Arizona HOA case (non-precedential)
The Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment for a lot owner over a saguaro-with-sunglasses sculpture, ruling that CC&R silence on ‘sculptures’ was not dispositive and that the association must apply its governing documents reasonably.
Arizona Court of Appeals | No. 1 CA-CV 10-0604 (Ariz. Ct. App. Div. One May 31, 2011) (mem. decision) | Decided 2011-05-31 | Nonprecedential / citation-limited
Scope note: This educational page summarizes Pinnacle Peak Vistas III Homeowners’ Association v. Derailed, LLC, a Arizona Court of Appeals HOA-related authority. It is not legal advice.
Citation caveat: This unpublished memorandum decision is included for practical architectural-review context; no local ruling PDF is provided for this page.
Carpenter Hazlewood represented the homeowners association on appeal.
The takeaway
Reversing summary judgment entered for the lot owner, the Court of Appeals held that genuine issues of material fact remained as to whether the yard sculpture was subject to the Association’s CC&R approval and architectural-control provisions. The absence of the word ‘sculpture’ in the CC&Rs was not dispositive, and the Association and any reviewing committee must apply the governing documents reasonably. The matter was remanded for further proceedings.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Pinnacle Peak Vistas III Homeowners’ Association (Plaintiff-Appellant)
Community association that sought removal of the yard sculpture under the CC&Rs; prevailed on appeal, obtaining reversal and remand. - Joshua M. Bolen (Counsel)
Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Wood, P.L.C.
Appellate counsel for the Association; Carpenter Hazlewood served as counsel in this matter (the firm is a frequent HOA-side firm in Arizona). - Kellie J. Callahan (Counsel)
Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Wood, P.L.C.
Appellate counsel for the Association, with Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Wood, P.L.C.
Respondent Side
- Derailed, LLC (Defendant-Appellee)
Lot owner in the Pinnacle Peak Vistas III subdivision; won summary judgment below, which the Court of Appeals reversed. - Arvin Bernstein (Principal of Defendant-Appellee / homeowner)
Principal of Derailed, LLC and resident of the property where the saguaro-with-sunglasses sculpture was installed. - Steven R. Rensch (Counsel)
Rensch Law
Appellate counsel for Derailed, LLC.
Neutral Parties
- Sheldon H. Weisberg (Judge)
Judge of the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One; authored the unanimous memorandum decision. Other panel members are not identified in available sources.
What happened
Derailed, LLC owned a lot in the Pinnacle Peak Vistas III subdivision in Scottsdale, Arizona, a planned community governed by a recorded Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The company’s principal, Arvin Bernstein, lived on the property. In 2006 the owner installed a metal yard sculpture in the shape of a saguaro cactus wearing sunglasses.
Roughly two years after the sculpture went up, the Pinnacle Peak Vistas III Homeowners’ Association sent the owner a letter treating the sculpture as an unapproved modification of the property. The Association demanded that the sculpture be removed, taking the position that it violated the community’s CC&Rs and its architectural or design-review requirements.
When the dispute was not resolved, the Association filed suit against Derailed, LLC in the Maricopa County Superior Court seeking to enforce the governing documents. Derailed defended on the ground, among others, that the CC&Rs did not specifically address sculptures and therefore did not authorize the Association to compel removal of this particular yard feature.
The Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of Derailed, ending the case at the trial level in the owner’s favor. The Association appealed that ruling to the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, arguing that the sculpture was subject to the community’s approval and architectural-control provisions and that, at a minimum, disputed facts should have prevented summary judgment.
The Court of Appeals, in a unanimous memorandum decision authored by Judge Sheldon Weisberg, reversed. The panel acknowledged that the CC&Rs do not use the word ‘sculpture,’ but held that this omission did not entitle the owner to judgment as a matter of law. The court framed the real question as whether the sculpture fell within the Declaration’s broader provisions on structures, exterior changes, and design review.
Because material factual questions remained about whether and how the CC&Rs and community rules reached the sculpture, the court concluded that summary judgment was improper. It emphasized that the Association and any committee reviewing the sculpture must act reasonably in applying the governing documents, and it expressly declined to decide whether the sculpture was ‘unsightly,’ leaving those issues for the trial court.
The Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case to the Superior Court for further proceedings consistent with its decision. Because the ruling is an unpublished memorandum decision, it is non-precedential and may be cited only as permitted by the applicable rules of the Arizona courts.
For Arizona homeowners and boards, this decision illustrates that a community’s authority to regulate what appears on a lot is not necessarily limited to the exact objects listed in the CC&Rs. The court declined to treat the Declaration’s silence on ‘sculptures’ as a loophole; instead it asked whether the item fell within broader categories such as structures, exterior modifications, or matters subject to architectural or design review. Owners considering a distinctive yard feature, and boards deciding whether to enforce, should read the governing documents as a whole rather than searching for a single missing word. At the same time, the opinion underscores a limit on association power: the Association and any reviewing committee must apply the CC&Rs reasonably, and courts will not simply defer to a subjective label like ‘unsightly.’ Just as important is the case’s procedural posture. Because disputed facts remained about how the documents applied, summary judgment was inappropriate and the dispute had to be developed further below. Finally, this is an unpublished memorandum decision, so it is non-precedential and carries no binding authority; it is useful here only as a neutral, educational illustration of how these CC&R and architectural-review questions can arise.
Counsel note: Carpenter Hazlewood represented the association in this architectural-review appeal.
Litigation record
The lot owner (Derailed, LLC, principal Arvin Bernstein) installs a metal yard sculpture of a saguaro cactus wearing sunglasses in the Pinnacle Peak Vistas III subdivision.
Filed by: Court record
Part of the record summarized for homeowners, boards, and counsel.
About two years later, the Homeowners’ Association sends a letter declaring the sculpture an unapproved modification and demanding its removal under the CC&Rs and architectural-review requirements.
Filed by: Court record
Part of the record summarized for homeowners, boards, and counsel.
The Association sues Derailed, LLC in Maricopa County Superior Court; the trial court grants summary judgment to the owner, and the Association appeals (No. 1 CA-CV 10-0604).
Filed by: Court record
Part of the record summarized for homeowners, boards, and counsel.
The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, reverses the summary judgment and remands, holding fact questions remain and that the Association must apply the CC&Rs reasonably.
Filed by: Court record
Part of the record summarized for homeowners, boards, and counsel.
FAQ
What was the dispute in Pinnacle Peak Vistas III Homeowners’ Association v. Derailed, LLC about?
A homeowners’ association in a Scottsdale subdivision objected to a metal yard sculpture, shaped like a saguaro cactus wearing sunglasses, that a lot owner (Derailed, LLC, whose principal was Arvin Bernstein) had installed. The Association treated the sculpture as an unapproved property modification and sued to have it removed under the community’s CC&Rs and architectural-review requirements.
Who won the case?
It was a split outcome by stage. The trial court granted summary judgment to the owner, but the Arizona Court of Appeals reversed that ruling in favor of the Association and sent the case back for further proceedings. The appellate decision did not finally decide whether the sculpture had to be removed; it decided only that the dispute could not be resolved on summary judgment.
Did the CC&Rs specifically ban sculptures?
No. The court acknowledged that the CC&Rs did not use the word ‘sculpture.’ It held, however, that this silence did not automatically entitle the owner to win. The key question was whether the sculpture fell within the CC&Rs’ broader provisions on structures, exterior modifications, and design or architectural review, which remained a disputed factual issue.
Is this decision binding precedent in Arizona?
No. This is an unpublished memorandum decision, which means it is non-precedential. It does not establish binding law and may be cited only as authorized by the applicable Arizona court rules. It is presented here purely as a neutral, educational illustration of how CC&R and architectural-review disputes can arise.
What does ‘reversed and remanded’ mean here?
‘Reversed’ means the Court of Appeals overturned the trial court’s summary judgment for the owner. ‘Remanded’ means the case was sent back to the Maricopa County Superior Court to continue, because genuine issues of material fact remained that a court could not resolve without further proceedings.
What is the practical takeaway for homeowners and boards?
Read the governing documents as a whole. A community’s authority may extend to items not named word-for-word in the CC&Rs if they fall within broader categories like structures or exterior modifications. At the same time, associations and their review committees must apply the documents reasonably, and courts will not simply accept a subjective label such as ‘unsightly.’ Homeowners and boards facing a similar issue should consult a qualified Arizona attorney about their specific facts.
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 | No. 1 CA-CV 10-0604 (Ariz. Ct. App. Div. One May 31, 2011) (mem. decision) |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Court of Appeals |
| Decision / key date | May 31, 2011 |
| Judge / panel | Sheldon H. Weisberg |
| Parties | A Scottsdale homeowners’ association sued a lot owner over an unapproved metal yard sculpture; the Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment for the owner, holding fact questions remained on whether the CC&Rs and architectural-review rules reached the sculpture. |
| Topics | architectural-reviewcc-and-rscovenantsproceduregood-faith-and-fair-dealing |
| Outcome / holding | Reversing summary judgment entered for the lot owner, the Court of Appeals held that genuine issues of material fact remained as to whether the yard sculpture was subject to the Association’s CC&R approval and architectural-control provisions. The absence of the word ‘sculpture’ in the CC&Rs was not dispositive, and the Association and any reviewing committee must apply the governing documents reasonably. The matter was remanded for further proceedings. |
| Primary public source | View source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Uploaded source package | No raw source-folder files found for this slug |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 4 roadmap entries |
| Video overview | No video embed currently configured |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 6 questions |
| Curated download aliases | 0 download links |
Key Issues & Findings
Pinnacle Peak Vistas III Homeowners’ Association sued Derailed, LLC, a lot owner in a Scottsdale subdivision whose principal was homeowner Arvin Bernstein, after Derailed installed a metal yard sculpture depicting a saguaro cactus wearing sunglasses. The sculpture was erected in 2006; about two years later the Association sent a letter declaring it an unapproved modification and demanding its removal, contending it violated the community’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and the community’s architectural or design-review requirements. The Maricopa County Superior Court granted summary judgment to Derailed, and the Association appealed. The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, reversed and remanded in an unpublished memorandum decision authored by Judge Sheldon Weisberg. The court noted that the CC&Rs do not specifically mention ‘sculptures,’ but rejected the idea that this omission entitled the owner to judgment as a matter of law. Factual questions remained about whether the sculpture qualified as a structure or exterior change subject to the approval provisions and how the Association’s rules applied. The court emphasized that the Association and any reviewing committee must act reasonably in applying the governing documents, while declining to decide whether the sculpture itself was ‘unsightly.’ Because disputed issues of material fact precluded summary judgment, the case was remanded for further proceedings. As a memorandum decision, the opinion is non-precedential and may be cited only as authorized by applicable court rules.
The court reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Association as the party opposing the motion. It reasoned that the CC&Rs’ silence on the specific word ‘sculpture’ did not, by itself, place the yard installation outside the Declaration’s reach; the operative question was whether the sculpture fell within the CC&Rs’ broader provisions governing structures, exterior modifications, and design or architectural review. Because the record left open whether the sculpture was a modification subject to approval and how the community’s rules applied to it, those were disputed factual issues for the trial court rather than questions the appellate court could resolve as a matter of law. The court also stressed that the Association and any committee charged with reviewing the sculpture must exercise their authority reasonably when applying the governing documents, and it expressly declined to opine on whether the sculpture was ‘unsightly,’ leaving aesthetic judgments and the reasonableness of enforcement to be developed on remand.
For Arizona homeowners and boards, this decision illustrates that a community’s authority to regulate what appears on a lot is not necessarily limited to the exact objects listed in the CC&Rs. The court declined to treat the Declaration’s silence on ‘sculptures’ as a loophole; instead it asked whether the item fell within broader categories such as structures, exterior modifications, or matters subject to architectural or design review. Owners considering a distinctive yard feature, and boards deciding whether to enforce, should read the governing documents as a whole rather than searching for a single missing word.
At the same time, the opinion underscores a limit on association power: the Association and any reviewing committee must apply the CC&Rs reasonably, and courts will not simply defer to a subjective label like ‘unsightly.’ Just as important is the case’s procedural posture. Because disputed facts remained about how the documents applied, summary judgment was inappropriate and the dispute had to be developed further below. Finally, this is an unpublished memorandum decision, so it is non-precedential and carries no binding authority; it is useful here only as a neutral, educational illustration of how these CC&R and architectural-review questions can arise.