CC&Rs | A.R.S. §§ 12-2101, 12-120.21 | 1 CA-CV 06-0221
This case highlights the strict limits placed on residential developers in Arizona. It illustrates that uniform subdivision covenants cannot be selectively altered by recording non-uniform private deed restrictions on individual lots without a proper vote.
Last updated June 29, 2026. Case: Multari, Court of Appeals No. 1 CA-CV 06-0221; reversed and remanded.
Scope note: This page covers the Arizona Court of Appeals decision declaring lot-specific private deed restrictions invalid when they selectively alter uniform subdivision covenants. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The takeaway
The Arizona Court of Appeals held that a developer cannot utilize private deed restrictions on multiple lots in a residential subdivision to alter uniform covenants and restrictions otherwise applicable to those lots without following the uniform declaration’s formal amendment procedures.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Dominick Multari (Plaintiff)
Husband of Lynn Multari, owner of lot 290 in the Ocotillo Hills subdivision, and successor-in-interest to the 1973 Private Deed Restrictions. - Lynn Multari (Plaintiff)
Wife of Dominick Multari, owner of lot 290 in the Ocotillo Hills subdivision, and successor-in-interest to the 1973 Private Deed Restrictions. - John Maston O’Neal (Counsel)
Quarles & Brady Streich Lang LLP
Counsel representing Plaintiffs/Appellees/Cross-Appellants Dominick and Lynn Multari. - David E. Funkhouser III (Counsel)
Quarles & Brady Streich Lang LLP
Counsel representing Plaintiffs/Appellees/Cross-Appellants Dominick and Lynn Multari.
Respondent Side
- Richard D. Gress (Defendant)
Husband of Carmen Gress, trustee under agreement dated April 15, 1998, and owner of lot 285 in the Ocotillo Hills subdivision, subject to the contested 1976 Private Deed Restrictions. - Carmen Gress (Defendant)
Wife of Richard D. Gress, trustee under agreement dated April 15, 1998, and owner of lot 285 in the Ocotillo Hills subdivision, subject to the contested 1976 Private Deed Restrictions. - Timothy J. Thomason (Counsel)
Mariscal, Weeks, McIntyre & Friedlander, P.A.
Counsel representing Defendants/Appellants/Cross-Appellees Richard D. and Carmen Gress. - Charles H. Oldham (Counsel)
Mariscal, Weeks, McIntyre & Friedlander, P.A.
Counsel representing Defendants/Appellants/Cross-Appellees Richard D. and Carmen Gress.
Neutral Parties
- Daniel A. Barker (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Authoring Appellate Judge on Department B who delivered the Court’s opinion reversing the summary judgment. - Patricia K. Norris (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Presiding Appellate Judge for Department B on Department B. - Jon W. Thompson (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Appellate Judge for Department B. - Janet E. Barton (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court
Trial Court Judge who presided over the underlying case (Cause No. CV 2005-009405) and granted summary judgment in favor of the Multaris. - Philip G. Urry (Other)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Clerk of the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One. - Rachelle M. Resnick (Other)
Arizona Supreme Court
Clerk of the Arizona Supreme Court who received the transmittal of the Petition for Review. - Michael K. Jeanes (Other)
Maricopa County Superior Court
Clerk of the Maricopa County Superior Court. - Patricia Sanderman (Other)
Maricopa County Superior Court
Supervisor of the Appeals Section of the Maricopa County Superior Court. - Minnesota Title Company (Other)
Original developer and legal owner of lots 244 through 297, which recorded the uniform 1973 Declaration of Deed Restrictions and subsequent lot-specific private deed restrictions.
What happened
In April 1973, Minnesota Title Company, the original legal owner of lots 244 through 297 in the Ocotillo Hills subdivision, recorded a uniform ‘Declaration of Deed Restrictions’ permitting accessory structures of any size and requiring a two-thirds vote of lot owners to change the covenants. Subsequently, between 1973 and 1978, the developer recorded individual ‘private deed restrictions’ on thirty-two of the fifty-four lots as they were sold.
In 1976, Minnesota Title recorded private deed restrictions on lot 285 (later owned by the Gresses) prohibiting structures under 1,400 square feet or higher than 13 feet, with a clause allowing the owner of lot 290 (later owned by the Multaris) to sue for violations and recover attorneys’ fees. In 2005, the Gresses began building a small accessory building. The Multaris sued to stop construction and enforce the 1976 restrictions. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Multaris, which the Gresses appealed.
Video overview: CC&R Amendment Limits
The Arizona Court of Appeals ruled that developers cannot bypass subdivision-wide voting requirements by recording restrictive covenants on individual lots.
Procedural timeline
Complete uploaded source-document index
This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/dominick-and-lynn-multari-v-richard-and-carmen-gress/raw/: 13 PDFs. 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.
0000 Div 1 Civil Notice To Counsel Appell
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0000 Div 1 Notice To Counsel Appellees Fe
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0000 Div 1 Civil Record Ordered From Supe
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
0000 Div 1 Inventory
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0000 Div 1 Under Advisement
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0000 Div 1 Notice Of Oa Or Conference
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0000 Div 1 Notice Of Oa Or Conference 2
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0000 Div I Request For Notification If Op
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
0000 Div 1 Westmead Package Letters
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0000 Opinion
Type: Decision or judgment
Opinion holding that a developer cannot utilize private deed restrictions on multiple lots in a residential subdivision to alter uniform covenants and restrictions otherwise applicable to those lots without following the uniform declaration’s formal amendment procedures.
0000 Div 1 Petition For Review Transmitt
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0000 Div 1 Civil Mandate Package
Type: Decision or judgment
Decision document; read it to understand the controlling result before moving to later filings.
0000 Div 1 Westmeadbureau Package Lette
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
FAQ
Is the court’s decision in Multari v. Gress precedential?
Yes. This is a published Arizona Court of Appeals opinion, which makes it binding legal precedent in Arizona. It can be cited as authoritative case law in disputes involving subdivision deed restrictions.
Can a developer record separate private restrictions on individual lots that conflict with uniform CC&Rs?
No. The court held that a developer cannot use lot-specific private deed restrictions to alter or restrict rights granted under a previously recorded uniform declaration of covenants without following the formal amendment procedures specified in that uniform declaration.
What happens if a developer tries to bypass formal CC&R amendment procedures?
Any lot-specific private restrictions recorded by a developer that effectively change or restrict the rights guaranteed under the uniform subdivision declaration will be declared invalid and unenforceable if they did not follow the uniform declaration’s formal amendment processes.
Why did the Multaris lose their lawsuit to enforce the 13-foot structure height limit against the Gresses?
Although the Multaris had a private restriction recorded on the Gresses’ lot in 1976 that limited accessory structures to 13 feet in height, the court ruled this restriction invalid because it conflicted with the 1973 subdivision-wide uniform declaration, which allowed accessory buildings of any dimension and required a two-thirds owner vote to amend.
Can a homeowner recover attorneys’ fees if they sue based on an invalid private deed restriction?
No. Because the lot-specific private deed restriction was ruled invalid, the Multaris were not the successful party and could not recover attorneys’ fees or costs under either the statutory provision (A.R.S. § 12-341.01) or the invalid restriction itself.
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 | 1 CA-CV 06-0221 |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Court of Appeals |
| Decision / key date | April 24, 2007 |
| Judge / panel | Hon. Daniel A. Barker, Hon. Patricia K. Norris, Hon. Jon W. Thompson |
| Parties | Dominick and Lynn Multari (Plaintiffs/Appellees/Cross-Appellants) vs. Richard D. and Carmen Gress, as trustees (Defendants/Appellants/Cross-Appellees) |
| Governing law | |
| Topics | cc-and-rsarchitectural-reviewprocedureattorneys-fees |
| Outcome / holding | The Arizona Court of Appeals held that a developer cannot utilize private deed restrictions on multiple lots in a residential subdivision to alter uniform covenants and restrictions otherwise applicable to those lots without following the uniform declaration’s formal amendment procedures. |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Uploaded source package | 13 PDFs |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 22 roadmap entries |
| Video overview | Multari: CC&R Amendment Limits |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 5 questions |
| Curated download aliases | 3 download links |
Key Issues & Findings
Dominick and Lynn Multari sued their neighbors, Richard and Carmen Gress, seeking to enforce private deed restrictions recorded by the subdivision’s developer in 1976. The 1976 restrictions limited the size and height of accessory structures on the Gresses’ lot. The Gresses argued that these restrictions were invalid because they conflicted with a 1973 Declaration of Deed Restrictions that applied uniformly to all lots in the subdivision and permitted accessory buildings of any dimension. The 1973 Declaration required a two-thirds vote of lot owners to change the covenants. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Multaris, enforcing the restrictions and awarding attorneys’ fees. On appeal, the Arizona Court of Appeals reversed. The court held that the developer could not bypass the 1973 Declaration’s amendment procedure by recording non-uniform private deed restrictions on individual lots. The private restrictions were declared invalid, and the case was remanded to enter judgment for the Gresses.
The Court of Appeals reasoned that the 1973 Declaration established uniform covenants and restrictions for the benefit of ‘each and every’ lot in the subdivision, which explicitly permitted accessory structures of any size. The subsequent 1976 Private Deed Restrictions placed by the developer on some but not all lots took away this right, which constituted an alteration or ‘change in part’ of the 1973 Declaration. Permitting developers to use private deed restrictions to bypass the formal amendment process would destroy the right of property owners to rely on restrictive covenants and completely upset the orderly plan of the subdivision.
Since the 1973 Declaration required a two-thirds vote of lot owners to change the covenants, and the developer’s private restrictions did not comply with this exclusive procedure, the non-uniform private restrictions limiting structure dimensions were held to be an invalid amendment. The court noted that this decision does not address scenarios in which a subsequent private property owner, rather than the developer acting on multiple lots, records private restrictions different from the uniform ones.
For Arizona HOAs and homeowners, this case establishes that a developer cannot selectively or unilaterally impose non-uniform private deed restrictions on individual lots that conflict with or alter rights granted under a previously recorded uniform declaration, unless they adhere strictly to the declaration’s specified amendment procedures. This enforces the predictability and environmental stability of subdivisions by protecting the rights of lot owners to rely on the original uniform covenants.
For legal counsel and boards, the ruling serves as a warning that restrictive covenants must be uniform and amended only via the formal processes established in the original declarations. Unilateral developer carve-outs or non-uniform lot restrictions are highly vulnerable to being declared invalid. Furthermore, litigation to enforce such invalid restrictions will result in the loss of any contractual right to attorneys’ fees and costs.