of Gail Haskett). - Nick Treinen (Appellee)
Individual board-member defendant named in the caption. - JoAnn Treinen (Appellee)
Individual defendant named in the caption (spouse of Nick Treinen). - Emily J. Webster (Appellee)
Individual board-member defendant named in the caption. - Gerald C. Palmatier (Appellee)
Individual board-member defendant named in the caption. - Patricia M. Palmatier (Appellee)
Individual defendant named in the caption (spouse of Gerald C. Palmatier). - Judith A. Weber (Appellee)
Individual board-member defendant named in the caption. - Martin C. Weber (Appellee)
Individual defendant named in the caption (spouse of Judith A. Weber). - Melanie C. McKeddie (Counsel)
McKeddie Cooley G.P. (Scottsdale)
Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants/Cross-Appellees (the Campbells). - Justin R. Cooley (Counsel)
McKeddie Cooley G.P. (Scottsdale)
Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants/Cross-Appellees (the Campbells). - Edith I. Rudder (Counsel)
Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen LLP (Tempe)
Counsel for Defendants/Appellees/Cross-Appellants (the Association and board members). - Nicholas C. S. Nogami (Counsel)
Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen LLP (Tempe)
Counsel for Defendants/Appellees/Cross-Appellants (the Association and board members). - Brearcliffe (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two
Judge who authored the memorandum decision. - Eppich (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two
Presiding Judge who concurred in the decision. - Staring (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two
Vice Chief Judge who concurred in the decision. - Steven J. Fuller (Judge)
Pinal County Superior Court
Trial judge who ordered a more definite statement, struck the amended complaint, and dismissed the suit with prejudice.
What happened and why it matters
Keith and Kathy Campbell own property in the Florence Gardens Mobile Home Association community, a Pinal County non-profit governed by CC&Rs recorded in 1998. In March 2019 the board mailed owners a letter, a proposed Amended and Restated Declaration, and a written-concurrence form, explaining that adoption required the written concurrence of 878 owners (two-thirds of the assessed lots) and asking owners to return the form within thirty days. The Association reached the required number of concurrences “shortly after the 30-day window” and counted them all; Keith Campbell, then board president, objected that late concurrences should not count, and resigned. The Campbells sued for breach of contract, negligence per se under the Planned Community Act, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court dismissed the fiduciary-duty claim under Rule 12(b)(6), ordered a more definite statement identifying the specific meeting date, then struck the amended complaint and dismissed the case with prejudice when no date was supplied. Division Two affirmed dismissal of the fiduciary-duty claim as conclusory and outside the fund-related duty recognized in Divizio, but held that ordering a more definite statement was error because the Association’s own motion admitted no relevant meeting ever occurred, making a meeting date impossible to provide. The court vacated the striking and dismissal, remanded, and awarded no fees or costs on appeal.
Reviewing the dismissals de novo under Coleman v. City of Mesa, the court analyzed the two rulings separately. On the fiduciary-duty claim, dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is proper only where, as a matter of law, plaintiffs could not obtain relief under any provable interpretation of the facts, and the court may look only to the pleading itself. The Campbells alleged the Association “acts as a fiduciary with the fees collected from its members” and breached that duty by labeling the vote a “concurrence” and counting it past the statutory time frames. The court held these were merely conclusory statements insufficient under Cullen v. Auto-Owners Insurance: even assuming the collection of member fees could create a fiduciary relationship, the Campbells never alleged how the Association’s actions amounted to an improper use of funds. It distinguished Divizio v. Kewin Enterprises, where mobile-home-park members were entitled to accountings of dues collected for community upkeep; here the challenged conduct — collecting signed concurrences after the 30-day deadline — did not involve the collection or use of funds to which the Divizio duty would extend. Merely paying dues does not convert every alleged wrong into a breach of fiduciary duty.
On the striking of the amended complaint, the court explained that a defendant may move for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e) only when a pleading is so vague or ambiguous that it cannot frame a response, and a court may strike a pleading for disobeying such an order. But the Association’s own motion, while demanding that the Campbells identify the meeting date of the alleged statutory violations, candidly admitted that “there was no such meeting” and “no meeting of the membership related to the collection of the concurrences.” Because it was clear from the Association’s own filing that it was impossible for the Campbells to state a meeting date that never existed, ordering a more definite statement was error — and, that order being error, striking the amended complaint and dismissing the remaining claims for noncompliance with it was likewise error. Because neither party completely prevailed, the court declined to award appellate fees or costs and left the Association’s fee cross-appeal for the trial court on remand.
The decision is a mixed result that highlights two recurring HOA-litigation pressure points: whether a board owes homeowners a fiduciary duty, and how much factual specificity a complaint about governance procedures must contain. On the fiduciary-duty question, the court did not announce a categorical rule that HOA boards never owe fiduciary duties; instead it treated the claim as a pleading failure, distinguishing Divizio and emphasizing that a fiduciary theory tied to member dues requires concrete allegations of improper use of funds, not a general assertion that the board mishandled a vote. Homeowners advancing fiduciary-duty claims should therefore plead specific, fund-related misconduct rather than relabeling a covenant or voting dispute.
The striking ruling is the more consequential procedural lesson: a defendant cannot use a motion for a more definite statement to force a plaintiff to allege a fact the defendant itself concedes does not exist. Because the Association admitted no relevant meeting occurred, the trial court could not condition the survival of the suit on the Campbells’ identifying a meeting date, and dismissal on that basis was reversible. The case also confirms that CC&Rs constitute a contract among owners, so disputes over amendment and concurrence procedures can support contract-based claims and fee awards under A.R.S. § 12-341.01 — though here, with neither side fully prevailing, the court awarded no appellate fees. As an unpublished memorandum decision, it is not precedential and may be cited only as authorized by rule.
Step-by-step litigation record
Complete uploaded source-document index
This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/campbell-v-florence-gardens/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.
Opinion
Type: Decision or judgment
Decision document; read it to understand the controlling result before moving to later filings.
FAQ
Who won Campbell v. Florence Gardens?
The result was split. Division Two affirmed the dismissal of the homeowners’ breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim, but it vacated the trial court’s decision to strike the amended complaint and dismiss the remaining claims, remanding those for further proceedings. Because neither side completely prevailed, the court awarded no attorneys’ fees or costs on appeal and left the Association’s fee cross-appeal for the trial court.
What was the dispute about?
The Florence Gardens board circulated written-concurrence forms to adopt amended CC&Rs, asking owners to return them within 30 days. The Association reached the required two-thirds concurrence ‘shortly after the 30-day window’ and counted the late-returned forms. Homeowners Keith and Kathy Campbell — Keith was then board president — sued, alleging breach of contract, negligence per se under the Planned Community Act, breach of good faith and fair dealing, and breach of fiduciary duty.
Why did the breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim fail?
The court held the allegations were merely conclusory. Even assuming the Association’s collection of member fees could create a fiduciary relationship, the Campbells never alleged how the Association improperly used those funds. The challenged conduct — counting concurrences after the 30-day deadline — did not involve the collection or misuse of funds to which the fiduciary duty recognized in Divizio v. Kewin Enterprises would extend.
Why did the court revive the homeowners’ other claims?
The trial court had ordered the Campbells to file a more definite statement identifying the specific meeting date of the alleged violations, then struck their amended complaint and dismissed the case when no date was given. But the Association’s own motion admitted ‘there was no such meeting.’ Because it was impossible for the Campbells to state a meeting date that never existed, ordering a more definite statement was error, and so was dismissing the case for failing to comply with that order.
Does an Arizona HOA board owe homeowners a fiduciary duty?
This decision did not adopt a categorical rule. It treated the claim as a pleading failure, distinguishing Divizio (where mobile-home-park members were entitled to accountings of dues collected for community upkeep) and stressing that a fiduciary theory tied to member dues requires concrete allegations of improper use of funds, not a general assertion that the board mishandled a vote. Because it is an unpublished memorandum decision, it sets no precedent on the issue.
Is this decision precedential?
No. It is an unpublished memorandum decision of the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two (Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 28(a)(1), (f)). It does not create legal precedent and may be cited only as authorized by applicable rules.
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 2021-0091 |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Court of Appeals |
| Decision / key date | July 5, 2022 |
| Judge / panel | Brearcliffe, Eppich, Staring |
| Parties | Keith and Kathy Campbell (homeowners / Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees) v. Florence Gardens Mobile Home Association and individual board members (HOA / Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants) |
| Governing law | |
| Topics | cc-and-rselectionsprocedureattorneys-feesgood-faith-and-fair-dealing |
| Outcome / holding | The court affirmed dismissal of the homeowners’ breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim, holding the allegations were conclusory and the challenged conduct — counting written CC&R concurrences after the 30-day window — did not involve any collection or misuse of funds giving rise to a fiduciary duty. It held, however, that the trial court erred in ordering a more definite statement, because the Association’s own motion admitted no membership or board meeting ever occurred, so it was impossible for the homeowners to supply a meeting date; the striking of the amended complaint and dismissal of the remaining claims were therefore vacated and remanded. |
| Primary public source | View source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Uploaded source package | 1 PDF |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 10 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
Keith and Kathy Campbell own property in the Florence Gardens Mobile Home Association community, a Pinal County non-profit governed by CC&Rs recorded in 1998. In March 2019 the board mailed owners a letter, a proposed Amended and Restated Declaration, and a written-concurrence form, explaining that adoption required the written concurrence of 878 owners (two-thirds of the assessed lots) and asking owners to return the form within thirty days. The Association reached the required number of concurrences “shortly after the 30-day window” and counted them all; Keith Campbell, then board president, objected that late concurrences should not count, and resigned. The Campbells sued for breach of contract, negligence per se under the Planned Community Act, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court dismissed the fiduciary-duty claim under Rule 12(b)(6), ordered a more definite statement identifying the specific meeting date, then struck the amended complaint and dismissed the case with prejudice when no date was supplied. Division Two affirmed dismissal of the fiduciary-duty claim as conclusory and outside the fund-related duty recognized in Divizio, but held that ordering a more definite statement was error because the Association’s own motion admitted no relevant meeting ever occurred, making a meeting date impossible to provide. The court vacated the striking and dismissal, remanded, and awarded no fees or costs on appeal.
Reviewing the dismissals de novo under Coleman v. City of Mesa, the court analyzed the two rulings separately. On the fiduciary-duty claim, dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is proper only where, as a matter of law, plaintiffs could not obtain relief under any provable interpretation of the facts, and the court may look only to the pleading itself. The Campbells alleged the Association “acts as a fiduciary with the fees collected from its members” and breached that duty by labeling the vote a “concurrence” and counting it past the statutory time frames. The court held these were merely conclusory statements insufficient under Cullen v. Auto-Owners Insurance: even assuming the collection of member fees could create a fiduciary relationship, the Campbells never alleged how the Association’s actions amounted to an improper use of funds. It distinguished Divizio v. Kewin Enterprises, where mobile-home-park members were entitled to accountings of dues collected for community upkeep; here the challenged conduct — collecting signed concurrences after the 30-day deadline — did not involve the collection or use of funds to which the Divizio duty would extend. Merely paying dues does not convert every alleged wrong into a breach of fiduciary duty.
On the striking of the amended complaint, the court explained that a defendant may move for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e) only when a pleading is so vague or ambiguous that it cannot frame a response, and a court may strike a pleading for disobeying such an order. But the Association’s own motion, while demanding that the Campbells identify the meeting date of the alleged statutory violations, candidly admitted that “there was no such meeting” and “no meeting of the membership related to the collection of the concurrences.” Because it was clear from the Association’s own filing that it was impossible for the Campbells to state a meeting date that never existed, ordering a more definite statement was error — and, that order being error, striking the amended complaint and dismissing the remaining claims for noncompliance with it was likewise error. Because neither party completely prevailed, the court declined to award appellate fees or costs and left the Association’s fee cross-appeal for the trial court on remand.
The decision is a mixed result that highlights two recurring HOA-litigation pressure points: whether a board owes homeowners a fiduciary duty, and how much factual specificity a complaint about governance procedures must contain. On the fiduciary-duty question, the court did not announce a categorical rule that HOA boards never owe fiduciary duties; instead it treated the claim as a pleading failure, distinguishing Divizio and emphasizing that a fiduciary theory tied to member dues requires concrete allegations of improper use of funds, not a general assertion that the board mishandled a vote. Homeowners advancing fiduciary-duty claims should therefore plead specific, fund-related misconduct rather than relabeling a covenant or voting dispute.
The striking ruling is the more consequential procedural lesson: a defendant cannot use a motion for a more definite statement to force a plaintiff to allege a fact the defendant itself concedes does not exist. Because the Association admitted no relevant meeting occurred, the trial court could not condition the survival of the suit on the Campbells’ identifying a meeting date, and dismissal on that basis was reversible. The case also confirms that CC&Rs constitute a contract among owners, so disputes over amendment and concurrence procedures can support contract-based claims and fee awards under A.R.S. § 12-341.01 — though here, with neither side fully prevailing, the court awarded no appellate fees. As an unpublished memorandum decision, it is not precedential and may be cited only as authorized by rule.