Arizona Court of Appeals | 1 CA-CV 06-0572
The court held that the homeowners had not shown the HOA violated Arizona fair-housing law, breached the CC&Rs, or created a nuisance based on the common-area access conditions at issue.
Last updated July 6, 2026. Case: Richard B. Nolan and Patricia E. Nolan v. Starlight Pines Homeowners Association; 1 CA-CV 06-0572; Arizona Court of Appeals.
Scope note: This page covers the public Arizona Court of Appeals ruling or opinion in Richard B. Nolan and Patricia E. Nolan v. Starlight Pines Homeowners Association. The uploaded source-document index below is generated from the local raw source folder; AI-generated review materials are not treated as court authority. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The takeaway
The court held that the homeowners had not shown the HOA violated Arizona fair-housing law, breached the CC&Rs, or created a nuisance based on the common-area access conditions at issue.
What the ruling says
The Nolans claimed their HOA discriminated against a wheelchair-bound owner by failing to make parts of the development’s common areas easier to access. They also argued the HOA breached the CC&Rs and created a nuisance. The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the HOA. The court recognized that Arizona fair-housing law can require accommodations in some settings, but it concluded the specific features challenged here did not create a viable claim on the record presented. It also held that the CC&R language granting owners a right to use common areas did not itself promise that the HOA would retrofit those areas to make them accessible in every circumstance. The opinion is useful because it shows the limits of access claims when the governing documents and the statutory theory do not fit the facts tightly enough.
On the contract claim, the court read the CC&Rs as granting a nonexclusive right to use common areas, not as an affirmative promise by the association to redesign or reconstruct those areas to accommodate every disability-related access problem. The language did not support the broader duty the homeowners urged.
On the statutory discrimination theory, the court distinguished earlier Arizona fair-housing cases in which an HOA had refused a specific accommodation request tied directly to housing access or occupancy. In this record, the challenged conditions and the requested changes did not establish the same kind of legally required accommodation claim. That left the nuisance theory unsupported as well.
This case matters because it shows that not every accessibility dispute in an HOA becomes a winning fair-housing or contract case. Plaintiffs still need a clear link between the requested accommodation, the statutory duty, and the actual housing-related barrier.
For boards, Nolan is not a license to ignore disability issues. It is a reminder that the analysis is fact-specific and that document language and the exact accommodation request matter.
Video overview of the case record
An AI-generated video overview of Richard B. Nolan and Patricia E. Nolan v. Starlight Pines Homeowners Association (1 CA-CV 06-0572). Fair-housing and covenant claims failed because the homeowners did not prove HOA misconduct. This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own records control.
Listen: audio deep dive on the case record
An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the case record in Richard B. Nolan and Patricia E. Nolan v. Starlight Pines Homeowners Association. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked records below.
Legal hooks
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Statutes interpreted | A.R.S. § 41-1491.19 |
| Topic tags | fair-housing, cc-and-rs |
Complete source-document index
This index contains 0 PDFs, 2 other source files 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.
Courtlistener Opinion
Type: Decision or judgment
Public court opinion text source used to build this case-file page and to supply NotebookLM with a substantive source.
Courtlistener Opinion Plain
Type: Decision or judgment
Decision document; read it to understand the controlling result before moving to later filings.
FAQ
What did Richard B. Nolan and Patricia E. Nolan v. Starlight Pines HOA hold?
The court held that the homeowners had not shown the HOA violated Arizona fair-housing law, breached the CC&Rs, or created a nuisance based on the common-area access conditions at issue.
Why does this case matter for Arizona HOA disputes?
This case matters because it shows that not every accessibility dispute in an HOA becomes a winning fair-housing or contract case. Plaintiffs still need a clear link between the requested accommodation, the statutory duty, and the actual housing-related barrier. For boards, Nolan is not a license to ignore disability issues. It is a reminder that the analysis is fact-specific and that document language and the exact accommodation request matter.
Does this page include a NotebookLM video?
Not yet. This source-backed authority page was created first so the case can be evaluated for Stage-2 media generation without forcing a source-less docket-minute record through NotebookLM.
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 06-0572 |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Court of Appeals |
| Decision / key date | October 9, 2007 |
| Judge / panel | Judge Johnsen |
| Parties | Homeowners sued the HOA claiming disability discrimination and breach of contract because certain common-area access points were not wheelchair accessible. |
| Governing law |
|
| Topics | Fair HousingCC&Rs |
| Outcome / holding | The court held that the homeowners had not shown the HOA violated Arizona fair-housing law, breached the CC&Rs, or created a nuisance based on the common-area access conditions at issue. |
| Primary public source | View source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Reviewed source package | 2 other source files |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | No separate litigation roadmap table on this page |
| Video overview | Richard B. Nolan and Patricia E. Nolan v. Starlight Pines Homeowners Association |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 3 questions |
| Featured download links | 0 download links |
Key Issues & Findings
The Nolans claimed their HOA discriminated against a wheelchair-bound owner by failing to make parts of the development's common areas easier to access. They also argued the HOA breached the CC&Rs and created a nuisance. The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the HOA. The court recognized that Arizona fair-housing law can require accommodations in some settings, but it concluded the specific features challenged here did not create a viable claim on the record presented. It also held that the CC&R language granting owners a right to use common areas did not itself promise that the HOA would retrofit those areas to make them accessible in every circumstance. The opinion is useful because it shows the limits of access claims when the governing documents and the statutory theory do not fit the facts tightly enough.
On the contract claim, the court read the CC&Rs as granting a nonexclusive right to use common areas, not as an affirmative promise by the association to redesign or reconstruct those areas to accommodate every disability-related access problem. The language did not support the broader duty the homeowners urged.
On the statutory discrimination theory, the court distinguished earlier Arizona fair-housing cases in which an HOA had refused a specific accommodation request tied directly to housing access or occupancy. In this record, the challenged conditions and the requested changes did not establish the same kind of legally required accommodation claim. That left the nuisance theory unsupported as well.
This case matters because it shows that not every accessibility dispute in an HOA becomes a winning fair-housing or contract case. Plaintiffs still need a clear link between the requested accommodation, the statutory duty, and the actual housing-related barrier.
For boards, Nolan is not a license to ignore disability issues. It is a reminder that the analysis is fact-specific and that document language and the exact accommodation request matter.