Assessments & CC&Rs | A.R.S. §§ 12-1832, 12-341.01 | 1 CA-CV 25-0709
Division One affirmed the homeowner’s Kalway victory over SunBird’s 2021 golf-course funding amendment. The trial court separately rejected his transfer-fee statute theory; the later county docket records mandate and satisfaction of judgment.
Last updated October 12, 2026. Appeal: 1 CA-CV 25-0709. Superior court: CV2023-053589.
Decision and later docket history: The Court of Appeals affirmed on June 11, 2026. The official county docket checked October 12 records an August 13 mandate and September 9 satisfaction of judgment. Later docket entries were reviewed as metadata; the signed final judgment, mandate document, and appellate fee-amount order were not obtained. The complete current docket and any history of Supreme Court review have not been independently established. This memorandum decision is nonprecedential under Rule 111(c).
Source scope: This guide covers CV2023-053589 and appeal 1 CA-CV 25-0709 using the archived superior-court minute entries, the official June 11, 2026 memorandum decision, and the county docket checked October 12, 2026. The source archive contains 14 trial minute entries plus the appeal decision; it is not the complete litigation file. Pleadings, the signed final judgment, the mandate document, and any later appellate fee-amount order were not retrieved. Lisa Kittredge’s October 1 email is separately attributed participant context. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The appellate decision is nonprecedential under Arizona Supreme Court Rule 111(c) and may be cited only as that rule permits.
The takeaway
The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the homeowner, holding that the 2021 amendment—which imposed a $300 capital-improvement assessment and authorized association funding for the golf course—was an unforeseeable new obligation under Kalway because the 2015 CC&Rs plainly excluded golf-course expenses, and that the homeowner had standing and raised a justiciable controversy.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Jimmie Klatt (Appellee)
Homeowner and member of the Association who challenged the 2021 Amendment; prevailed in the superior court and on appeal. - Jonathan A. Dessaules (Counsel)
Dessaules Law Group
Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee Jimmie Klatt. - Jacob A. Kubert (Counsel)
Dessaules Law Group
Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee Jimmie Klatt.
Respondent Side
- SunBird Golf Resort Homeowners' Association, Inc. (Appellant)
HOA managing the age-restricted SunBird community of about 1,600 homes; adopted and defended the challenged Amendment. - Gaurav Bobby Kalra (Counsel)
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
Counsel for Defendant/Appellant SunBird Golf Resort Homeowners' Association, Inc. - Christine B. Stutz (Counsel)
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
Counsel for Defendant/Appellant SunBird Golf Resort Homeowners' Association, Inc.
Neutral Parties
- Michael J. Brown (Judge)
Presiding Judge of the Court of Appeals, Division One; authored the memorandum decision. - Veronika Fabian (Judge)
Judge of the Court of Appeals, Division One; joined the decision. - Randall M. Howe (Judge)
Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals; joined the decision. - Michael D. Gordon (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court judge (Retired) who granted summary judgment for Klatt.
What happened
The SunBird Golf Resort Homeowners’ Association manages SunBird, an age-restricted (55 and older) active-living community of about 1,600 homes, many located near the separately owned SunBird Golf Course. In 1999, several homeowners’ associations within SunBird joined and adopted CC&Rs creating the Association, and those 1999 CC&Rs stated that the Golf Course does not constitute a common area of the Association.
When Jimmie Klatt bought a SunBird home in 2018, his lot was subject to an amended set of CC&Rs adopted in 2015. The 2015 CC&Rs provided in Subsection 9.2 that neither the Association nor its members would be responsible for the costs of operating and maintaining the golf course (apart from golf-related fees), and Section 6.3(A) specifically excluded the Golf Course from the common areas and expenses for which members were responsible.
In 2021, a majority of SunBird owners approved three amendments (together, the Amendment) establishing a fund to maintain, repair, replace, or improve the common areas and other areas affecting the Association, including the Golf Course. The Amendment applied only to people who become SunBird lot owners after its adoption and required those new owners to pay a $300 capital-improvement assessment.
In September 2023, Klatt sued the Association seeking a declaratory judgment and an injunction, contending that under the 2015 CC&Rs owners owed no financial obligation to the golf course and that the Amendment violated Kalway v. Calabria Ranch HOA, LLC because the 2015 CC&Rs did not make it reasonably foreseeable that the Association could change the prohibition against financially supporting the golf course. He alleged the Amendment harmed his home’s marketability by requiring purchasers to pay a transfer fee supporting the golf course.
The May 2, 2025 trial ruling, electronically filed May 5, granted Klatt summary judgment on the Kalway issue. The HOA separately won summary judgment on his A.R.S. § 33-1806 transfer-fee theory: invalidity under Kalway did not itself establish a statutory violation. The county docket records final judgment July 16, 2025; the appellate decision describes that judgment as invalidating the challenged amendment and awarding Klatt fees and costs (paragraph 6).
On June 11, 2026, Division One affirmed. It rejected the HOA’s standing and justiciability objections and its argument that Kalway did not apply to an amendment affecting future buyers. The court also found waiver of the HOA’s challenge to the foreseeability determination and explained why the amendment was unforeseeable in any event (paragraphs 9–18). It awarded reasonable appeal fees and costs subject to ARCAP 21 (paragraph 19).
Lisa Kittredge’s earlier OAH case
The June 13, 2023 OAH decision in Lisa Kittredge’s case, 23F-H040-REL, addressed a proposed drainage project capped at $20,000 from the HOA contingency funding stream. The ALJ granted her petition, ordered $500 filing-fee reimbursement, and required compliance with the governing documents. The HOA reported that work had not proceeded pending that decision. The ALJ interpreted the then-current amendment as allowing golf-course spending only from the restricted § 6.7(C) assessment fund; she did not invalidate the amendment.
Klatt’s later superior-court lawsuit challenged the amendment’s validity under Kalway. These are separate proceedings with different issues and relief. The 2023 OAH allowance for restricted-fund spending describes that earlier decision; it should not be read as current authorization after the later amendment-invalidity ruling.
In an October 1, 2026 email to this project, Lisa said she knew about Kalway when she filed but wanted to address the immediate misuse of membership funds. She said she subsequently moved from the HOA and identified Klatt’s lawsuit as a follow-up. This is her account of her motivation and circumstances, not a finding in the Klatt opinion.
Lisa also reported an August 21, 2026 homeowner win and fees in the $100,000 range. Neither that date as a ruling date nor that estimated amount has been independently verified. The retrieved appellate merits decision is dated June 11, 2026, and the county mandate entry is dated August 13. No August 21, 2026 event appears in the retrieved county docket.
Fees and later docket history
The official superior-court docket lists July 16, 2025 judgment entries labeled “Attorney Fee” for $70,581.30 and “Costs” for $581.30, each marked “Satisfied.” These are the docket’s labels and amounts; they are not added together here because the signed judgment has not been retrieved to resolve whether the fee entry includes costs. The June 11 appellate decision awards reasonable appeal fees and taxable costs subject to ARCAP 21, but supplies no dollar amount. View the official docket.
The county docket records an Order of Mandate filed August 13, 2026 (docketed August 17), a Satisfaction of Judgment filed September 9 (docketed September 10), and a September 22 bond-release order. No matching Klatt or SunBird case appeared in the Division One or Arizona Supreme Court active civil lists checked October 12, 2026. Those lists and the county entries do not establish whether Supreme Court review was ever sought or denied.
Complete source-document index
This index contains 15 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.
Motions Hearing Set
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
Motion To Dismiss Denied
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
Dismissal Calendar Extension
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
March Ruling Clarification
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Dismissal Calendar Extension
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Summary Judgment Argument Set
Type: Motion/application
Party motion asking the court to decide specified claims before trial; it is not a ruling.
Summary Judgment Initially Denied
Type: Motion/application
Party motion asking the court to decide specified claims before trial; it is not a ruling.
Reconsideration Briefing
Type: Briefing paper
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Reconsideration Granted
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Summary Judgment Ruling
Type: Decision or judgment
May 2, 2025 ruling, filed May 5: Klatt prevails under Kalway; the HOA prevails on the separate transfer-fee statute theory.
Ex Parte Letters No Action
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Bond Hearing Set
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Supersedeas Bond Order
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Bond Hearing Vacated
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Memorandum Decision
Type: Decision or judgment
Memorandum decision affirming that the $300 golf-course assessment amendment was void as unforeseeable under Kalway.
Read the source records
The May 2 trial ruling, pages 8–9, records the mixed summary-judgment result. The June 11 appellate decision records the affirmance and fee entitlement. The official county docket supplies final-judgment, mandate, satisfaction, and bond-release dates. The downloads below preserve the available source PDFs, with descriptions distinguishing each order from the separately signed documents it references.
For related analysis, read Kittredge’s OAH case and Kalway v. Calabria Ranch HOA. The historical media summaries below accompany the earlier article and should be checked against this updated source record.
Video overview of the case record
An AI-generated video overview of Jimmie Klatt v. SunBird Golf Resort Homeowners Association Inc. (1 CA-CV 25-0709). CC&R amendment adding a $300 golf-course assessment was void as unforeseeable under Kalway. This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own ruling controls.
Listen: audio deep dive on the case record
An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the court record and procedural posture in Jimmie Klatt v. SunBird Golf Resort Homeowners Association Inc.. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked case records below.
Procedural timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999 | Several SunBird homeowners’ associations join and adopt the 1999 CC&Rs creating the Association; the CC&Rs state the Golf Course does not constitute a common area. |
| 2015 | The 2015 CC&Rs are adopted; Subsection 9.2 and Section 6.3(A) exclude the Golf Course from the association’s and members’ cost and common-expense responsibilities. |
| 2018 | Jimmie Klatt buys a home in SunBird, becoming subject to the 2015 CC&Rs. |
| 2021 | A majority of SunBird owners approve three amendments (the Amendment) creating a fund covering the Golf Course and imposing a $300 capital-improvement assessment on future lot owners. |
| 2023-06-13 | In the separate OAH case 23F-H040-REL, Lisa Kittredge wins her challenge to the proposed use of HOA contingency funds for golf-course drainage. |
| 2023-09 | Klatt sues the Association seeking a declaratory judgment and injunction, invoking Kalway. |
| 2024-09-27 / 2024-12-04 | The trial court initially denies Klatt summary judgment, then grants reconsideration and allows an HOA cross-motion. |
| 2025-05-02 (filed May 5) | Klatt wins the Kalway issue; the HOA wins the separate transfer-fee statute theory. |
| 2025-07-16 | County docket records final judgment; the appeal decision describes invalidation of the challenged amendment and a fee/cost award. |
| 2026-06-11 | Division One affirms and awards reasonable appellate fees and taxable costs subject to ARCAP 21. |
| 2026-08-13 (docketed August 17) | County docket records an Order of Mandate. |
| 2026-09-09 (docketed September 10) | County docket records Satisfaction of Judgment. |
| 2026-09-22 / September 23 / October 7 | County docket records bond release and subsequent deposit-release notices. |
FAQ
What did the SunBird 2021 amendment do?
The 2021 Amendment (three amendments to the 2015 CC&Rs) established a fund to maintain, repair, replace, or improve the community’s common areas and other areas affecting the Association, including the separately owned SunBird Golf Course, and required people who buy SunBird lots after the amendment to pay a $300 capital-improvement assessment.
Why did the homeowner win?
The 2015 CC&Rs in effect when Klatt bought his home expressly stated that neither the Association nor its members would be responsible for golf-course costs and excluded the golf course from common areas and expenses. Under Kalway v. Calabria Ranch, associations cannot create new affirmative obligations the CC&Rs did not make foreseeable, so the amendment adding an assessment and golf-course funding was unforeseeable and unenforceable.
How does this case relate to Kalway v. Calabria Ranch?
Kalway holds that CC&R amendments must be reasonable and foreseeable and cannot impose entirely new obligations untethered to the original covenants. The Court of Appeals applied Kalway here and rejected the Association’s argument that Kalway did not apply because the amendment affected only future purchasers.
Could the homeowner challenge an amendment that applied only to future buyers?
Yes. The court explained that an amendment applying only to new owners is still a restrictive covenant that affects existing owners’ ability to sell their lots. Klatt had standing under the declaratory judgment statute (A.R.S. § 12-1832) and raised a justiciable controversy because the amendment affected his property’s marketability and authorized golf-course spending the prior CC&Rs barred.
What do the records establish about fees?
The official superior-court docket lists July 16, 2025 judgment entries labeled “Attorney Fee” for $70,581.30 and “Costs” for $581.30, each marked “Satisfied.” These are the docket’s labels and amounts; they are not added together here because the signed judgment has not been retrieved to resolve whether the fee entry includes costs. The June 11 appellate decision awards reasonable appeal fees and taxable costs subject to ARCAP 21, but supplies no dollar amount. Lisa reported a roughly $100,000 fee award in her October 1, 2026 email; that estimate and its components remain unverified.
Is this decision binding precedent?
No. It is an unpublished memorandum decision of the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One. Under Arizona Rule of the Supreme Court 111(c) it is not precedential and may be cited only as authorized by rule.
Did Klatt win every trial-court issue?
No. He won the amendment challenge under Kalway, but the HOA won summary judgment on his separate A.R.S. § 33-1806 transfer-fee theory. The May 2, 2025 ruling, filed May 5, distinguishes those grounds.
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 | 1 CA-CV 25-0709 |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Court of Appeals |
| Decision / key date | June 11, 2026 |
| Judge / panel | Brown, Fabian, Howe |
| Parties | Jimmie Klatt (Plaintiff/Appellee) v. SunBird Golf Resort Homeowners' Association, Inc. (Defendant/Appellant) |
| Governing law |
|
| Topics | AssessmentsCC&RsAttorney FeesProcedure |
| Outcome / holding | The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the homeowner, holding that the 2021 amendment—which imposed a $300 capital-improvement assessment and authorized association funding for the golf course—was an unforeseeable new obligation under Kalway because the 2015 CC&Rs plainly excluded golf-course expenses, and that the homeowner had standing and raised a justiciable controversy. |
| Primary public source | View hosted source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Reviewed source package | 15 PDFs |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | No separate litigation roadmap table on this page |
| Video overview | Jimmie Klatt v. SunBird Golf Resort Homeowners Association Inc. |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 7 questions |
| Featured download links | 2 download links |
Key Issues & Findings
Jimmie Klatt challenged SunBird’s 2021 amendment allowing funding of a separately owned golf course and imposing a $300 capital-improvement assessment on new purchasers. The 2015 CC&Rs had excluded golf-course expenses. In a May 2, 2025 ruling, filed May 5, Klatt won the amendment challenge under Kalway while the HOA won his separate A.R.S. § 33-1806 transfer-fee theory. The county docket records final judgment July 16, 2025. Division One affirmed June 11, 2026 and awarded reasonable appeal fees and taxable costs subject to ARCAP 21. The county docket later records an August 13 mandate and September 9 satisfaction of judgment. This nonprecedential memorandum decision is distinct from Lisa Kittredge’s 2023 OAH challenge to proposed contingency-funded drainage work.
On standing and justiciability, the court first noted that the Association never raised standing in the superior court and had therefore waived it, arguing only that the homeowner did not present a justiciable issue. Even reaching the merits, the court explained that the declaratory judgment statute, A.R.S. § 12-1832, allows any person interested under a written contract to seek a determination of the contract's validity, and that CC&Rs constitute a contract between the property owners as a whole and individual lot owners. Because the homeowner had a contractual relationship with the Association and the Association cited no authority that a lot owner cannot challenge the validity of CC&R amendments, his interest was neither speculative nor uncertain. He bought his home knowing the golf course and the community were separate and that association funds would not benefit the golf course; the amendment now subjected his property to the assessment on resale and granted the Association authority to spend funds on the golf course, creating a definite interest and a genuine controversy.
Applying Kalway v. Calabria Ranch HOA, LLC, the court rejected the Association's attempt to distinguish that decision on the ground that the amendment applies only to future purchasers. Kalway holds that homeowners' associations cannot create new affirmative obligations where the CC&Rs did not give notice that owners might be subject to them, and that amendments must be both reasonable and foreseeable and cannot be entirely new and different in character, untethered to an original covenant. That Kalway did not expressly address transfer fees for new buyers did not make it inapplicable. An amendment that applies only to new owners is still a restrictive covenant that affects existing owners' ability to sell their lots, and nothing in Kalway would preclude an existing owner from challenging such an amendment.
Because the 2015 CC&Rs plainly stated that the Association would not use its funds for golf-course expenses, the amendment creating the assessment and golf-course financial support was unforeseeable, and the Association did not show error in the grant of summary judgment. The Association also waived any challenge to the trial court's finding that the amendment was unreasonable and unforeseeable by not arguing that point on appeal. On fees, the court denied the Association's request because it did not prevail and, in its discretion, granted the homeowner reasonable attorneys' fees and taxable costs under A.R.S. § 12-341.01, subject to compliance with ARCAP 21.
The May 2, 2025 trial ruling, filed May 5, distinguishes invalidity under Kalway from the separate transfer-fee statute claim, on which the Association prevailed. The official superior-court docket lists July 16, 2025 judgment entries labeled “Attorney Fee” for $70,581.30 and “Costs” for $581.30, each marked “Satisfied.” These are the docket’s labels and amounts; they are not added together here because the signed judgment has not been retrieved to resolve whether the fee entry includes costs. The June 11 appellate decision awards reasonable appeal fees and taxable costs subject to ARCAP 21, but supplies no dollar amount. The county docket records an Order of Mandate filed August 13, 2026 (docketed August 17), a Satisfaction of Judgment filed September 9 (docketed September 10), and a September 22 bond-release order. No matching Klatt or SunBird case appeared in the Division One or Arizona Supreme Court active civil lists checked October 12, 2026. Those lists and the county entries do not establish whether Supreme Court review was ever sought or denied.
This 2026 decision is a notable post-Kalway application of the "new financial obligation" limit on CC&R amendments. Division One affirmed a homeowner victory that used Kalway v. Calabria Ranch to invalidate a capital-improvement assessment tied to a golf course the community's CC&Rs had previously excluded from association and common-expense responsibility, and it upheld the trial court's judgment declaring the amendment void along with an award of attorneys' fees to the homeowner.
Although unpublished and non-precedential, the decision illustrates two points of continuing interest to Arizona associations and owners: that an amendment purporting to bind only future purchasers can still be challenged by existing owners because it affects the marketability of their lots, and that an amendment adding funding obligations for something the prior declaration expressly carved out may be treated as unforeseeable under Kalway.