Fair Housing | A.R.S. §§ 41-1491.19, 41-1491.04 | 1 CA-CV 02-0138
This landmark Arizona appellate decision demonstrates that senior-living communities must grant reasonable accommodations under the Fair Housing Act, even if it requires making exceptions to age restrictions in their CC&Rs. The ruling establishes that granting a waiver to a disabled resident under the age limit does not threaten an HOA’s statutory ‘housing for older persons’ status.
Last updated June 29, 2026. Case: Canady v. Prescott Canyon Estates Homeowners Association, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, No. 1 CA-CV 02-0138 (204 Ariz. 91); on appeal from Maricopa County Superior Court (Hon. Colleen McNally).
Scope note: This page covers the published Arizona Court of Appeals opinion in Canady v. Prescott Canyon Estates (1 CA-CV 02-0138), originally issued as a memorandum decision and later redesignated as a precedential Opinion, together with the uploaded appellate record. The complete uploaded source-document index below is generated from the local raw source folder; AI-generated review materials were reviewed only as orientation and are not treated as court authority. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The takeaway
An age-restricted community must make a reasonable accommodation under fair housing laws to allow a disabled person under the minimum age limit to reside with their parents, and granting such a waiver does not jeopardize the community’s statutory status as ‘housing for older persons.’
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Scott Canady (Plaintiff)
Intervening Plaintiff-Appellant. A severely developmentally disabled twenty-six-year-old individual whose parents contracted to purchase a home in Prescott Canyon Estates where he would reside with them. - Ralph Canady (Plaintiff)
Intervening Plaintiff-Appellant. Father of Scott Canady and husband of Margaret Canady. Contracted to purchase a home in Prescott Canyon Estates. - Margaret Canady (Plaintiff)
Intervening Plaintiff-Appellant. Mother of Scott Canady and wife of Ralph Canady. Contracted to purchase a home in Prescott Canyon Estates. - Pamela Garapich (Plaintiff)
Intervening Plaintiff-Appellant. Homeowner in Prescott Canyon Estates who contracted to sell her residence to Ralph and Margaret Canady. - Julianne H. Carter (Counsel)
Arizona Center for Disability Law
Attorney representing the intervening plaintiffs-appellants Scott Canady, Ralph and Margaret Canady, and Pamela Garapich.
Respondent Side
- Prescott Canyon Estates Homeowners Association (Defendant)
Defendant-Appellee. Homeowners association that enforced the subdivision age restriction and refused to grant a reasonable accommodation. - Prescott Canyon Estates Homeowners Association Board of Directors (Defendant)
Prescott Canyon Estates Homeowners Association
Defendant-Appellee. Governing board of the homeowners association. - Don Larson (Association President)
Prescott Canyon Estates Homeowners Association
Defendant-Appellee. President of the homeowners association who informed Pamela Garapich that the age restriction was non-negotiable and could not be waived. - James A. Simmons (Counsel)
James A. Simmons, Esq.
Attorney representing the defendants-appellees Prescott Canyon Estates Homeowners Association, its Board of Directors, and Don Larson.
Neutral Parties
- Hon. Susan A. Ehrlich (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Appellate judge who authored the Department D opinion reversing the trial court's summary judgment. - Hon. William F. Garbarino (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Presiding appellate judge of Department D who concurred with the opinion and issued various procedural orders. - Hon. Jon W. Thompson (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Appellate judge of Department D who concurred with the opinion. - Hon. Colleen McNally (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court
Trial court judge who initially granted summary judgment in favor of the homeowners association. - Hon. E. Voss (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals who issued the order granting the request for oral argument. - Michael K. Jeanes (Other)
Maricopa County Superior Court
Clerk of the Maricopa County Superior Court. - G. Clark (Other)
Maricopa County Superior Court
Clerk of the Maricopa County Superior Court who was ordered to transmit the record on appeal.
What happened
In September 1999, Ralph and Margaret Canady, who met the age requirement of Prescott Canyon Estates, contracted to purchase a home in the community from Pamela Garapich. The Canadys’ twenty-six-year-old son, Scott, who has severe developmental disabilities, lived with them due to his condition.
Prescott Canyon Estates’ covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) restricted residency to individuals aged thirty-five or older. Learning of the purchase agreement, the Association’s president informed the parties that a person under thirty-five could not reside in the subdivision and that the restriction could not be waived. Consequently, the Canadys and Garapich cancelled the sale.
The Canadys and Garapich filed housing discrimination complaints with the Arizona Attorney General’s Office. Following a finding of reasonable cause, the State of Arizona filed a housing discrimination lawsuit against the Association, in which the Canadys and Garapich intervened. The Maricopa County Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Association, ruling that the age restriction was lawful and did not discriminate on the basis of disability. The intervening plaintiffs appealed.
Video overview of the ruling
An AI-generated video overview of 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 (204 Ariz. 91 (Ct. App. 2002), 1 CA-CV 02-0138). Age-restricted communities may need to waive age limits as a fair-housing reasonable accommodation. 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 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. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.
Procedural timeline
Complete source-document index
This index contains 2 PDFs from the reviewed public source packet. Byte-identical copies are listed once. Files are ordered by the date and sequence in the public filename, and party filings or research materials are labeled separately from court rulings.
Docket And Case Information
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Final Appellate Opinion
Type: Decision or judgment
Opinion holding that an age-restricted community must make a reasonable accommodation under fair housing laws to allow a disabled person under the minimum age limit to reside with their parents, and granting such a waiver does not jeopardize the community's statutory status as 'housing for older persons.'.
FAQ
Does an Arizona senior community have to accommodate a disabled resident who is under the community's minimum age restriction?
Yes. Under the Arizona Fair Housing Act, homeowners associations have an affirmative duty to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, or covenants when necessary to afford a disabled person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. This includes making exceptions to age limits in CC&Rs.
Will granting an age-restriction waiver jeopardize our HOA's legal status as 'housing for older persons'?
No. The Court of Appeals clarified that allowing a disabled resident under the age of 35 to live with senior parents does not affect the statutory requirement that at least 80 percent of units are occupied by someone aged 55 or older. Furthermore, granting an exception to comply with fair housing laws does not demonstrate a lack of intent to operate as a senior community.
Is this case considered binding precedent for other homeowners associations in Arizona?
Yes. Although the Court of Appeals initially issued its decision as an unpublished Memorandum Decision, the appellants successfully moved for publication. The court redesignated the decision as an Opinion, making it binding legal precedent throughout Arizona.
Can our HOA deny an accommodation request because we are worried about a 'flood' of under-age residents?
No. The court dismissed the ‘flood’ argument, explaining that reasonable accommodations are highly fact-intensive, case-specific determinations. The association retains the right to evaluate each request individually, and only a narrow group of disabled individuals requiring senior-assisted housing would qualify for this limited exception.
Can a homeowner recover their legal fees if they sue an HOA for a fair housing violation and win?
Yes. Under A.R.S. § 41-1491.36, a court in an Arizona fair housing action is required to award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to a prevailing plaintiff. In this case, the court awarded the intervening plaintiffs their costs and fees on appeal.
Case Dossier
This dossier combines the case metadata, linked court sources, and the explanatory sections below. It distinguishes court rulings from party filings, allegations, and requested relief.
Case Summary
| Case ID / citation | 204 Ariz. 91 (Ct. App. 2002), 1 CA-CV 02-0138 |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Court of Appeals |
| Decision / key date | November 26, 2002 |
| Judge / panel | Hon. Susan A. Ehrlich, Hon. William F. Garbarino, Hon. Jon W. Thompson |
| Parties | Scott Canady, Ralph and Margaret Canady, and Pamela Garapich (Intervening Plaintiffs-Appellants) v. Prescott Canyon Estates Homeowners Association, its Board of Directors, and Don Larson, President (Defendants-Appellees) |
| Governing law |
|
| Topics | Fair HousingCC&RsAttorney Fees |
| Outcome / holding | An age-restricted community must make a reasonable accommodation under fair housing laws to allow a disabled person under the minimum age limit to reside with their parents, and granting such a waiver does not jeopardize the community's statutory status as 'housing for older persons.' |
| Primary public source | View source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Reviewed source package | 2 PDFs |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 31 roadmap entries |
| Video overview | Scott Canady, Ralph and Margaret Canady, and Pamela Garapich v. Prescott Canyon Estates Homeowners A |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 5 questions |
| Featured download links | 2 download links |
Key Issues & Findings
Ralph and Margaret Canady contracted to purchase a home in Prescott Canyon Estates from Pamela Garapich. The Canadys intended to reside there with their severely developmentally disabled 26-year-old son, Scott. However, the community's covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) contained an age restriction prohibiting anyone under 35 from residing in the subdivision. The Association refused to waive this age restriction to accommodate Scott's disability, leading the parties to cancel the sale and file housing discrimination complaints. The Arizona Court of Appeals held that the Association violated the fair housing laws by failing to make a reasonable accommodation for Scott. The court rejected the Association's claims that granting a waiver would jeopardize its status as 'housing for older persons' or lead to a flood of underage residents. The Court reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Association and remanded the case for entry of judgment in favor of the appellants.
The Court of Appeals explained that the federal and state Fair Housing Acts impose an affirmative duty on housing providers to make reasonable accommodations in rules or policies when necessary to afford disabled individuals an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. A reasonable accommodation may require making affirmative changes or exceptions to otherwise valid, facially neutral rules such as restrictive covenants.
The court rejected the Association's argument that allowing twenty-six-year-old Scott to live in the community would jeopardize its legal exemption as 'housing for older persons.' Under both state and federal law, such housing requires at least eighty percent of the units to be occupied by at least one person fifty-five years or older. Because Scott's parents met this age requirement, the household would still count toward the eighty-percent threshold regardless of Scott's age. Furthermore, making an exception to comply with non-discrimination laws does not demonstrate a lack of intent to operate as housing for older persons.
Finally, the court dismissed the Association's concern about a 'flood' of underage residents, noting that reasonable accommodation requests are fact-intensive and case-specific. The Association retains the right to evaluate each request individually, and only a narrow group of disabled individuals requiring senior-assisted housing would qualify for this limited exception.
This case establishes that Arizona homeowners associations cannot use age restrictions or 'housing for older persons' exemptions as an absolute shield against their affirmative duty to provide reasonable accommodations for disabled individuals. HOA boards must evaluate accommodation requests on an individualized, case-by-case basis and may be legally required to grant exceptions to age limits in CC&Rs to prevent discrimination.
For homeowners, families, and legal counsel, the ruling reinforces robust protections for developmentally disabled individuals who rely on family-supported housing. It clarifies that federal and state fair housing protections are broadly construed, while exemptions are narrowly interpreted, making it clear that a community's senior status is not compromised by complying with statutory anti-discrimination mandates.