Scott Canady, Ralph and Margaret Canady, and Pamela Garapich v. Prescott Canyon Estates Homeowners Association, Prescott Canyon Estates Homeowners Association Board of Directors, and Don Larson, President
At a Glance
| Parties | Disabled adult son and his parents, plus a seller, sued the HOA after the HOA refused to waive an age-restriction rule in a senior community. |
|---|---|
| Panel | Judge Ehrlich, Presiding Judge William F. Garbarino, Judge Jon W. Thompson |
| Statutes interpreted |
Summary
This case arose after a 55-plus community refused to let a severely developmentally disabled 26-year-old live with his qualifying parents because the community’s CC&Rs separately barred residents under age 35. The Court of Appeals held that Arizona and federal fair-housing law required the association to make a reasonable accommodation. The court rejected the HOA’s argument that allowing the son to live there would destroy the community’s lawful status as housing for older persons. It explained that the older-housing exemption protects age-based occupancy rules from familial-status claims, but it does not erase the separate duty to accommodate disability. The court also emphasized that accommodation law can require changing an otherwise valid rule when that change is necessary to give a disabled person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy housing.
Holding
The court held that the HOA violated Arizona fair-housing law by refusing a reasonable disability accommodation and that granting the accommodation would not jeopardize the community’s 55-plus status.
Reasoning
The court started with the disability-accommodation provisions in the Arizona Fair Housing Act and the parallel federal statute. It treated federal case law as persuasive because the Arizona provisions are materially similar. Under those statutes, a facially neutral rule can still be unlawful if the association refuses a reasonable exception that is necessary for a disabled person to use and enjoy housing on equal terms.
The HOA argued that its age restriction was lawful and that a waiver would undercut the development’s status as housing for older persons. The court disagreed. Because at least one occupant in the household would still be over 55, the statutory occupancy threshold stayed intact. And making an exception to comply with disability law did not show abandonment of the community’s senior-housing purpose. The accommodation was therefore both legally required and practically compatible with the governing scheme.
Why This Matters for HOAs
This is one of the clearest Arizona HOA cases on disability accommodations. Boards cannot assume that a valid CC&R or age restriction automatically ends the analysis when a disability-related request is made.
For homeowners and counsel, the case is a strong reminder that fair-housing duties can override otherwise enforceable private-use restrictions when a targeted exception is necessary and reasonable.
