CC&R Enforcement | A.R.S. §§ 12-1832, 12-341.01 | 1 CA-CV 23-0437
Division One reaffirms that an Arizona HOA’s enforcement of its CC&Rs is discretionary unless the governing documents expressly create a duty to enforce.
Last updated June 30, 2026. Case: Daniel Mason, et al. v. La Glorieta Homeowners Association, et al., 1 CA-CV 23-0437.
Scope note: This page covers Daniel Mason, et al. v. La Glorieta Homeowners Association, et al. (1 CA-CV 23-0437) as a public Arizona Court of Appeals HOA case guide. The source decision came from Division One. 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
An HOA has no duty to enforce its CC&Rs against a violating owner unless the governing documents expressly obligate it to do so; La Glorieta’s CC&Rs granted enforcement powers but imposed no such duty, so summary judgment for the HOA was affirmed.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Daniel Mason (Appellant)
Homeowner in La Glorieta subdivision; plaintiff who sued the HOA over a drainage obstruction. - Toni Mason (Appellant)
Homeowner and co-plaintiff/appellant with Daniel Mason. - Keith L. Hendricks (Counsel)
Moyes Sellers & Hendricks
Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants the Masons. - Natalya Ter-Grigoryan (Counsel)
Moyes Sellers & Hendricks
Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants the Masons.
Respondent Side
- La Glorieta Homeowners Association (Appellee)
The defendant HOA; obtained summary judgment and a fee award, affirmed on appeal. - Yinong Chen (Appellee)
Neighbor two lots from the Masons whose lot allegedly obstructed drainage; denied summary judgment below (not part of this appeal). - Hongyan Shi (Appellee)
Co-owner of the neighboring lot with Yinong Chen; defendant/appellee. - Mark E. Lines (Counsel)
Shaw & Lines, LLC
Counsel for Defendant/Appellee La Glorieta Homeowners Association. - Patrick Whelan (Counsel)
Shaw & Lines, LLC
Counsel for Defendant/Appellee La Glorieta Homeowners Association. - Hyung Choi (Counsel)
Choi & Fabian, PLC
Counsel for Defendants/Appellees Yinong Chen and Hongyan Shi. - Veronika Fabian (Counsel)
Choi & Fabian, PLC
Counsel for Defendants/Appellees Yinong Chen and Hongyan Shi.
Neutral Parties
- Anni Hill Foster (Judge)
Presiding Judge, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One; authored the memorandum decision. - Brian Y. Furuya (Judge)
Judge, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One; joined the decision. - Randall M. Howe (Judge)
Vice Chief Judge, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One; joined the decision. - Joan M. Sinclair (Judge)
Honorable Judge of the Maricopa County Superior Court who granted the HOA summary judgment and the fee award below.
What happened
Daniel and Toni Mason own a home in the La Glorieta residential subdivision in Chandler, two lots away from a home owned by Yinong Chen and Hongyan Shi. A drainage swale runs in front of both properties, designed to route runoff from the Masons’ lot to an outlet grate on the Chen and Shi lot. In September 2014, a severe thunderstorm flooded the Masons’ basement, causing roughly $2,000 in damage. The day after, Mr. Mason found water still pooling and concluded an obstruction on the neighbors’ lot was blocking the flow.
Over the next several years the Masons tried to resolve the issue by talking to the neighbors, raising it at two HOA meetings, and filing a written complaint with the HOA. In mid-2019 the HOA’s counsel sent the neighbors a letter noting that work on their lot may have contributed to water backups up the street. City of Chandler officials told the Masons the HOA, not the city, was responsible for subdivision drainage, and a civil engineer the Masons hired reported obstructions in the swale on the neighbors’ lot. The home has not flooded since 2014.
In September 2020 the Masons sued the HOA, Chen, and Shi for breach of contract and declaratory judgment, claiming the neighbors’ pathway blocked drainage in violation of CC&Rs § 12.17 and that the HOA was required to enforce the covenants. The HOA moved for summary judgment; the superior court granted it and dismissed all claims against the HOA (the neighbors were denied summary judgment, and that ruling was not appealed).
After a procedural detour — the Court of Appeals initially stayed the appeal because the superior court had not yet ruled on the HOA’s fee request, defeating Rule 54(b) certification — the superior court denied reconsideration, awarded the HOA its attorneys’ fees, and entered final judgment. The Masons appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the CC&Rs gave the HOA enforcement power but no duty to enforce.
Video overview of the ruling
An AI-generated video overview of Daniel Mason, et al. v. La Glorieta Homeowners Association, et al. (1 CA-CV 23-0437). An HOA has no duty to enforce its CC&Rs against a violating owner unless the governing documents expressly obligate… 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 Daniel Mason, et al. v. La Glorieta Homeowners Association, et al.. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.
Procedural timeline
A severe thunderstorm flooded the Masons' basement, causing about $2,000 in damage; Mr. Mason concluded an obstruction on the neighbors' lot was blocking drainage.
The HOA's counsel sent Chen and Shi a letter stating work done to their lot may have contributed to water backups on lots up the street (mid-2019).
The Masons hired a civil engineer whose report found obstructions in the drainage swale on Chen and Shi's lot (late 2019 or early 2020).
The Masons sued the HOA, Chen, and Shi for breach of contract and declaratory judgment, alleging a violation of CC&Rs § 12.17.
The superior court entered judgment for the HOA and certified it under Rule 54(b); the Masons appealed.
The Court of Appeals stayed the appeal and reinstated superior court jurisdiction because the HOA's fee request was unresolved, defeating Rule 54(b) certification.
The superior court denied the Masons' motion for reconsideration and awarded the HOA its attorneys' fees.
The superior court entered final judgment; the Masons timely appealed.
The Court of Appeals, Division One, affirmed the judgment in favor of the HOA.
Complete source-document index
This index contains 1 PDF 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.
Memorandum Decision
Type: Decision or judgment
Memorandum decision holding that an HOA has no duty to enforce its CC&Rs against a violating owner unless the governing documents expressly obligate it to do so; La Glorieta's CC&Rs granted enforcement powers but imposed no such duty, so summary judgment for the HOA was affirmed.
FAQ
What was Mason v. La Glorieta Homeowners Association about?
Two La Glorieta homeowners, the Masons, sued their HOA and two neighbors after a 2014 storm flooded their basement. They alleged an obstruction on the neighbors’ lot violated the CC&Rs’ drainage provision (§ 12.17) and claimed the HOA was contractually required to enforce the CC&Rs against the neighbors. They sought damages for breach of contract and a declaratory judgment.
What did the Arizona Court of Appeals decide?
The court affirmed summary judgment in favor of the HOA. It held that while the CC&Rs gave the HOA the power to enforce its covenants, none of the provisions required the HOA to exercise that power. With no duty to enforce, the breach-of-contract and declaratory-judgment claims both failed as a matter of law.
Does an Arizona HOA have to enforce its CC&Rs?
Not automatically. The court reaffirmed that under Arizona law — citing Tierra Ranchos v. Kitchukov and the Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes § 6.13 — enforcement is a discretionary power. An HOA must act reasonably in exercising that discretion, but it has no duty to enforce a particular violation unless the governing documents expressly obligate it to do so.
Why did the homeowners' reliance on the CC&R language fail?
The court read every enforcement-related provision (the recitals and §§ 4.7, 12.21, 15.1, and 15.3) and found each one used permissive, power-granting language such as ‘may enter’ or ‘shall have the power to file an action.’ None imposed a mandatory duty. Because the language was unambiguous, there was no room to interpret an implied enforcement obligation into the CC&Rs.;
The trial court misread one CC&R section — why didn't that change the result?
The superior court had treated § 4.5 as disclaiming HOA liability for drainage, but the appellate court found § 4.5 created two separate easements and its disclaimer reached only landscaping, not drainage. The error was harmless because the Masons were not asking the HOA to maintain landscaping; they were asking it to enforce a violation, which remained discretionary either way.
Who paid attorneys' fees in the case?
The Masons. As the prevailing party in a contract dispute, the HOA was awarded its attorneys’ fees and costs under A.R.S. §§ 12-341 and 12-341.01, and the Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion. The appellate court also granted the HOA its fees on appeal and denied the Masons’ fee request as the non-prevailing party.
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 23-0437 |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Court of Appeals |
| Decision / key date | April 2, 2024 |
| Judge / panel | Anni Hill Foster, Brian Y. Furuya, Randall M. Howe |
| Parties | Daniel and Toni Mason (Plaintiffs/Appellants) v. La Glorieta Homeowners Association (Defendant/Appellee) |
| Governing law |
|
| Topics | CC&RsBoard GovernanceAttorney Fees |
| Outcome / holding | An HOA has no duty to enforce its CC&Rs against a violating owner unless the governing documents expressly obligate it to do so; La Glorieta's CC&Rs granted enforcement powers but imposed no such duty, so summary judgment for the HOA was affirmed. |
| Primary public source | View hosted source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Reviewed source package | 1 PDF |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 9 roadmap entries |
| Video overview | Daniel Mason, et al. v. La Glorieta Homeowners Association, et al. |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 6 questions |
| Featured download links | 1 download link |
Key Issues & Findings
Two homeowners in the La Glorieta subdivision sued their HOA (and two neighbors) after a 2014 storm flooded their basement, alleging an obstruction on the neighbors' lot violated the CC&Rs' drainage provision (§ 12.17). The homeowners claimed the HOA was contractually required to enforce the CC&Rs against the neighbors and sought both breach-of-contract damages and a declaratory judgment. The superior court granted summary judgment to the HOA and awarded it attorneys' fees. The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, affirmed. Reviewing the CC&Rs de novo, the court held that although several provisions gave the HOA the power to enforce its covenants, none obligated it to do so. Under Arizona law, an HOA's enforcement of its CC&Rs is discretionary unless the governing documents expressly create a duty to enforce. Because no such duty existed, both the contract and declaratory-judgment claims failed as a matter of law, and the fee award stood.
The court reviewed the summary-judgment ruling and the interpretation of the CC&Rs de novo, treating the recorded covenants as a contract. It examined every CC&R provision addressing enforcement — the recitals, the § 4.7 easement for investigating and correcting violations, § 12.21 (the HOA "may" enter a lot and correct a violation at the owner's expense), § 15.1, and § 15.3 (the HOA "shall have the power to file an action"). Each provision granted the association authority to act, but none required it to exercise that authority. That absence of a mandatory duty was fatal to the homeowners' claims.
The court corrected one point in the HOA's favor's analysis: the superior court had read § 4.5 as disclaiming HOA liability for drainage, but the appellate court found § 4.5 created two distinct easements (landscape and drainage) and its disclaimer language reached only the landscape easement. That interpretive error was harmless, however, because the homeowners were not asking the HOA to install or maintain landscaping — they were asking it to enforce an alleged violation, which remained discretionary. The court also distinguished Gfeller v. Scottsdale Vista N. Townhomes Ass'n (which involved CC&Rs with an express enforcement duty) and reaffirmed, citing Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov and the Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes § 6.13, that discretionary enforcement is the default rule in Arizona.
Because the CC&Rs' language was unambiguous and imposed no duty to enforce, the breach-of-contract claim failed for lack of any breach, and the declaratory-judgment claim failed because the homeowners had no corresponding right to compel enforcement. Finally, the court held the superior court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the prevailing HOA its fees and costs under A.R.S. §§ 12-341 and 12-341.01, and it granted the HOA its appellate fees while denying the homeowners' request.
This decision reinforces a recurring principle in Arizona community-association law: language that gives an HOA the power to enforce its CC&Rs ("may enter," "shall have the power to file an action") is not the same as language requiring it to enforce. Absent an express, mandatory duty in the governing documents, enforcement is discretionary, and a homeowner generally cannot force the HOA to pursue a neighbor over an alleged violation.
It complements Johnson v. The Pointe and Tierra Ranchos v. Kitchukov, which likewise frame HOA enforcement as a discretionary power the board must exercise reasonably rather than a duty owed to any individual owner. Homeowners frequently sue on the theory that the HOA "must" act against a neighbor; Mason illustrates that such claims typically fail unless the CC&Rs create a specific enforcement obligation — and that a losing homeowner in a CC&R contract dispute can be ordered to pay the association's attorneys' fees.