CC&R Enforceability | A.R.S. §§ 33-441, 33-1808 | 1 CA-CV 12-0362
This landmark case illustrates the limits of HOA authority when community covenants conflict with state-mandated property rights. It establishes that legislative protections for homeowners override pre-existing CC&R provisions, even if those covenants were recorded before the statutes were passed.
Last updated June 29, 2026. Case: Hawk, Court of Appeals No. 1 CA-CV 12-0362; opinion affirming.
Current-status note: Pipeline note: the public raw-source folder contains source files that were not in the last staged NotebookLM source set. The page remains a source-linked record, but generated media should be rebuilt or rechecked after the staged source manifest catches up.
Scope note: This page details the factual background, key legal disputes, and the complete procedural timeline for the landmark Arizona case of Hawk v. PC Village Association. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The takeaway
A.R.S. § 33-441 applies prospectively to prohibit the enforcement of pre-existing covenants, conditions, and restrictions that restrict the display of ‘for sale’ signs, and such application does not violate the Contract Clause of the United States or Arizona Constitutions.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Robert R. Hawk (Plaintiff)
Co-owner of Pine Canyon Lot 197 who displayed a standard 'For Sale' sign on his property, initiating the dispute. - Cecilia J. Hawk (Plaintiff)
Co-owner of Pine Canyon Lot 197 and co-plaintiff/appellee alongside her husband Robert R. Hawk. - Tevis Reich (Counsel)
Law Office of Tevis Reich
Represented plaintiffs and appellees Robert and Cecilia Hawk throughout the trial court and appeal. - Richard V. Mack (Counsel)
Mack, Watson & Stratman, P.L.C.
Counsel who represented the Arizona Association of REALTORS® as amicus curiae in support of the Hawks. - Scott M. Drucker (Counsel)
Mack, Watson & Stratman, P.L.C.
Counsel who represented the Arizona Association of REALTORS® as amicus curiae in support of the Hawks. - K. Michelle Lind (Counsel)
Arizona Association of REALTORS®
General Counsel who represented the Arizona Association of REALTORS® as amicus curiae.
Respondent Side
- PC Village Association, Inc. (Defendant)
Arizona non-profit homeowners association responsible for managing the Pine Canyon Subdivision. - Edward G. Hochuli (Counsel)
Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C.
Represented defendant and appellant PC Village Association, Inc. in both the trial court and on appeal. - J. Gary Linder (Counsel)
Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C.
Represented defendant and appellant PC Village Association, Inc. - Jonathan Confer (Counsel)
Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C.
Represented defendant and appellant PC Village Association, Inc. - Lori L. Voepel (Counsel)
Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C.
Appellate counsel who represented PC Village Association, Inc. throughout the appeals process. - Jonathan P. Barnes, Jr. (Counsel)
Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C.
Represented appellant PC Village Association, Inc. on appeal. - Warren Smith (Association President)
PC Village Association, Inc.
President of the PC Village Association who issued courtesy notices and signed the supersedeas bond on appeal. - T. Randall Bailey (Witness)
Pine Canyon resident who submitted an affidavit supporting the validity of the CC&R sign ban. - Sherri Slayton (Witness)
Pine Canyon resident who submitted an affidavit supporting the validity of the CC&R sign ban. - Randall Lee Hutchison (Witness)
Pine Canyon resident who submitted an affidavit supporting the validity of the CC&R sign ban. - Arlene McDonald (Witness)
Pine Canyon resident who submitted an affidavit supporting the validity of the CC&R sign ban. - Howard Sadkin (Witness)
Pine Canyon resident who submitted an affidavit supporting the validity of the CC&R sign ban. - Deborah S. Schweikert (Witness)
Pine Canyon resident who submitted an affidavit supporting the validity of the CC&R sign ban. - James R. Schweikert (Witness)
Pine Canyon resident who submitted an affidavit supporting the validity of the CC&R sign ban. - Pamela S. Slayton (Witness)
Pine Canyon resident who submitted an affidavit supporting the validity of the CC&R sign ban. - James D. Siragusa (Witness)
Pine Canyon resident who submitted an affidavit supporting the validity of the CC&R sign ban. - Patrick H. Stewart (Witness)
Pine Canyon resident who submitted an affidavit supporting the validity of the CC&R sign ban.
Neutral Parties
- Hon. Mark R. Moran (Judge)
Coconino County Superior Court
Trial judge (Division 3) who granted summary judgment and awarded attorney's fees to the Hawks. - Hon. Peter B. Swann (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Appellate judge who sat on the panel that heard oral arguments and decided the appeal. - Hon. Patricia A. Orozco (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Presiding appellate judge on the panel that heard oral arguments and decided the appeal. - Hon. Kent E. Cattani (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Appellate judge on the panel that heard oral arguments and decided the appeal. - Deborah Young (Other)
Coconino County Superior Court
Clerk of Coconino County Superior Court. - Ruth A. Willingham (Other)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Clerk of the Court of Appeals, Division One. - Jonna E. Baker (Other)
Coconino County Superior Court
Certified Court Reporter who transcribed the oral arguments in the trial court.
What happened
In 2009, Robert and Cecilia Hawk purchased Lot 197 in Pine Canyon, a master-planned subdivision in Flagstaff managed by the PC Village Association. The community was subject to CC&Rs recorded in 2002 and amended in 2004, which contained a strict ban in Section 12.3 prohibiting any ‘For Sale’ or ‘For Rent’ signs on residential lots. In August 2011, the Hawks displayed a standard ‘For Sale’ sign on their lot to market their home. Citing the CC&R restriction, PC Village personnel entered the lot on two consecutive days and removed the sign.
In response, the Hawks filed a complaint in Coconino County Superior Court for declaratory and injunctive relief, asserting that the sign prohibition was invalid under A.R.S. § 33-441 and § 33-1808(F). The Association counterclaimed and asserted that retroactive application of the statutes would violate the Contract Clauses of the Arizona and United States Constitutions. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Hawks, enjoining the Association from removing compliant signs and awarding the Hawks $21,820 in fees and costs. The Association appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment on all grounds.
Video overview of the ruling
An AI-generated video overview of Hawk v. PC Village Association (1 CA-CV 12-0362). A.R.S. § 33-441 bars enforcement of certain old covenants only prospectively. This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own ruling controls.
Listen: audio deep dive on the ruling
An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the court’s reasoning and disposition in Hawk v. PC Village Association. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.
Procedural timeline
Robert and Cecilia Hawk purchase Lot 197 in the Pine Canyon Subdivision.
Robert Hawk places a standard 'For Sale' sign on Lot 197.
PC Village Association personnel remove the sign and send a courtesy violation notice citing CC&R Section 12.3.
Plaintiffs Robert and Cecilia Hawk file their Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief in Coconino County Superior Court (Case No. CV2011-00775) and file a Certificate Regarding Arbitration.
Summons and Complaint are formally served on defendant PC Village Association, Inc.
Defendant PC Village Association, Inc. files its Answer, Counterclaim, Demand for Jury Trial, and Certificate of Compulsory Arbitration.
Plaintiffs file their Answer to Defendant's Counterclaim.
Superior Court issues initial and amended orders setting a Case Management Conference.
Plaintiffs file their Motion for Summary Judgment.
Parties file a Stipulation to Extend Deadline to Respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment.
Parties file an Amended Stipulation to Extend Deadline to Respond.
Parties file a Stipulated Motion to Continue Case Management Conference.
Superior Court issues an Order granting stipulation to continue the Case Management Conference.
Defendant files Response to summary judgment, Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment challenging constitutionality of sign statutes, Notice of Claim of Unconstitutionality, and Statement of Facts.
Superior Court holds Case Management Conference and schedules oral argument.
Plaintiffs file Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment and Response to Cross-Motion.
Defendant files Reply in Support of its Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and service affidavits.
Superior Court holds Oral Argument on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment and takes the matter under advisement.
Superior Court issues Under-Advisement Ruling granting summary judgment in favor of the Hawks.
Hawks file Affidavit of Attorney Fees and Statement of Costs.
Defendant files Opposition to Plaintiffs' Affidavit of Attorney's Fees and Costs.
Hawks file Reply to Opposition, Supplemental Affidavit of Attorney's Fees and Costs, and Notice of Lodging Proposed Judgment.
Defendant PC Village Association, Inc. files Notice of Appeal in Coconino County Superior Court.
Superior Court Clerk issues Notice of Bond Posted for Costs ($500 cash bond) and Notice Re: Notice of Appeal Filed.
Superior Court holds Status Conference regarding attorney's fees hearing.
Process server files Declaration of Service of subpoena duces tecum on defense counsel.
Hawks file Second Supplemental Affidavit of Attorney's Fees and Costs.
Superior Court enters Judgment in favor of the Hawks for $21,820 in attorney's fees and costs.
Superior Court holds hearing, hears oral argument on attorney's fees and Defendant's Rule 62(C) Motion to Stay/Suspend Enforcement, and takes Rule 62(C) under advisement.
Superior Court issues Under-Advisement Ruling denying Defendant's request to stay the injunction.
Court of Appeals Division One issues Civil Notice to Counsel regarding appeal filing fees and appellant opening brief deadlines.
PC Village Association, Inc. files Amended Notice of Appeal.
Appellant files Civil Appeals Docketing Statement and certificates of service for reporter's transcripts.
Court of Appeals issues Notice to Counsel confirming appellant filing fee payment and reminding of brief deadlines.
PC Village Association, Inc. files Notice of Posting Supersedeas Bond ($23,211.04) in Coconino County Superior Court.
PC Village Association, Inc. files Unopposed First Motion for Extension of Time to File Opening Brief.
PC Village Association, Inc. files Appellant's Opening Brief and Certificate of Compliance.
Hawks file Appellees' Answering Brief and Motion for Oral Argument.
Court of Appeals Division One enters Order for transmission of Coconino County Superior Court record.
Arizona Association of REALTORS® (AAR) files Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief.
Appellant PC Village Association, Inc. files Response in Opposition to Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief.
AAR files Reply in Support of Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief.
Appellant PC Village Association, Inc. files Appellant's Reply Brief and Certificate of Compliance.
AAR files its Amicus Curiae Brief.
Appellant PC Village Association, Inc. files Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Amicus Curiae Brief.
PC Village Association, Inc. files Appellant's Response to Amicus Curiae Brief.
Amicus counsel files Notice of Firm Name Change to Mack, Watson & Stratman, P.L.C.
Court of Appeals issues Notice of Oral Argument setting arguments for March 19, 2013.
Parties file Joint Request to Reschedule Oral Argument.
Court of Appeals issues Order resetting oral argument to April 16, 2013 at 9:30 a.m.
Parties file Joint Request to Reschedule Oral Argument (Second Request).
Court of Appeals issues Order resetting oral argument to April 16, 2013 at 2:00 p.m.
Court of Appeals Division One issues Notice and Amended Notice of Oral Argument.
Oral Argument held before Panel of Presiding Judge Orozco, Judge Swann, and Judge Cattani; case taken under advisement.
Court of Appeals Division One files its Opinion affirming the trial court's summary judgment and attorney's fee award.
Appellees Robert and Cecilia Hawk file Application and Affidavit of Attorney's Fees and Costs on Appeal.
Appellees file Notice of Withdrawal of Application and Affidavit of Attorney's Fees and Costs.
Court of Appeals Division One issues Civil Mandate returning jurisdiction to Coconino County Superior Court.
Complete source-document index
This index contains 113 PDFs 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.
0000 Index Of Record
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0001 Complaint
Type: Opening pleading
Starts or reframes the case and identifies the claims or relief requested.
0002 Certificate Regarding Arbitratio
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0003 Service Certificate
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0004 Answer
Type: Responsive pleading
Responding party's first substantive response to the complaint or petition.
0005 Certificate Of Compulsory Arbitra
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0006 Demand For Jury Trial
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0007 Answer To Defendants Counterclaim
Type: Responsive pleading
Responding party's first substantive response to the complaint or petition.
0008 Amended Order Setting Case Managem
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
0009 Order Setting Case Management Conf
Type: Court order/minute entry
Case-management filing; it tells the court how the parties propose to schedule and manage the case.
0010 Motion For Summary Judgment
Type: Motion/application
Party motion asking the court to decide specified claims before trial; it is not a ruling.
0011 Stipulation To Extend Deadline To R
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0012 Amended Stipulation To Extend Dead
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0013 Stipulated Motion To Continue Case
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
0014 Proposed Order
Type: Proposed order (not a ruling)
Unsigned form of relief requested by a party. It is not a ruling unless the judge signs and enters it.
0015 Order Re To Continue Case Managemen
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
0016 1 Response To Plaintiffs Motion For
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
0017 Notice Of Claim Of Unconstitutiona
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0018 Defendants Statement Of Facts Supp
Type: Statement of facts
Moving party's asserted facts and cited evidence. These are not findings made by the court.
0019 Minute Entry Case Management Confe
Type: Court order/minute entry
Case-management filing; it tells the court how the parties propose to schedule and manage the case.
0020 Reply To Plaintiffs Motion For Summ
Type: Motion/application
Reply paper; usually the final written response before the court takes the issue under advisement.
0021 Service Affidavit
Type: Declaration or affidavit
Witness statement submitted under oath or declaration; its assertions are evidence offered by a party, not court findings.
0022 Defendants Reply In Support Of Its C
Type: Briefing paper
Reply paper; usually the final written response before the court takes the issue under advisement.
0023 Minute Entry Oral Argumentunder AD
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
0024 Under Advisement Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
0025 Affidavit Of Attorney Fees And Stat
Type: Declaration or affidavit
Witness statement submitted under oath or declaration; its assertions are evidence offered by a party, not court findings.
0026 Pc Village Association Incs Opposi
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0027 Reply To Plaintiffs Affidavit Of At
Type: Declaration or affidavit
Witness statement submitted under oath or declaration; its assertions are evidence offered by a party, not court findings.
0028 Supplemental Affidavit Of Attorne
Type: Declaration or affidavit
Witness statement submitted under oath or declaration; its assertions are evidence offered by a party, not court findings.
0029 Notice Of Lodging Proposed Judgmen
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0030 Notice Of Appeal
Type: Procedural/service filing
Moves the dispute into appellate or judicial-review procedure; use it to track the next forum.
0031 Clerks Notice Of Bond Posted For Cos
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0032 Clerks Notice To Counsel Andor Part
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0033 Minute Entry Status Conference 050
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
0034 Service Affidavit
Type: Declaration or affidavit
Witness statement submitted under oath or declaration; its assertions are evidence offered by a party, not court findings.
0035 Second Supplemental Affidavit Of A
Type: Declaration or affidavit
Witness statement submitted under oath or declaration; its assertions are evidence offered by a party, not court findings.
0036 Under Advisement Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
0037 Judgment
Type: Decision or judgment
Decision document; read it to understand the controlling result before moving to later filings.
0038 Rule 62 C Motion To Suspend Enforcem
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
0039 Minute Entry Oral Argument Re Appli
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
0040 List Of Exhibit
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0000 Civil Notice To Counsel Appellants
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0000 Civil Appeals Docketing Statement
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0000 Notice Of Service Of February 28201
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0000 Notice Of Service Of May 242012 Repo
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0001 Certificate Of Service
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0001 Certificate Of Service 2
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0001 Certificate Of Service 3
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0002 Court Reporters Transcript 22812 J
Type: Court/source PDF
Adds hearing transcript material to the record for later review or appeal.
0002 Court Reporters Transcript 52412 J
Type: Court/source PDF
Adds hearing transcript material to the record for later review or appeal.
0002 Notice Of Appeal 042312 Amended Not
Type: Procedural/service filing
Moves the dispute into appellate or judicial-review procedure; use it to track the next forum.
0041 Amended Notice Of Appeal
Type: Procedural/service filing
Moves the dispute into appellate or judicial-review procedure; use it to track the next forum.
0000 Notice To Counsel Appellees Fees Du
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0000 Unopposedfirst Motion For Extensi
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
0001 Certificate Of Service
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0000 Opening Brief
Type: Briefing paper
Opening merits brief; this is where the appellant or moving party frames the legal argument.
0001 Certificate Of Compliance
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0002 Certificate Of Service
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0000 Appellees Answering Brief
Type: Responsive pleading
Responding party's first substantive response to the complaint or petition.
0000 Motion For Oral Argument
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
0001 Certificate Of Compliance
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0001 Certificate Of Service
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0002 Certificate Of Service
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0000 Civil Erecord Exceptions Ordered F
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
0000 Motion For Leave To File Amicus Curi
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
0001 Certificate Of Service
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0002 Amicus Curiae Brief
Type: Briefing paper
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0042 Notice Of Posting Supersedeas Bond
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0043 Order From Court Of Appeals
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
0000 Unopposedfirst Motion For Extensi
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
0001 Certificate Of Service
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0000 Appellants Response In Opposition
Type: Briefing paper
Opposing or responsive paper; compare it to the motion or request filed immediately before it.
0001 Certificate Of Service
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0000 Reply In Support Of Motion For Leave
Type: Motion/application
Reply paper; usually the final written response before the court takes the issue under advisement.
0001 Certificate Of Service
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0000 Reply Brief
Type: Briefing paper
Reply paper; usually the final written response before the court takes the issue under advisement.
0001 Certificate Of Compliance
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0002 Certificate Of Service
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0000 Amicus Curiae Brief
Type: Briefing paper
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0001 Certificate Of Compliance
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0002 Certificate Of Service
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0000 Motion For Extension Of Time To File
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
0001 Certificate Of Service
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0000 Appellants Response To Amicus Curi
Type: Briefing paper
Opposing or responsive paper; compare it to the motion or request filed immediately before it.
0001 Certificate Of Compliance
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0002 Certificate Of Service
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0000 Notice Of Firm Name Change
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0001 Certificate Of Service
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0000 Notice Of Oa Or Conference
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0000 Receipt Of Notice Of Oral Argument 3
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0000 Receipt Of Notice Of Oral Argument 3 2
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0000 Joint Request To Reschedule Oral Ar
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
0001 Certificate Of Service
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0000 Order Re Resetting Oral Argument
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
0000 Joint Request To Reschedule Oral Ar
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
0001 Certificate Of Service
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0000 Order Re Resetting Oral Argument
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
0000 Amended Notice Of Oa Or Conference
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0000 Notice Of Oa Or Conference
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0000 Receipt Of Notice Of Oral Argument 4
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0000 Notice Of Filing Return Receipt For
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0001 Certificate Of Service
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0000 Receipt Of Notice Of Oral Argument 4
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0000 Sign-in Sheetcase Is Under Adviseme
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0000 Enotification Of Opinion
Type: Decision or judgment
Decision document; read it to understand the controlling result before moving to later filings.
0000 Opinion
Type: Decision or judgment
Opinion holding that A.R.S. § 33-441 applies prospectively to prohibit the enforcement of pre-existing covenants, conditions, and restrictions that restrict the display of 'for sale' signs, and such application does not violate the Contract Clause of the United States or Arizona Constitutions.
0000 Application And Affidavit Of Attor
Type: Declaration or affidavit
Witness statement submitted under oath or declaration; its assertions are evidence offered by a party, not court findings.
0001 Certificate Of Mailing
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0002 Exhibit 1
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0003 Exhibit 2
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0000 Notice Of Withdrawal Of Applicatio
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0001 Certificate Of Service
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0000 Civil Mandate Package
Type: Decision or judgment
Decision document; read it to understand the controlling result before moving to later filings.
FAQ
Can an Arizona HOA enforce a complete ban on 'For Sale' signs if the CC&Rs were recorded before the state laws were passed?
No. The Arizona Court of Appeals held that A.R.S. § 33-441 applies prospectively to prohibit the enforcement of pre-existing CC&R bans on ‘For Sale’ signs. HOA boards cannot rely on the recording date of their covenants to bypass state laws protecting a homeowner’s right to market their property.
Does the state law preventing HOAs from banning 'For Sale' signs violate the constitutional protection against impairing contracts?
No. The court ruled that the sign statutes do not unconstitutionally impair CC&R agreements. Because HOAs are highly regulated and CC&Rs typically contain clauses acknowledging that community rules must comply with changing laws, homeowners have no reasonable expectation that a sign ban will remain enforceable indefinitely.
What are the size limits for 'For Sale' signs that an Arizona homeowner can display?
Under A.R.S. § 33-441, homeowners are permitted to display industry-standard signs and sign riders. The sign itself must not exceed 18 by 24 inches, and any sign rider must not exceed 6 by 24 inches.
Can an HOA still regulate how and where 'For Sale' signs are displayed?
Yes. While an HOA cannot ban ‘For Sale’ signs entirely or require the use of a specific, proprietary sign, it retains the authority to establish reasonable regulations regarding the placement and number of signs displayed, provided those rules conform to state statutory guidelines.
Is the ruling in Hawk v. PC Village Association binding precedent for all Arizona HOAs?
Yes. Because this decision was issued as a published, precedential opinion by the Arizona Court of Appeals, it establishes binding legal precedent that applies to all planned communities and condominiums throughout the state of Arizona.
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 12-0362 |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Court of Appeals |
| Decision / key date | September 3, 2013 |
| Judge / panel | Hon. Peter B. Swann, Hon. Patricia A. Orozco, Hon. Kent E. Cattani, Hon. Mark R. Moran |
| Parties | Robert R. Hawk and Cecilia J. Hawk (homeowners/plaintiffs) vs. PC Village Association, Inc. (homeowners association/defendant) |
| Governing law |
|
| Topics | CC&RsAttorney Fees |
| Outcome / holding | A.R.S. § 33-441 applies prospectively to prohibit the enforcement of pre-existing covenants, conditions, and restrictions that restrict the display of 'for sale' signs, and such application does not violate the Contract Clause of the United States or Arizona Constitutions. |
| Primary public source | View source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Reviewed source package | 113 PDFs |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 58 roadmap entries |
| Video overview | Hawk v. PC Village Association |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 5 questions |
| Featured download links | 3 download links |
Key Issues & Findings
Robert and Cecilia Hawk, owners of a lot in the Pine Canyon master-planned community in Flagstaff, Arizona, filed a lawsuit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against their homeowners association, PC Village Association, Inc. The dispute arose in August 2011 when the Hawks displayed a "For Sale" sign on their property to market their home, and the Association removed it twice, citing Section 12.3 of the community's CC&Rs, which prohibited such signage. The Hawks argued that A.R.S. § 33-441, enacted in 2009, and A.R.S. § 33-1808(F), enacted in 2007, superseded and invalidated the CC&R restriction. The Association contended that the statutes were inapplicable because the CC&Rs were recorded prior to their enactment and that retroactive application would unconstitutionally impair their contractual rights. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Hawks and awarded them $21,820 in attorney's fees and costs. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that A.R.S. § 33-441 prospectively applied to render the pre-existing CC&R restriction unenforceable, and that this did not violate the Contract Clauses of the federal or state constitutions.
The Court of Appeals held that A.R.S. § 33-441 operates prospectively because it regulates future acts-specifically, the enforcement of a restriction after the statute's effective date-rather than past transactions. Although the CC&Rs were recorded in 2002, the Association's right to enforce the sign ban was contingent upon a resident actually displaying a sign. Since the Hawks posted their sign in 2011, several years after A.R.S. § 33-441 became effective in 2009, applying the statute to this future conduct did not constitute retroactive legislation.
Under the Contract Clause analysis, the court determined that the Association failed to show that A.R.S. § 33-441 substantially impaired any contractual relationship. The CC&Rs themselves expressly contemplated that the community rules might change or be affected by future laws, meaning the residents had no reasonable expectation that the sign ban would remain in effect indefinitely. Because the threshold of substantial impairment was not met, the court concluded there was no constitutional violation and declined to evaluate if the impairment was justified under the state's police power.
Additionally, the court affirmed the award of attorney's fees to the Hawks under A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A). It rejected the Association's argument that the trial court abused its discretion, finding a reasonable basis for the fees as the Hawks were the prevailing party in an action arising out of contract (the CC&Rs), and the complexity and novelty of the constitutional and statutory issues justified the billing records.
For Arizona homeowners and HOA boards, this decision establishes that state laws overriding community covenants apply to pre-existing CC&Rs, preventing HOAs from enforcing outdated restrictions on property owners' rights. Specifically, associations cannot rely on the date of their CC&R recordation to bypass statutory protections regarding the display of 'for sale' signs or other legislative carve-outs.
For legal counsel, the case reinforces the principle that CC&Rs constitute contract-based rights where enforcement expectations are subject to statutory changes, meaning they do not easily qualify for Contract Clause protection. It also emphasizes that under A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A), prevailing parties in CC&R disputes are highly likely to recover substantial attorney's fees, raising the financial risks for HOAs that engage in litigation to enforce invalidated rules.