Common-Area Costs | A.R.S. §§ 12-341, 12-341.01 | 2 CA-CV 2024-0314
An Arizona active-adult community sued homeowners to make them pay half the cost of repairing a wall between the common area and their lots. The Court of Appeals affirmed judgment for the homeowners, holding the wall is part of the common area the association must maintain and that a committee-adopted guideline could not shift those costs in conflict with the recorded CC&Rs.
Last updated June 30, 2026. Case: SUNDANCE ADULT VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. BILL ELLIOTT AND MARY ELLIOTT, HUSBAND AND WIFE; ROBERT C. LAMB AND SHARON R. LAMB, HUSBAND AND WIFE, AKA ROBERT LAMB AND SHARON LAMB, HUSBAND AND WIFE; HELEN J. HORNE AND EDWARD L. HORNE, WIFE AND HUSBAND AS COMMUNITY PROPERTY WITH RIGHT OF SURVIVORSHIP; JASON JOSEPH, A SINGLE MAN; MIKE MARTIN, AN UNMARRIED MAN; KATHLEEN LAMONT, AN UNMARRIED WOMAN; LELAND PINNEY, AN UNMARRIED MAN; CAROLINA ALCALA, AN UNMARRIED WOMAN; DAVID H. OTIS AND LEANN K. OTIS, TRUSTEES OF THE DAVE AND LEANN OTIS FAMILY TRUST, DATED MARCH 27, 2008, Defendants/Appellees., 2 CA-CV 2024-0314.
Scope note: This page covers SUNDANCE ADULT VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. BILL ELLIOTT AND MARY ELLIOTT, HUSBAND AND WIFE; ROBERT C. LAMB AND SHARON R. LAMB, HUSBAND AND WIFE, AKA ROBERT LAMB AND SHARON LAMB, HUSBAND AND WIFE; HELEN J. HORNE AND EDWARD L. HORNE, WIFE AND HUSBAND AS COMMUNITY PROPERTY WITH RIGHT OF SURVIVORSHIP; JASON JOSEPH, A SINGLE MAN; MIKE MARTIN, AN UNMARRIED MAN; KATHLEEN LAMONT, AN UNMARRIED WOMAN; LELAND PINNEY, AN UNMARRIED MAN; CAROLINA ALCALA, AN UNMARRIED WOMAN; DAVID H. OTIS AND LEANN K. OTIS, TRUSTEES OF THE DAVE AND LEANN OTIS FAMILY TRUST, DATED MARCH 27, 2008, Defendants/Appellees. (2 CA-CV 2024-0314) as a public Arizona Court of Appeals HOA case guide. 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 held that the wall is a structure located on the common area under Section 1.17 of the Declaration, so Section 5.01 makes the Association responsible for repairing the entire wall absent proof that the homeowners caused the damage; the conflicting 2012 Architectural Committee guideline shifting repair costs to owners could not be enforced because it would effectively amend the Declaration without the required 75% vote, and the Architectural Committee lacked authority to impose new financial obligations not found in the original Declaration. Affirmed.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Sundance Adult Village Homeowners Association (Plaintiff)
Arizona homeowners association governing the active-adult residential community in Buckeye, Arizona; Plaintiff/Appellant. - Lauren Elliott Stine (Counsel)
Quarles & Brady LLP
Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant Sundance Adult Village Homeowners Association. - Kristin N. Leaptrott (Counsel)
Quarles & Brady LLP
Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant Sundance Adult Village Homeowners Association.
Respondent Side
- Bill Elliott (Defendant)
Homeowner of a lot bordering the wall; Defendant/Appellee. Husband of Mary Elliott. - Mary Elliott (Defendant)
Homeowner of a lot bordering the wall; Defendant/Appellee. Wife of Bill Elliott. - Robert C. Lamb (Defendant)
Homeowner of a lot bordering the wall; Defendant/Appellee. Also known as Robert Lamb. Husband of Sharon R. Lamb. - Sharon R. Lamb (Defendant)
Homeowner of a lot bordering the wall; Defendant/Appellee. Also known as Sharon Lamb. Wife of Robert C. Lamb. - Helen J. Horne (Defendant)
Homeowner of a lot bordering the wall; Defendant/Appellee. Holds title as community property with right of survivorship with Edward L. Horne. - Edward L. Horne (Defendant)
Homeowner of a lot bordering the wall; Defendant/Appellee. Holds title as community property with right of survivorship with Helen J. Horne. - Jason Joseph (Defendant)
Homeowner of a lot bordering the wall; Defendant/Appellee. A single man per the caption. - Mike Martin (Defendant)
Homeowner of a lot bordering the wall; Defendant/Appellee. An unmarried man per the caption. - Kathleen Lamont (Defendant)
Homeowner of a lot bordering the wall; Defendant/Appellee. An unmarried woman per the caption. - Leland Pinney (Defendant)
Homeowner of a lot bordering the wall; Defendant/Appellee. An unmarried man per the caption. - Carolina Alcala (Defendant)
Homeowner of a lot bordering the wall; Defendant/Appellee. An unmarried woman per the caption. - David H. Otis (Defendant)
Defendant/Appellee, sued as trustee of the Dave and LeAnn Otis Family Trust, dated March 27, 2008, which owns a lot bordering the wall. - LeAnn K. Otis (Defendant)
Defendant/Appellee, sued as trustee of the Dave and LeAnn Otis Family Trust, dated March 27, 2008, which owns a lot bordering the wall. - Jonathan A. Dessaules (Counsel)
Dessaules Law Group
Counsel for Defendants/Appellees (the homeowners). - David E. Wood (Counsel)
Dessaules Law Group
Counsel for Defendants/Appellees (the homeowners).
Neutral Parties
- Hon. Kelly (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two
Authored the memorandum decision of the court. - Hon. Vásquez (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two
Presiding Judge who concurred in the decision. - Hon. Gard (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two
Judge who concurred in the decision. - Hon. Rodrick Coffey (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court
Trial judge who granted the homeowners’ motion for summary judgment in No. CV2022090753.
What happened
Sundance Adult Village Homeowners Association governs an active-adult residential community in Buckeye, Arizona. In one part of the community, a wall separates the common area from eight adjoining private lots that contain single-family homes. The wall straddles the property lines, sitting partly on the common area and partly on the owners’ lots. About a year before suit, water damage to the wall was discovered, prompting repair efforts.
In 2022, the Association filed a complaint in Maricopa County Superior Court seeking, among other things, a declaration that the owners of the eight bordering lots were responsible for contributing half the cost of repairing and replacing the wall. In 2023, both sides moved for summary judgment. In 2024, after a hearing, the superior court granted the homeowners’ motion and denied the Association’s, ruling that the Association was responsible for repairing the entire wall absent a showing that the homeowners caused the damage.
The Association appealed. On January 6, 2026, Division Two of the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished memorandum decision, holding that the wall is part of the common area the Association must repair, that a conflicting 2012 architectural guideline could not be enforced because it would amend the Declaration without the required vote, and that the homeowners, as the prevailing party, were entitled to their attorney fees and costs.
Procedural timeline
Complete uploaded source-document index
This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/sundance-adult-village-homeowners-association-v-elliott/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 holding the HOA must repair the common-area wall and cannot shift that cost through architectural guidelines.
FAQ
Is Sundance Adult Village HOA v. Elliott binding precedent in Arizona?
No. It is an unpublished memorandum decision from the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two. Under the applicable rules, it does not create legal precedent and generally may not be cited as binding authority, though it can still illustrate how Arizona courts approach these issues.
Who is responsible for repairing a wall between an HOA common area and a homeowner’s lot in this case?
The court held the Association was responsible for repairing the entire wall. Because the wall is a structure located on the common area under the Declaration, the Association’s duty to maintain, repair, and replace the common area applied, absent proof that the homeowners caused the damage.
Can an HOA shift common-area repair costs to homeowners through an architectural guideline?
Not here. The court held that a 2012 architectural guideline assigning repair costs to lot owners conflicted with the Declaration, which made the Association solely responsible. Enforcing the guideline would effectively amend the Declaration without the required 75% owner vote, so it could not be enforced.
Did the homeowners cause the wall damage in this case?
The opinion notes the repairs followed water damage discovered about a year before suit, and that on appeal the Association did not allege the homeowners’ actions necessitated the repairs. The Declaration would have allowed cost-shifting only for repairs necessitated by an owner.
Who pays attorney fees after this appeal?
The homeowners. Because they prevailed in an action to enforce the Declaration, which requires a fee award to the prevailing party, the Court of Appeals held they were entitled to recover their appellate attorney fees and costs upon complying with Rule 21 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure.
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 | 2 CA-CV 2024-0314 |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Court of Appeals |
| Decision / key date | January 6, 2026 |
| Judge / panel | Hon. Kelly, Hon. Vásquez, Hon. Gard |
| Parties | Sundance Adult Village Homeowners Association (Plaintiff/Appellant) v. Bill and Mary Elliott, Robert and Sharon Lamb, Helen and Edward Horne, Jason Joseph, Mike Martin, Kathleen Lamont, Leland Pinney, Carolina Alcala, and David and LeAnn Otis as trustees of the Dave and LeAnn Otis Family Trust (Defendants/Appellees) |
| Governing law | |
| Topics | cc-and-rsarchitectural-reviewattorneys-feesprocedure |
| Outcome / holding | The Court of Appeals held that the wall is a structure located on the common area under Section 1.17 of the Declaration, so Section 5.01 makes the Association responsible for repairing the entire wall absent proof that the homeowners caused the damage; the conflicting 2012 Architectural Committee guideline shifting repair costs to owners could not be enforced because it would effectively amend the Declaration without the required 75% vote, and the Architectural Committee lacked authority to impose new financial obligations not found in the original Declaration. Affirmed. |
| 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 | 5 questions |
| Curated download aliases | 1 download link |
Key Issues & Findings
Sundance Adult Village Homeowners Association governs an active-adult community in Buckeye, Arizona, where a wall straddling the property line separates the common area from eight adjoining lots. After water damage to the wall was discovered, the Association sued the owners of those lots, seeking a declaration that they must contribute half the cost of repairing and replacing the wall. Both sides moved for summary judgment. The superior court ruled for the homeowners, holding the Association responsible for repairing the entire wall absent proof that the owners caused the damage. On appeal, Division Two of the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that the wall is a structure located on the common area under the Declaration, so the Association’s maintenance and repair duty applies, and that a later architectural guideline shifting costs to owners conflicted with the Declaration and was therefore unenforceable. This is an unpublished memorandum decision.
Reviewing the summary judgment de novo, the court interpreted the community’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions as a contract among the landowners. Section 5.01 makes the Association responsible for maintaining, repairing, and replacing the “Common Area,” which Section 1.17 defines to include structures located on the common area tracts. The court agreed with the Association that the definition distinguishes tangible structures “located on” the tracts from intangible “rights, easements, and appurtenances relating to” them. But because the parties agreed the disputed wall is a structure that sits, at least partially, on the common area tract, the wall falls within the ordinary meaning of being “on” the common area, and thus within the definition of Common Area. The Association was therefore responsible for repairing the entire wall.
The Association relied on a 2012 Architectural Committee guideline, Guideline I(h)(7), which assigned lot owners responsibility for maintaining and repairing walls separating a lot from the common area. The court held this guideline could not override the Declaration. Section 5.01 assigned sole repair responsibility to the Association absent a repair necessitated by an owner, and the Association did not allege the owners caused this damage. Enforcing the guideline would effectively amend the Declaration, which Section 11.07 permits only by a 75% affirmative vote, and Section 11.16 provides that the Declaration prevails over conflicting documents “in all instances.” The court declined to rewrite the parties’ agreement by ignoring those provisions.
Finally, the court rejected the argument that the Architectural Committee had authority to impose this new financial obligation. Reading Article Seven of the Declaration as a whole, the court found the committee’s powers concern aesthetic matters and related procedures, not the creation of new financial burdens that did not exist in the original Declaration. Because the homeowners prevailed in an action to enforce the Declaration, which requires a fee award to the prevailing party, the court held they were entitled to their appellate attorney fees and costs upon compliance with Rule 21.
For Arizona homeowners and associations, this decision illustrates that an association generally cannot shift common-area repair costs onto individual owners without clear authority in the governing documents or proof that the owners caused the damage. Where a board rule or architectural guideline conflicts with the recorded CC&Rs, the CC&Rs control, and an association cannot use committee-adopted guidelines to create new financial obligations that the declaration’s formal amendment process never approved. Owners facing a demand to pay for common-area repairs should check whether the CC&Rs actually assign that cost to them and how the documents must be amended.