Superior Court HOA Case
A Maricopa County judge upheld Desert Mountain’s short-term-rental amendment, rejected open-meeting and voting-threshold challenges, and awarded the association fees and costs.
Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Nicdon 10663 LLC v. Desert Mountain Master Association, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2018-015165.
Scope note: This page covers Nicdon 10663 LLC v. Desert Mountain Master Association (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2018-015165) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s own filed minute entries, especially the July 29, 2019 under-advisement ruling and the October 24, 2019 under-advisement rulings on clarification, amendment, fees, and costs; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: the last collected minute entry, dated May 19, 2020, shows the court denied Desert Mountain’s supplemental fee application as untimely and granted Nicdon’s motion to quash after a supersedeas bond was posted; the minute entries reviewed here do not show the appellate outcome. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The takeaway
The superior court upheld Desert Mountain’s short-term-rental amendment. It held that the Master Declaration expressly allowed the board to add use restrictions through the Section 5.20 major-decision procedure, that the association used the correct voting threshold when more than two-thirds of the votes cast at the called meeting approved the amendment, and that Arizona law did not make the restriction invalid. Later, the court denied Nicdon leave to add an open-meeting theory because the request came after summary judgment and would be futile, then awarded Desert Mountain its fees and costs as the prevailing party.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Nicdon 10663 LLC (Plaintiff)
Owner of a residence within Desert Mountain Master Association that challenged the association’s 2018 short-term-rental amendment. - Jonathan A. Dessaules (Counsel)
Counsel for Nicdon in the minute entries, including the February 2019 hearing and later proceedings. - Jacob A. Kubert (Counsel)
Counsel appearing for Nicdon at the May 2019 status conference and June 2019 oral argument.
Respondent Side
- Desert Mountain Master Association (Defendant)
Homeowners association that adopted and defended the 2018 amendment to its Master Declaration restricting short-term rentals. - Curtis S. Ekmark (Counsel)
Counsel for Desert Mountain throughout the minute entries. - Gregory A. Stein (Counsel)
Counsel appearing with Curtis S. Ekmark for Desert Mountain at the February, June, and October 2019 hearings.
Neutral Parties
- Colleen L. French (Judge)
Judicial officer who handled the February 2019 order-to-show-cause return hearing. - Danielle J. Viola (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court judge who issued the July 2019 and October 2019 under-advisement rulings. - M. Scott McCoy (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court judge who handled post-judgment bond, stay, subpoena, and supplemental-fee matters.
What happened
Nicdon 10663 LLC owned a residence in Desert Mountain. In 2018, Desert Mountain Master Association recorded an amendment to its Master Declaration that restricted short-term rentals to eligible renters and generally barred rentals to ineligible renters for periods of less than thirty days. The court described the core dispute as whether the association followed the correct procedure to adopt that rental restriction and whether the restriction was valid.
The association first tried a 60-day rental proposal, received substantial owner objections, then rescinded that proposal and moved forward with a 30-day minimum. The February 2018 board resolution triggered the Section 5.20 objection process. More than ten percent of members objected, so the matter went to a member vote. The ruling states that 1,323 owners voted for the amendment, 430 voted against it, and 8 abstained out of 1,761 votes cast.
Nicdon argued the amendment was invalid because the declaration did not warn buyers that the association could add a new 30-day rental minimum, because the amendment allegedly favored the Desert Mountain Golf Club, because Arizona law required a different level of consent, and because the amendment process allegedly violated open-meeting requirements and the governing documents. Desert Mountain argued Section 4.2 expressly allowed use restrictions to be amended or added, and Section 5.20 supplied the voting process for that major decision.
Judge Danielle J. Viola granted Desert Mountain summary judgment on July 29, 2019. The court held that Section 4.2 expressly contemplated adding use restrictions, Section 5.20 required two-thirds of eligible votes present in person or by absentee ballot at the called meeting rather than a majority of all members, the amendment applied uniformly, and A.R.S. § 33-1806 supported enforcement of declaration-based rental time-period restrictions. The court also found Nicdon had not shown that alleged open-meeting problems voided the later owner vote.
On October 24, 2019, the court clarified that the July ruling did not give Nicdon any new right to rent to prospective club members who were not eligible renters under the amendment. The same ruling denied Nicdon leave to file an amended complaint, awarded Desert Mountain $109,145.00 in attorneys’ fees and $4,673.79 in costs, and denied Nicdon’s fee request. Later entries denied Nicdon’s new-trial motion, set a supersedeas bond, temporarily stayed enforcement after a subpoena dispute, and denied Desert Mountain’s supplemental fee application as untimely.
Procedural timeline
Complete uploaded source-document index
This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/nicdon-10663-llc-v-desert-mountain-master-association/raw/: 17 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.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Minute entry denying Nicdon’s Rule 56(d) relief and setting a deadline for its response to Desert Mountain’s summary-judgment motion.
Oral Argument Set
Type: Court/source PDF
Minute entry setting oral argument on Desert Mountain’s summary-judgment motion.
Status Conference
Type: Court/source PDF
Status-conference minute entry adding all pending summary-judgment, strike, Rule 56(d), and Rule 11 motions to the June 7 argument.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Minute entry ordering Desert Mountain to clarify its Rule 56(d) request or have the request deemed abandoned.
Oral Argument
Type: Court/source PDF
Oral-argument minute entry taking Nicdon’s summary-judgment motion, Desert Mountain’s motion to strike, and Desert Mountain’s Rule 11 motion under advisement.
Under Advisement Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Under-advisement ruling granting Desert Mountain summary judgment, denying Nicdon summary judgment, denying the motion to strike and Rule 11 motion, and holding the rental amendment valid under the declaration and Arizona law.
Oral Argument Set
Type: Court/source PDF
Minute entry setting argument on proposed judgments, fee applications, Desert Mountain’s clarification motion, and Nicdon’s motion for leave to amend.
Oral Argument
Type: Court/source PDF
Oral-argument minute entry taking the competing fee applications, proposed judgments, clarification motion, and motion for leave to amend under advisement.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Correcting minute entry revising the July 29 summary-judgment ruling’s cross-motion standard while leaving the balance of the ruling unchanged.
Under Advisement Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Under-advisement ruling granting Desert Mountain clarification, denying Nicdon leave to amend, awarding Desert Mountain $109,145.00 in attorneys’ fees and $4,673.79 in costs, and denying Nicdon’s fee request.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying Nicdon’s Rule 59 motion for new trial without oral argument.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Minute entry correcting Judge McCoy’s division contact information.
Oral Argument Set
Type: Court/source PDF
Hearing-set minute entry denying expedited treatment and setting an evidentiary hearing on Nicdon’s supersedeas-bond and stay motion.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Minute entry converting the supersedeas-bond evidentiary hearing to a telephonic hearing because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling setting the supersedeas bond at $113,818.79 and vacating the scheduled evidentiary hearing.
Oral Argument
Type: Court/source PDF
Emergency-hearing minute entry staying Bank of America document production and staying enforcement of the judgment for thirty days.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying Desert Mountain’s supplemental fee-and-cost application as untimely and granting Nicdon’s motion to quash because a supersedeas bond had been posted.
FAQ
What rental restriction did the court uphold?
The court upheld Desert Mountain’s amendment to its Master Declaration restricting rentals to ineligible renters for periods of less than thirty days, while allowing rentals to eligible renters as defined in the amendment.
Why did the court say the association used the right voting threshold?
Section 5.20 allowed a major decision to proceed, after more than ten percent of members objected, if approved by two-thirds of eligible votes present in person or by absentee ballot at a meeting called for that purpose. The court held that language required two-thirds of the votes cast at the called meeting, not a majority of all members.
Did the court require unanimous owner consent?
No. The court rejected Nicdon’s unanimous-consent argument, including its reliance on the Arizona Condominium Act’s A.R.S. § 33-1227(D), because the case involved a homeowners association and the declaration itself contained a specific amendment process for use restrictions.
How did A.R.S. § 33-1806 matter?
The court read A.R.S. § 33-1806 as supporting enforcement of rental time-period restrictions when those restrictions are in the declaration, and it noted that A.R.S. § 33-1802 includes amendments within the declaration.
What happened to Nicdon’s open-meeting theory?
The court found the theory was not clearly pleaded before summary judgment and, even if considered, Nicdon had not cited authority showing that an alleged A.R.S. § 33-1804 problem would void a later properly noticed owner vote approving the amendment.
Why were fees awarded to Desert Mountain?
The court treated Desert Mountain as the prevailing party under the declaration’s fee provision and as the successful party under A.R.S. § 12-341.01. It awarded $109,145.00 in attorneys’ fees and $4,673.79 in costs after reducing the requested fees for excessive amounts tied to unsuccessful procedural motions.
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 | CV2018-015165 (Maricopa County Superior Court) |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Superior Court |
| Decision / key date | October 24, 2019 |
| Judge / panel | Hon. Colleen L. French, Hon. Danielle J. Viola, Hon. M. Scott McCoy |
| Parties | Nicdon 10663 LLC (Plaintiff, owner) v. Desert Mountain Master Association (Defendant, homeowners association) |
| Governing law | |
| Topics | amendmentsrental-restrictionsopen-meetingscc-and-rsattorneys-fees |
| Outcome / holding | The superior court upheld Desert Mountain’s short-term-rental amendment, granted the association summary judgment, denied Nicdon’s competing summary-judgment motion, denied leave to amend, and awarded Desert Mountain $109,145.00 in attorneys’ fees plus $4,673.79 in costs. |
| Primary public source | View source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Uploaded source package | 17 PDFs |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 10 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
Nicdon 10663 LLC challenged Desert Mountain Master Association’s 2018 amendment to its Master Declaration restricting short-term rentals. The superior court granted Desert Mountain summary judgment, holding that Section 4.2 expressly allowed the board to add use restrictions through the Section 5.20 major-decision process, that Section 5.20 required approval by two-thirds of eligible votes present in person or by absentee ballot at the called meeting rather than a majority of all members, and that the amendment was not inconsistent with Arizona law. The court rejected Nicdon’s open-meeting and procedural-defect theories as either not properly pleaded or not a basis to void the member-approved amendment, denied leave to amend as delayed, prejudicial, and futile, and awarded Desert Mountain attorneys’ fees and costs.
On the CC&R amendment issue, the court read Section 4.2 and Section 5.20 together. Section 4.2 said the board had the right to amend, repeal, or add use restrictions in Exhibit E, subject to member approval under Section 5.20. Section 5.20 then created a major-decision process: after board approval and notice to owners, if more than ten percent objected, the decision could be authorized by two-thirds of eligible votes present in person or by absentee ballot at a meeting called for that purpose. Because the board adopted a written resolution, more than ten percent objected, and 1,323 of 1,761 votes cast favored the amendment, the court held the declaration’s voting requirement was satisfied.
The court rejected Nicdon’s arguments that unanimous consent, a majority of all members, or the Arizona Condominium Act’s A.R.S. § 33-1227(D) standard controlled. It distinguished cases such as Dreamland and Wilson because Desert Mountain’s declaration already gave notice that use restrictions existed and could be amended, and because the rental amendment did not force owners into a new association or assessment structure. The court also concluded A.R.S. § 33-1806 supported enforcement of declaration-based rental time-period restrictions, and A.R.S. § 33-1802 included amendments within the declaration.
On procedure and open meetings, the court found Nicdon had not clearly pleaded the theory that earlier board conduct invalidated the amendment, and in any event had not cited authority showing that an alleged A.R.S. § 33-1804 violation would void a later properly noticed member vote. After summary judgment, the court denied Nicdon leave to amend because the request came after briefing, argument, and ruling; the proposed amendment would be futile in light of the court’s earlier analysis; and delay and prejudice weighed against reopening the case. The court then treated Desert Mountain as the prevailing party under the declaration’s fee provision and, independently, as the successful party under A.R.S. § 12-341.01, while reducing the requested fee award for excessive amounts tied to unsuccessful procedural motions.
This ruling is useful for Arizona HOA rental-restriction disputes because it shows how much turns on the recorded declaration’s amendment language. The court did not treat a short-term-rental restriction as automatically invalid merely because it added a new practical limit on rentals; it enforced the amendment because the declaration expressly allowed new use restrictions and specified a member-vote process that the association followed.
The case also shows the limits of open-meeting and procedural objections when the requested remedy is to void an owner-approved amendment. The court recognized A.R.S. § 33-1804 but found no authority in the record requiring invalidation of a later properly noticed member vote. As a superior-court ruling, it binds only the parties, but it is a detailed example of how a trial court analyzed CC&R amendment authority, rental-period restrictions, and fee-shifting after an association prevailed.