Assessments & CC&Rs | A.R.S. §§ 12-1832, 12-341.01 | 1 CA-CV 25-0709
In this 2026 unpublished decision, Division One applied Kalway v. Calabria Ranch to affirm that a homeowners’ association could not impose a new $300 capital-improvement assessment tied to a golf course its CC&Rs had previously excluded from association responsibility, and it upheld the fee award to the homeowner.
Last updated June 30, 2026. Case: Jimmie Klatt v. SunBird Golf Resort Homeowners Association Inc., 1 CA-CV 25-0709.
Scope note: This page covers Jimmie Klatt v. SunBird Golf Resort Homeowners Association Inc. (1 CA-CV 25-0709) as a public Arizona Court of Appeals HOA case guide. The source decision came from Division One. The downloadable source-document index below is generated from local raw source files when a PDF opinion is available. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
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 superior court granted summary judgment for Klatt, applied Kalway, and found the Amendment was not foreseeable. It later entered final judgment declaring the Amendment void, invalid, and of no force and effect, and awarded Klatt attorneys’ fees plus costs. The Association appealed.
The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, affirmed. It held the Association had waived any standing challenge and that, in any event, Klatt had standing and a justiciable controversy, and it concluded the Amendment was an unforeseeable new obligation under Kalway. The court denied the Association’s fee request because it did not prevail and awarded Klatt reasonable attorneys’ fees and taxable costs under A.R.S. § 12-341.01, subject to ARCAP 21.
Procedural timeline
Complete uploaded source-document index
This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/klatt-v-sunbird-golf-resort-homeowners-association/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.
Memorandum Decision
Type: Decision or judgment
Memorandum decision affirming that the $300 golf-course assessment amendment was void as unforeseeable under Kalway.
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.
Who paid attorneys’ fees?
The superior court awarded Klatt attorneys’ fees and costs, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. On appeal, the court denied the Association’s fee request because it did not prevail and, in its discretion, awarded Klatt reasonable attorneys’ fees and taxable costs under A.R.S. § 12-341.01, subject to ARCAP 21.
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.
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 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-and-rsattorneys-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 source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Uploaded source package | 1 PDF |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 7 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
A homeowner in the age-restricted SunBird community sued his homeowners’ association after a 2021 amendment to the CC&Rs created a fund to maintain and improve common areas including the separately owned SunBird Golf Course, and imposed a $300 capital-improvement assessment on people who buy SunBird lots after the amendment. The 2015 CC&Rs in effect when the homeowner 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. The superior court granted summary judgment for the homeowner, declared the amendment void under Kalway v. Calabria Ranch HOA, LLC, and awarded him attorneys’ fees and costs. Division One of the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the homeowner had standing and a justiciable controversy and that the amendment was unforeseeable because the earlier CC&Rs plainly barred using association funds for the golf course.
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.
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.