Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association v. John Dickerson: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on July 2, 2026 by [email protected]

Architectural Enforcement & Fees | CV2005-012018

Mountain Vista Ranch received a small judgment, but the court denied attorney fees after the garage repair was completed before service.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association v. John Dickerson, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2005-012018.

Download ruling

Scope note: This page covers Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association v. John Dickerson (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2005-012018) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s collected minute entries through 2006-06-08; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: later filings, satisfaction history, appeals, and the formal written orders referenced by the minutes may not be included in these records. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

Winning a small enforcement balance does not guarantee attorney fees; the court treated fees as discretionary and focused on the fact that the core repair issue was already resolved.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association (Plaintiff)
Association party in the HOA-related dispute. Court party records list counsel as J Wood.

Respondent Side

Holly Dickerson (Defendant)
Listed in the court party records as defendant.
John Dickerson (Defendant)
Opposing homeowner or property-side party identified in the case caption.

Neutral Parties

Hon. Barry (Judge)
Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.

What happened

Mountain Vista Ranch sued over a garage-repair dispute and related charges. The first collected ruling said the garage had been fixed before service of the lawsuit and that the only apparent remaining issue was attorney fees.

The court declined sanctions and later considered the association’s motion for reconsideration and clarification.

On June 8, 2006, the court denied attorney fees as a discretionary matter. It explained that the main thrust of the case had been accomplished before service and that the owners admitted the late-fee, fine, and NSF obligations.

The court entered judgment for $454.00, with interest, and signed the minute entry as a formal order.

Procedural timeline

Step 2006-03-17 IT IS ORDERED placing this matter on the Inactive Calendar for dismissal on April 17, 2006 without further notice, unless prior thereto a stipulation to dismiss is received.

Step 2006-04-21 Minute entry filed.

Step 2006-04-24 IT IS ORDERED dismissing this cause without prejudice.

Step 2006-05-15 Minute entry filed.

Step 2006-06-08 IT IS ORDERED GRANTING Plaintiff judgment against John Dickerson and Holly Dickerson, husband and wife, in the sum of $454.

Complete uploaded source-document index

This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/mountain-vista-ranch-owners-association-v-john-dickerson/raw/: 5 PDFs. 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.

Source 1 2006-03-17

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

Ruling placing the case on the inactive calendar after finding the garage was fixed before service and declining sanctions.

Download source file

2006-03-17_001_ruling.pdf

Source 2 2006-04-21

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.

Download source file

2006-04-21_002_ruling.pdf

Source 3 2006-04-24

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.

Download source file

2006-04-24_003_minute-entry.pdf

Source 4 2006-05-15

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.

Download source file

2006-05-15_004_minute-entry.pdf

Source 5 2006-06-08

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

Ruling entering $454.00 judgment for Mountain Vista Ranch while denying attorney fees as discretionary.

Download source file

2006-06-08_005_ruling.pdf

FAQ

What did the superior court decide?

It entered a $454.00 judgment for charges but denied the association’s attorney-fee request.

Is this superior-court ruling precedent?

No. It binds the parties in this case but is useful only as a public record of how this dispute was handled.

Does the page summarize addresses or unit numbers?

No. Residential addresses and unit identifiers from the minute entries are intentionally omitted.

Who was the association party?

The association party identified in the collected court records was Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association.

Does this replace legal advice?

No. This is an educational case guide based on public minute entries, not legal advice.

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	CV2005-012018 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunal	Superior Court
Decision / key date	June 8, 2006
Judge / panel	Hon. Barry
Parties	Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association (Plaintiff) v. John and Holly Dickerson (Defendants)
Topics	architectural-reviewfinesattorneys-feesprocedure
Outcome / holding	The court granted Mountain Vista Ranch judgment for $454.00 but denied attorney fees because the main repair issue had been resolved before service and the owners did not dispute the late-fee, fine, and NSF obligations.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package	5 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	5 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

Case Summary

In a garage-repair enforcement case, the court found the garage was fixed before service and declined sanctions and attorney fees. On reconsideration, it entered judgment for $454.00 in late fees, fines, and NSF charges with interest, while explaining that fees were discretionary and not appropriate on this record.

Key Issues & Findings

The first collected ruling stated that the only remaining issue appeared to be attorney fees and that the garage had been fixed before service of the lawsuit. The court declined sanctions and placed the case on the inactive calendar.

On reconsideration and clarification, the court explained that attorney-fee awards were discretionary. It found denial appropriate because the main thrust of the lawsuit, repair of the garage, had been accomplished before service, and the owners admitted the late-fee, fine, and NSF obligations.

The court calculated $24.00 in late fees, $405.00 in fines, and $25.00 in NSF charges, totaling $454.00, and signed the minute entry as a formal order.

Why It Matters

This is a useful but nonprecedential reminder that even when an association wins a small enforcement judgment, the court may still deny attorney fees as a matter of discretion when the core violation was fixed before service.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Abodeely v. Oasis Association: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on July 2, 2026 by [email protected]

HOA Fines | A.R.S. § 33-1803 | CV2020-001329

The court let fine and notice claims proceed where the record left questions about whether Oasis began fining before the homeowner’s statutory response period expired.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Marybeth Abodeely v. The Oasis Association, et al., Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2020-001329.

Download summary-judgment ruling

Scope note: This page covers Marybeth Abodeely v. The Oasis Association, et al. (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2020-001329) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s own filed minute entries, especially the June 30, 2021 under-advisement ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: the last collected minute entry is the May 23, 2023 ruling extending the time for Abodeely to submit a motion to enforce the settlement agreement through June 16, 2023. The collected records also show that the parties reported an official settlement reached on September 1, 2022, but funding and a Medicare consent issue remained unresolved at the May 5, 2023 status conference. Any later enforcement, dismissal, judgment, or appeal history is outside these records. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

When an Arizona HOA fine dispute turns on A.R.S. § 33-1803, timing matters. The court denied Oasis summary judgment because the record left genuine disputes about which violation notices were at issue, whether the statute was violated, and whether it was reasonable to begin imposing fines 14 days after the first notice while the homeowner still had 7 days left in the statutory response period.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Marybeth Abodeely (Plaintiff)
Homeowner who challenged Oasis violation notices and fines, sought declaratory and injunctive relief, and opposed Oasis’s summary-judgment motion.
Mark W. Horne (Counsel)
Counsel for Abodeely at the June 21, 2021 oral argument and listed in the June 30, 2021 ruling.
F. Robert Connelly II (Counsel)
Appeared for Abodeely on behalf of Jonathan A. Dessaules at the May 5, 2023 status conference.

Respondent Side

The Oasis Association (Defendant)
Homeowners association for the condominium complex; obtained summary judgment on dog-related issues but not on the remaining fine and violation-notice issues.
The Management Trust, Inc. (Defendant)
Management company hired by Oasis to manage the condominium complex; dismissed on June 8, 2020 because the complaint did not allege direct duties or conduct outside the agency role.
Sadie Marsh and Gregory Marsh (Defendants)
Dismissed by notice before the June 30, 2021 summary-judgment ruling; the remaining ruling discussed Oasis’s handling of the Marsh dog issue.
Jeremy C. Johnson (Counsel)
Counsel for Oasis and The Management Trust in the case-party data and later status-conference minute entries.
Evann M. Waschuk (Counsel)
Counsel who argued for Oasis at the June 21, 2021 summary-judgment oral argument.

Neutral Parties

Hon. Danielle J. Viola (Judge)
Judge who dismissed The Management Trust and issued the June 30, 2021 summary-judgment ruling and July 22, 2021 reconsideration ruling.
Hon. Sara J. Agne (Judge)
Judge who handled later settlement-status proceedings and granted the May 23, 2023 extension related to any motion to enforce settlement.

What happened

Marybeth Abodeely owned an Oasis condominium. The June 30, 2021 ruling states that The Oasis Association was the homeowners association for the condominium complex and that The Management Trust was hired by Oasis to manage it. The court described the governing documents as including Oasis’s CC&Rs and House Rules.

The dispute began with May 2018 notices directing Abodeely to clean up her patio and remove empty planters from common areas. The ruling quoted House Rules limiting porch areas to appropriate furniture and small potted plants, requiring unsightly items to be removed on HOA request, and restricting visible textile items. It also quoted CC&R section 15.2, which restricted what could be stored, placed, erected, hung, or permitted on patios, balconies, common elements, exterior building areas, windows, and outside doors except for customary patio furniture and potted plants.

Abodeely did not comply with the request to remove the empty planters, and Oasis began fining her on June 8, 2018. She hired counsel to dispute the fines, and counsel exchanged letters about the fines and policies. Earlier in the case, the court dismissed The Management Trust because Abodeely had not alleged that the manager owed statutory or common-law duties to her or acted outside its agency role for Oasis. The Marsh defendants also had been dismissed before the summary-judgment ruling.

Abodeely moved for partial summary judgment on a claimed breach of statutory and common-law duties, declaratory relief, and an injunction. She argued that Oasis had failed to enforce the CC&Rs against the Marsh dog, sent successive and harassing violation notices, photographed her property, and adopted arbitrary rules targeted at her. The court denied her motion, finding it rested on conclusory statements and did not show an absence of disputed facts.

Oasis also moved for summary judgment. The court granted Oasis summary judgment on the dog-related portions of the statutory-duty, injunction, and declaratory-judgment claims because Oasis showed that it had to make reasonable accommodations to its no-pet policy and could not enforce that policy against the Marsh dog. But the court denied Oasis summary judgment on the remaining violation-notice and fine issues. It found genuine disputes or an unclear record about which notices were at issue, whether Oasis violated A.R.S. § 33-1803, and whether it was reasonable to start fines 14 days after the first notice while Abodeely still had 7 days to respond.

Oasis later moved for reconsideration on damages. On July 22, 2021, the court denied reconsideration and clarified that it had not concluded Abodeely would recover emotional damages; it had only concluded that it could not rule out such damages on the record. Later entries show the parties reported an official settlement reached on September 1, 2022, with funding and Medicare consent issues still being discussed in May 2023, and a May 23, 2023 order extended the time for any motion to enforce settlement.

Procedural timeline

Step 2020-06-08 The court grants The Management Trust’s motion to dismiss because the complaint did not allege direct duties or conduct outside its agency role.

Step 2021-05-10 The court sets oral argument on Abodeely’s partial summary-judgment motion and Oasis’s summary-judgment motion.

Step 2021-06-21 The court hears oral argument from Abodeely’s counsel and Oasis’s counsel and takes both summary-judgment motions under advisement.

Step 2021-06-30 The court denies Abodeely’s partial summary-judgment motion, grants Oasis summary judgment on dog-related issues, and denies Oasis summary judgment on the remaining fine and notice issues.

Step 2021-07-22 The court denies Oasis’s motion for reconsideration and clarifies that it had not decided Abodeely was entitled to emotional damages.

Type: Court/source PDF

Status-conference minute entry recording that the parties reported a September 1, 2022 settlement, ordering Abodeely to sign a Medicare consent form, and setting a deadline for any motion to enforce settlement.

Download source file

2023-05-05_016_status-conference.pdf

Source 17 2023-05-23

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

Ruling granting Abodeely more time, through June 16, 2023, to submit a motion to enforce the settlement agreement if needed.

Download source file

2023-05-23_017_ruling.pdf

FAQ

What part of A.R.S. § 33-1803 mattered in this ruling?

The court focused on the homeowner’s ability to respond in writing within 21 calendar days after a written violation notice and the association’s response obligations. The court found a jury question about whether it was reasonable for Oasis to impose a fine after 14 days when Abodeely still had 7 days left to respond under the statute.

Did the homeowner win summary judgment?

No. The court denied Abodeely’s partial summary-judgment motion because her arguments about unfair treatment, harassment, targeted rules, and dog-related enforcement relied on conclusory statements and did not eliminate disputed facts.

Did Oasis win summary judgment?

Only in part. Oasis won summary judgment on the claims tied to the Marsh dog, but it did not win summary judgment on the remaining violation-notice, fine, declaratory, injunction, and emotional-damages issues.

Why was The Management Trust dismissed?

The court dismissed The Management Trust because Abodeely had not alleged that the management company owed her statutory or common-law duties or that it acted outside the course and scope of its agency with Oasis.

Did the court decide emotional-distress damages were available?

The court did not decide that Abodeely was entitled to emotional damages. It denied Oasis’s request to rule them out because disputed facts remained and the record was unclear, then later clarified the same point when denying reconsideration.

Is this ruling precedential?

No. It is a Maricopa County Superior Court ruling, so it binds only the parties. It is still useful as an example of how one trial court analyzed HOA fines, CC&Rs, House Rules, and A.R.S. § 33-1803 notice timing.

Case Dossier

Case Summary

Case ID / citation	CV2020-001329 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunal	Superior Court
Decision / key date	June 30, 2021
Judge / panel	Hon. Danielle J. Viola, Hon. Sara J. Agne
Parties	Marybeth Abodeely (Plaintiff) v. The Oasis Association, The Management Trust, Inc., Sadie Marsh and Gregory Marsh (Defendants)
Governing law	A.R.S. § 33-1803
Topics	finescc-and-rsselective-enforcementcovenantsprocedure
Outcome / holding	The court held that The Management Trust was dismissed because the complaint did not allege that it owed statutory or common-law duties to Abodeely or acted outside its agency role for Oasis. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court denied Abodeely’s partial motion, granted Oasis summary judgment on claims tied to the Marsh dog, and denied Oasis summary judgment on the remaining fine and violation-notice issues because disputed facts or an unclear record remained under A.R.S. § 33-1803 and the governing documents.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package	17 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	7 roadmap entries
Video overview	No video embed currently configured
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	6 questions
Curated download aliases	1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

A homeowner challenged fines and violation notices issued by The Oasis Association after patio and common-area disputes, and also challenged the association’s treatment of a neighbor’s companion or service dog. The court dismissed The Management Trust early, denied the homeowner’s partial summary-judgment motion, and granted Oasis summary judgment only on the dog-related portions of the case while leaving disputes over fines, violation notices, and emotional-distress damages for further proceedings.

Key Issues & Findings

The June 30, 2021 ruling treated the patio and common-area dispute as a record-specific enforcement case under the Oasis CC&Rs, House Rules, and A.R.S. § 33-1803. The court noted that Oasis’s first notice gave Abodeely an opportunity to respond, but it also found a triable question about the reasonableness of imposing a fine 14 days after the initial notice when she still had 7 days to respond under the statute.

The court rejected Abodeely’s request for affirmative summary judgment because her motion relied on conclusory statements about unfair treatment, harassment, selective enforcement, and rules allegedly targeted at her. The court also found that Oasis had addressed the Marsh dog issue and that the dog-related allegations did not support judgment in Abodeely’s favor.

For Oasis’s motion, the court separated the dog issue from the fines and notices. It granted Oasis summary judgment on claims based on the Marsh dog because Oasis showed that it had to make reasonable accommodations to its no-pet policy. It denied summary judgment on the remaining notice, fine, declaratory, injunction, and emotional-distress issues because the record left genuine disputes about which notices were at issue, whether § 33-1803 was violated, and whether fines began too soon.

Why It Matters

This ruling is useful for Arizona HOA readers because it shows how one superior-court judge analyzed the 21-day written-response process in A.R.S. § 33-1803 when an association begins fining a homeowner. It also separates a manager’s agency role from direct liability and shows how pet-accommodation issues may be resolved apart from an owner’s separate fine and selective-enforcement claims.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Jennifer Duncan v. LaBlonde Development Corporation and Talus Homeowners’ Association: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on July 2, 2026 by [email protected]

Architectural Enforcement & Fines | CC&Rs | CV2021-019511

In this Maricopa County Superior Court construction-defect case, the HOA dispute centered on whether Talus Homeowners’ Association could keep demanding grading and drainage repairs and imposing fines while the homeowners’ builder claims continued. The court ultimately treated the homeowners’ requested injunction as granted, dismissed the HOA from the case, and denied fees to both sides.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Jennifer Duncan v. LaBlonde Development Corporation and Talus Homeowners’ Association, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2021-019511.

Download HOA ruling

Scope note: This page covers the HOA-related portion of Jennifer Duncan and Raymond Duncan v. LaBlonde Development Corporation, Thomas J. LaBlonde, Jr., Talus Homeowners’ Association, and others (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2021-019511) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s filed minute entries, especially the October 10, 2022 HOA dismissal ruling, the June 22, 2023 reconsideration ruling, and the August 30, 2023 ruling resolving the HOA portion; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: later entries continue the non-HOA judgment-enforcement docket through June 2026. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The court’s final HOA ruling did not decide the validity of earlier fines. It affirmed a preliminary injunction prohibiting additional Talus HOA fines as of May 4, 2023, dismissed the HOA count because that injunction granted the homeowners’ requested relief, dismissed the HOA from the lawsuit, and denied both sides’ attorneys’ fee requests.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Jennifer Duncan (Plaintiff)
Homeowner plaintiff in the construction-defect case and the injunction claim against Talus Homeowners’ Association.
Raymond Duncan (Plaintiff)
Homeowner plaintiff in the construction-defect case and the injunction claim against Talus Homeowners’ Association.
Rodney Galarza (Counsel)
Counsel shown for the homeowners in the 2022 and 2023 HOA-related minute entries.

Respondent Side

Talus Homeowners’ Association (Defendant)
HOA defendant on Count 5 of the first amended complaint, which sought injunctive relief against HOA enforcement activity and fines.
LaBlonde Development Corporation (Defendant)
Builder defendant in the broader construction-defect dispute; later obtained summary judgment on the non-HOA claims.
Thomas J. LaBlonde, Jr. (Defendant)
Individual LaBlonde defendant in the broader construction-defect dispute.
Haidyn DiLorenzo (Counsel)
Counsel shown for Talus Homeowners’ Association in the HOA-related minute entries.
Beth Mulcahy (Counsel)
Counsel shown for Talus Homeowners’ Association at the May 4, 2023 hearing.

Neutral Parties

Troon North Master HOA (Non-party association)
The court noted this association was not a party and that claims between it and the homeowners had settled before the June 2023 reconsideration ruling.
Joan M. Sinclair (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court judge who issued the HOA rulings and the later LaBlonde summary-judgment ruling.

What happened

Jennifer and Raymond Duncan sued LaBlonde Development Corporation, Thomas J. LaBlonde, Jr., and other construction participants over a home-construction dispute. Count 5 of their first amended complaint sought injunctive relief against Talus Homeowners’ Association, asking the court to stop the HOA from taking action against them regarding construction of their home.

The HOA portion centered on grading, drainage, and fines. The court’s October 10, 2022 ruling says Talus HOA was assessing fines and demanding repairs to grading and drainage while the homeowners’ construction-defect claims against the builder were still pending. The HOA argued it was seeking temporary repairs to address possible damage to common areas or other properties.

Judge Joan M. Sinclair initially granted Talus HOA’s motion to dismiss Count 5. The ruling treated the HOA CC&Rs as a contract and cited Section 6.05 and Article 11, Section 11.01, under which the board could require corrective action and the association had the right and duty to enforce restrictions. The court concluded that enjoining the HOA from all enforcement while the construction case proceeded was not justified and dismissed the HOA from the case.

That was not the final result. In June 2023, after argument and status notices, the court granted the homeowners’ reconsideration motion. It vacated the October 2022 dismissal ruling, noted it had issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting additional fines by Talus HOA as of May 4, 2023, and explained that it had not known about the Troon North Master HOA or analyzed the relationship between the two associations’ CC&Rs when it issued the first ruling.

On August 30, 2023, the court clarified the final HOA disposition. It affirmed the preliminary injunction against additional Talus HOA fines, dismissed Count 5 because the requested relief had been granted, and dismissed Talus HOA from the case because no other claims involved it. The court expressly did not decide the validity of fines issued before May 4, 2023 because no specific action to enforce those fines was before it.

The court then denied both sides’ fee requests. Talus HOA was not the successful party because the homeowners received the preliminary injunction. Under A.R.S. § 12-349, the court found both sides acted unreasonably and without substantial justification: the homeowners by bringing Talus HOA into the lawsuit before the HOA filed an action to enforce its fines, and Talus HOA by seeking to enforce its CC&Rs under the circumstances described in the ruling.

Procedural timeline

Step 2021-12-27 The Duncans file the superior-court construction case.

Step 2022-06-03 Talus Homeowners’ Association files its motion to dismiss the injunction count in the first amended complaint.

Step 2022-10-10 The court grants the HOA’s motion to dismiss, concluding the HOA was acting within its CC&R enforcement authority and dismissing the HOA from the case.

Step 2022-11-18 The homeowners file a motion for reconsideration of the HOA dismissal ruling.

Step 2023-05-04 At argument, the court issues a preliminary injunction prohibiting additional fines by Talus HOA as of that date.

Step 2023-06-22 The court grants reconsideration, vacates the October 2022 ruling, and holds the HOA fee request in abeyance.

Step 2023-08-30 The court affirms the preliminary injunction, dismisses the HOA count because the requested relief was granted, dismisses Talus HOA from the case, and denies both sides’ fee requests.

Step 2024-02-08 The court grants the LaBlonde defendants summary judgment on the remaining non-HOA claims based on preclusion from Registrar of Contractors proceedings.

Type: Court/source PDF

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file

2026-06-17_038_status-conference.pdf

FAQ

Was Talus HOA allowed to enforce its CC&Rs?

The court’s first ruling said the HOA had CC&R authority and a duty to enforce restrictions affecting adjacent lots, common areas, or open spaces. But that ruling was later vacated, and the final HOA ruling focused on the preliminary injunction against additional fines rather than a final decision validating every HOA enforcement step.

What did the preliminary injunction do?

The August 2023 ruling says the court had issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting additional fines by Talus HOA as of May 4, 2023. The court treated that injunction as the relief requested in Count 5 and dismissed the count because the relief had been granted.

Did the court decide whether earlier fines were valid?

No. The August 2023 ruling says the court did not address the validity of fines issued before May 4, 2023 because no specific action seeking enforcement of those fines was before the court.

Why was the October 2022 HOA dismissal ruling vacated?

The court granted reconsideration after learning that the Troon North Master HOA existed and that claims between the homeowners and that non-party association had settled. The court said it had not analyzed the relationship between the Talus CC&Rs and the Troon North Master CC&Rs when the first ruling was issued.

Who received attorneys’ fees in the HOA dispute?

Neither side. The court found Talus HOA was not the successful party because the homeowners received the preliminary injunction, and it also found both the homeowners and the HOA acted unreasonably and without substantial justification under A.R.S. § 12-349.

Is this a precedent for other Arizona HOA construction disputes?

No. This is a superior-court case and binds only the parties. It is useful as a practical example of CC&R enforcement, construction-defect overlap, fines, and fee risk, but it is not a published appellate rule.

Case Dossier

Case Summary

Case ID / citation	CV2021-019511 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunal	Superior Court
Decision / key date	August 30, 2023
Judge / panel	Hon. Joan M. Sinclair, Hon. Richard Albrecht, Hon. John L. Blanchard, Hon. Randall H. Warner
Parties	Jennifer Duncan and Raymond Duncan (Plaintiffs/homeowners) v. LaBlonde Development Corporation, Thomas J. LaBlonde, Jr., Talus Homeowners’ Association, and other defendants
Governing law	A.R.S. § 12-349
Topics	cc-and-rsarchitectural-reviewfinesattorneys-feesprocedure
Outcome / holding	The superior court ultimately resolved the HOA portion by affirming a preliminary injunction prohibiting Talus HOA from imposing additional fines as of May 4, 2023, dismissing the homeowners’ injunction count because the requested relief had been granted, dismissing Talus HOA from the lawsuit, and denying both Talus HOA’s and the homeowners’ fee requests under A.R.S. § 12-349.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package	38 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	10 roadmap entries
Video overview	No video embed currently configured
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	6 questions
Curated download aliases	1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Jennifer and Raymond Duncan sued LaBlonde Development Corporation and related defendants over a home-construction dispute, and also sought injunctive relief against Talus Homeowners’ Association to stop the HOA from taking enforcement action about construction, grading, drainage, and fines. In October 2022, the superior court granted the HOA’s motion to dismiss, reasoning that the HOA was acting within its CC&R authority and duty to protect other lots and common areas. In June 2023, after learning of the Troon North Master HOA and related settlement context, the court granted the homeowners’ reconsideration motion, vacated the October 2022 ruling, and noted that it had issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting additional fines by Talus HOA. In an August 30, 2023 ruling, the court clarified that the injunction resolved Count 5, dismissed the HOA from the case because no other claims involved it, and denied both sides’ fee requests after finding both had acted unreasonably and without substantial justification.

Key Issues & Findings

The first HOA ruling treated the CC&Rs as a contract between the homeowners, other homeowners, and the HOA. Looking to Section 6.05 and Article 11, Section 11.01, the court reasoned that Talus HOA had authority and a duty to enforce restrictions when grading and drainage from the homeowners’ lot allegedly affected adjacent lots, common areas, or open spaces. The court concluded the homeowners had not shown a strong likelihood of success in stopping all enforcement during the construction-defect lawsuit, and dismissed the injunction count against the HOA.

That ruling did not remain the final HOA disposition. In June 2023, the court granted reconsideration, vacated the October 2022 dismissal ruling, and explained that it had not known about the Troon North Master HOA when the original ruling was issued and had not analyzed the relationship between the Talus and Troon North Master CC&Rs. The court also noted that it had issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting additional fines by Talus HOA as of May 4, 2023.

In August 2023, the court clarified the result. Count 5 was effectively resolved because the preliminary injunction gave the homeowners the relief they requested against Talus HOA. The court dismissed Count 5 and Talus HOA from the case, but did not decide whether any fines before May 4, 2023 were valid because no specific enforcement action over those fines was before the court. On fees, the court denied both sides’ requests: Talus HOA was not the successful party because the homeowners obtained the injunction, and both sides had acted unreasonably and without substantial justification.

Why It Matters

This draft is useful for HOA readers because it shows how quickly an architectural or construction-enforcement dispute can become entangled with builder litigation, master-association issues, and fee exposure. The court’s first ruling recognized an HOA’s CC&R authority and duty to protect other lots and common areas from alleged grading and drainage impacts, but the later rulings show that enforcement context matters: the court reversed course after learning more about the related master-association setting and entered a preliminary injunction against additional fines.

The case is not a clean precedential rule and it is not a published appellate decision. Its practical value is narrower: an HOA may have CC&R enforcement authority, but pushing fines while related construction and master-association disputes are unresolved can still lead to injunction practice and mutual fee denial. The court’s final HOA ruling left pre-May 2023 fine validity undecided because no specific fine-enforcement action was before it.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Val Vista Lakes Community Association v. Susan Wellman

Posted on July 2, 2026 by [email protected]

Superior Court HOA Case

A Maricopa County judge held that court-authorized self-help cleanup costs could be charged to the owner’s ledger, secured by an assessment lien, and foreclosed under A.R.S. § 33-1807.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Val Vista Lakes Community Association v. Susan Wellman, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2021-001865.

Download ruling

Scope note: This page covers Val Vista Lakes Community Association v. Susan Wellman (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2021-001865) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s filed minute entries, especially the June 2021 default-judgment minute entry, the November 2021 injunction-enforcement minute entries, the November 3, 2023 under-advisement ruling on lien foreclosure, and the March 28, 2025 Rule 50 ruling. Currency caveat: the last collected minute entry, dated April 2, 2025, continues a contempt/enforcement evidentiary hearing to July 24, 2025; the collected record does not show the result of that continued hearing. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The superior court allowed Val Vista Lakes to use A.R.S. § 33-1807 lien foreclosure to collect unpaid nuisance-abatement costs. Because a prior judgment authorized association self-help, the association charged cleanup costs to the owner’s ledger under the judgment and governing documents; the court held those costs were secured by the assessment lien and were foreclosable once the unpaid balance exceeded the statutory threshold.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Val Vista Lakes Community Association (Plaintiff)
Homeowners association that obtained the default judgment, pursued nuisance abatement, charged cleanup costs to the owner’s account, and sought lien foreclosure.
Gregory A. Stein (Counsel)
Counsel of record for the association in many of the early and summary-judgment entries.
Tessa Knueppel (Counsel)
Counsel appearing for the association in later enforcement and contempt proceedings.
Joshua M. Bolen (Counsel)
Counsel appearing with Tessa Knueppel for the association in later enforcement proceedings.

Respondent Side

Susan M. Wellman (Defendant)
Homeowner defendant who opposed the association’s lien-foreclosure and later contempt/enforcement requests.
Arizona Federal Credit Union (Defendant)
Financial institution defendant named in later proceedings related to the supplemental foreclosure claim.
Olen V. Lenets (Counsel)
Counsel of record for Susan Wellman in the summary-judgment and later enforcement entries.

Neutral Parties

Scott A. Blaney (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court judge who issued the November 2023 summary-judgment ruling and later enforcement rulings.
Richard Albrecht (Judge)
Judicial officer who handled 2021 injunction-enforcement and early supplemental-complaint proceedings.
David W. Garbarino (Judge)
Judicial officer who handled the June 2021 default-hearing minute entry.

What happened

Val Vista Lakes sued Susan Wellman over alleged violations of the association’s declaration and governing documents. The November 2023 ruling describes the alleged conditions as a large quantity of trash, unauthorized backyard structures where transient individuals were living, inoperable vehicles, and other nuisance conditions.

A June 2021 default hearing produced a formal judgment against Wellman. In November 2021, after an order-to-show-cause hearing, the court reaffirmed the injunction, ordered notice before the association removed unapproved structures and debris, and stated that trash and debris were not to accumulate in the yard in the future. A correction a week later made clear that Wellman and others were not to interfere with association removal efforts.

The association later used the injunction’s self-help remedy. The November 3, 2023 ruling states that its contractors removed more than 220,000 pounds of trash and other unauthorized items at a cost of $38,960.99, not including attorneys’ fees and costs. The association charged that cleanup amount to Wellman’s ledger under the default judgment and governing documents. After partial payments, it filed a supplemental complaint to foreclose on the remaining balance.

Judge Scott A. Blaney granted partial summary judgment for Val Vista Lakes on lien foreclosure. The court held that the cleanup costs were properly charged to the ledger and secured by the association’s assessment lien. It also held the association was entitled to foreclose because, when the supplemental complaint was filed, Wellman was delinquent in payment of lien-secured amounts of at least $1,200 under A.R.S. § 33-1807(A).

Wellman argued that the association failed to satisfy the A.R.S. § 33-1807(K) notice requirement before filing foreclosure. The court rejected that argument on the facts before it, reasoning that the parties were already litigating the issue and the court had already entered the default judgment, so Wellman had sufficient notice that collection activity was underway.

The collected record continued after the foreclosure ruling. Later entries ordered settlement-conference steps and addressed a separate contempt/enforcement track. On March 28, 2025, the court denied Wellman’s Rule 50 motion, holding that the self-help provision was permissive rather than a prerequisite to court enforcement. The last collected minute entry continued the remaining contempt/enforcement hearing to July 24, 2025.

Procedural timeline

Step 2021-06-02 Default-hearing minute entry grants judgment against Susan Wellman under a formal written judgment.

Step 2021-11-08 Order-to-show-cause hearing enforces the default judgment, requires notice before association removal, and reaffirms the injunction against future trash and debris accumulation.

Step 2021-11-15 Correcting entry clarifies that the homeowner and others shall not interfere with association removal of unapproved structures.

Step 2022-05-04 The court grants Val Vista Lakes leave to file a first supplemental complaint.

Step 2022-12-14 The court grants the homeowner Rule 56(d) discovery before further summary-judgment briefing.

Step 2023-05-19 The court denies the association’s request to limit the issues the homeowner may raise in her amended summary-judgment response.

Step 2023-11-01 The court hears argument on the association’s lien-foreclosure summary-judgment motion and takes it under advisement.

Step 2023-11-03 Under-advisement ruling grants partial summary judgment to Val Vista Lakes on lien foreclosure under A.R.S. § 33-1807.

Step 2024-11-12 The court begins the combined evidentiary hearing and trial on contempt sanctions, receives association evidence, and orders Rule 50 briefing.

Type: Court/source PDF

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file

2025-04-02_036_oral-argument-set.pdf

FAQ

What costs did the association foreclose on?

The foreclosure ruling involved unpaid cleanup costs charged after the association exercised a self-help remedy under the default judgment and governing documents. The ruling states the cleanup cost was $38,960.99, excluding attorneys’ fees and costs.

Why did the court treat the cleanup costs as lien-secured?

The court found the self-help costs were properly charged to the homeowner’s account ledger under the default judgment and governing documents, and that those ledgered amounts were secured by the association’s assessment lien.

How did A.R.S. § 33-1807 matter?

The court relied on A.R.S. § 33-1807(A) to hold that the association was entitled to foreclose because the homeowner was delinquent in payment of monies secured by the lien in the amount of $1,200 or more when the foreclosure action was filed.

Did the homeowner’s notice argument succeed?

No. The court rejected the A.R.S. § 33-1807(K) notice argument because the parties were already litigating the issue, a default judgment had already been entered, and the homeowner had sufficient notice that collection activity was underway.

Was the association required to keep using self-help before asking the court for enforcement?

In the March 2025 Rule 50 ruling, the court said no. It read the self-help language as permissive and said the order did not require the association to act as the homeowner’s provider of bulk-trash collection before seeking court enforcement.

Was the case finished in the collected record?

Not completely. The November 2023 lien-foreclosure ruling resolved the summary-judgment issue, but later contempt/enforcement proceedings continued. The last collected entry continued the remaining evidentiary hearing to July 24, 2025.

Case Dossier

Case Summary

Case ID / citation	CV2021-001865 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunal	Superior Court
Decision / key date	November 3, 2023
Judge / panel	Hon. Margaret R. Mahoney, Hon. David W. Garbarino, Hon. Richard Albrecht, Hon. Scott A. Blaney
Parties	Val Vista Lakes Community Association (Plaintiff, homeowners association) v. Susan M. Wellman (Defendant, homeowner) and Arizona Federal Credit Union
Governing law	A.R.S. § 33-1807 Rule 50, Ariz. R. Civ. P. Rule 56, Ariz. R. Civ. P.
Topics	liensforeclosureassessmentsfinescc-and-rsprocedure
Outcome / holding	The superior court granted Val Vista Lakes partial summary judgment on lien foreclosure. It held that self-help nuisance-abatement costs charged after a default judgment were properly placed on the owner’s account ledger, secured by the association’s assessment lien, and foreclosable because the unpaid amount exceeded the A.R.S. § 33-1807(A) threshold when the supplemental foreclosure action was filed.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package	36 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	11 roadmap entries
Video overview	No video embed currently configured
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	6 questions
Curated download aliases	1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Val Vista Lakes Community Association obtained a default judgment and permanent injunction requiring Susan Wellman to abate alleged nuisance conditions and allowing association self-help if she did not comply. After the association used that self-help remedy and charged $38,960.99 in cleanup costs to the owner’s ledger, it filed a supplemental lien-foreclosure claim for the unpaid balance. The superior court granted partial summary judgment to the association on lien foreclosure, holding that the self-help costs were properly charged to the account ledger, secured by the association’s assessment lien, and subject to foreclosure under A.R.S. § 33-1807. Later entries show continuing contempt/enforcement proceedings over the injunction, with the collected record ending before the continued July 2025 evidentiary hearing.

Key Issues & Findings

The November 3, 2023 under-advisement ruling started from the default judgment and injunction already entered in the association’s favor. That injunction ordered permanent nuisance abatement and included a self-help provision allowing the association, after notice, to enter the property and abate the nuisance if the owner failed to comply. The court stated that the association then removed more than 220,000 pounds of trash and unauthorized items, charged $38,960.99 in cleanup costs to the owner’s ledger under the default judgment and governing documents, and sued to foreclose after only part of that charge had been paid.

Applying A.R.S. § 33-1807(A) and Laveen Meadows Homeowners Association v. Mejia, the court found the association was entitled to foreclose because the owner was delinquent in payment of monies secured by the lien in an amount of $1,200 or more when the supplemental complaint was filed. The court also rejected the owner’s A.R.S. § 33-1807(K) notice argument, reasoning that the parties were already litigating the issue and that the default judgment had already been issued, so the owner had sufficient notice that collection activity was underway.

The collected minute entries do not show a clean final stop to all enforcement activity. After the foreclosure ruling, later entries show mandatory settlement-conference orders and a separate contempt/enforcement track over continued alleged injunction violations. In March 2025, the court denied the owner’s oral Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law, explaining that the injunction’s self-help language was permissive and did not require the association to keep providing bulk-trash cleanup before asking the court to enforce its order.

Why It Matters

This case is important for HOA enforcement disputes because it treats court-authorized nuisance-abatement costs as more than an ordinary fine. The ruling says those self-help costs, once charged under the judgment and governing documents, can be secured by an assessment lien and foreclosed under A.R.S. § 33-1807 if the statutory delinquency threshold is met.

The ruling also gives a trial-court example of how notice arguments may fare when lien foreclosure follows earlier litigation and a default judgment. The court did not require a fresh A.R.S. § 33-1807(K) notice cycle on these facts because the owner already had notice through the litigation and judgment. As a superior-court ruling, it binds only the parties, but it is a useful source for the intersection of injunction enforcement, association self-help, account ledgers, and lien foreclosure.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Vista Del Corazon Homeowners Association v. Smith

Posted on June 30, 2026 by [email protected]

Amendments & STR | A.R.S. §§ 33-1806.01, 33-1817 | 2 CA-CV 2023-0071

Vista Del Corazon’s HOA amended its CC&Rs to ban rentals shorter than ninety days and re-voted to approve them with eighty-percent support. Division Two of the Arizona Court of Appeals vacated the injunction enforcing the amendments, applying Kalway v. Calabria Ranch HOA to hold that entirely new restrictions need fair notice in the original declaration and, absent that, unanimous consent.

Last updated June 30, 2026. Case: VISTA DEL CORAZON HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, AN ARIZONA NON-PROFIT CORPORATION, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant/Appellee, v. DEANNA SMITH AND MYCHAL A. KINTZ, Defendants/Counter-Claimants/Appellants, 2 CA-CV 2023-0071.

Download memorandum decision

Scope note: This page covers VISTA DEL CORAZON HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, AN ARIZONA NON-PROFIT CORPORATION, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant/Appellee, v. DEANNA SMITH AND MYCHAL A. KINTZ, Defendants/Counter-Claimants/Appellants (2 CA-CV 2023-0071) 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

Applying Kalway v. Calabria Ranch HOA, the court held that an HOA cannot use the CC&R amendment process to impose entirely new restrictions or affirmative obligations on owners unless the original CC&Rs gave fair notice that such restrictions could be added; following the technical amendment procedure (here, an eighty-percent vote) does not cure the lack of notice, and absent unanimous consent the new short-term-rental ban and most related provisions are unenforceable. The permanent injunction compelling compliance was therefore an abuse of discretion and was vacated.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Vista Del Corazon Homeowners Association (Plaintiff)
Arizona non-profit corporation and Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant/Appellee; adopted the 2021 and re-voted 2022 CC&R amendments and sought to enforce them by injunction.
Alexis G. Firehawk (Counsel)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen LLP
Counsel for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant/Appellee Vista Del Corazon Homeowners Association (Tempe).
Ember Van Vranken (Counsel)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen LLP
Counsel for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant/Appellee Vista Del Corazon Homeowners Association (Tempe).

Respondent Side

Deanna Smith (Defendant)
Co-owner of Lot 89 (since 2020) and Defendant/Counter-Claimant/Appellant; challenged the validity of the CC&R amendments and prevailed on appeal.
Mychal A. Kintz (Defendant)
Co-owner of Lot 89 (since 2020) and Defendant/Counter-Claimant/Appellant; challenged the validity of the CC&R amendments and prevailed on appeal.
Jonathan A. Dessaules (Counsel)
Dessaules Law Group
Counsel for Defendants/Counter-Claimants/Appellants Deanna Smith and Mychal A. Kintz (Phoenix).
Ashley C. Hill (Counsel)
Dessaules Law Group
Counsel for Defendants/Counter-Claimants/Appellants Deanna Smith and Mychal A. Kintz (Phoenix).

Neutral Parties

Judge Brearcliffe (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two
Presiding Judge who authored the memorandum decision of the Court.
Judge Kelly (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two
Judge who concurred in the decision.
Judge Eckerstrom (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two
Judge who concurred in part and dissented in part; would have upheld the lease-notice, lease-default, and disclosure provisions as enforcing the original covenants.
Joseph R. Georgini (Judge)
Pinal County Superior Court
The Honorable Joseph R. Georgini, trial judge whose grant of the permanent injunction was vacated on appeal.

What happened

Vista Del Corazon is a planned community in Pinal County whose CC&Rs were first adopted in 1997. Deanna Smith and Mychal Kintz bought Lot 89 in 2020 and rented it out from time to time for periods shorter than ninety days. In February 2021 the HOA board told members it had been “surprised to discover” that the existing CC&Rs did not prohibit short-term rentals, and it set out to amend them. Without holding a formal association meeting and vote, the HOA collected written approvals, repealed the existing rental section, and adopted new §§ 4.22.1-4.22.5 (the “2021 amendments”) banning rentals shorter than ninety days, prohibiting advertising, and adding a special fine structure. The HOA began fining Smith and Kintz, then sued to enforce the amendments and collect the fines; Smith and Kintz counterclaimed that the amendments were invalid because the HOA had not obtained the vote required to amend without a meeting.

After a settlement conference the parties stayed the case so the HOA could re-vote. In April 2022 about eighty percent of members approved the amendments (the “2022 amendments”), which the HOA president certified on April 28, 2022; they were erroneously recorded in Maricopa County before being properly recorded in Pinal County on August 11, 2022. The superior court granted the HOA partial summary judgment, entered a permanent injunction compelling Smith and Kintz to stop advertising and renting short-term, and awarded the HOA its fees and costs. On appeal, Division Two vacated the injunction. Applying Kalway, it held that the short-term-rental ban and most related provisions were entirely new restrictions for which the 1997 CC&Rs gave no fair notice, so they could not be enforced absent unanimous consent. The court vacated the injunction without prejudice, vacated the HOA’s fee award, awarded Smith and Kintz their appellate fees, and remanded for further proceedings.

Procedural timeline

Step 1997 Vista Del Corazon’s original CC&Rs (Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions, and Grant of Easements) are adopted.

Step 2020 Deanna Smith and Mychal Kintz buy Lot 89 and begin leasing it from time to time for periods shorter than ninety days.

Step 2021-02 The HOA board sends members a letter reporting short-term-rental activity and proposing to amend the CC&Rs to require a minimum rental of ninety consecutive days.

Step 2021 The HOA adopts the 2021 amendments (repealing § 4.22 and adopting §§ 4.22.1-4.22.5) by written approval without a formal association meeting and vote, records them in Pinal County, and adopts a special fine structure; the HOA begins fining Smith and Kintz.

Step 2022 The HOA files a complaint to enforce the amended CC&Rs and collect fines; Smith and Kintz counterclaim challenging the validity of the 2021 amendments and seeking to void them.

Step 2022-04 After a settlement conference and stay, the HOA holds a re-vote and about eighty percent of members approve the amendments (the 2022 amendments).

Step 2022-04-28 The HOA president certifies the 2022 amendments.

Step 2022-05-02 The 2022 amendments are erroneously recorded in Maricopa County.

Step 2022-08-11 The 2022 amendments are properly recorded in Pinal County.

Step 2023 The superior court grants the HOA partial summary judgment, denies Smith and Kintz’s motion, enters a permanent injunction enforcing the 2022 amendments, and Smith and Kintz appeal.

Step 2023-03-29 The superior court awards the HOA its attorney fees and costs incurred through the partial summary judgment ruling.

Step 2024-03-08 The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two, files its memorandum decision vacating the permanent injunction and the fee award and remanding.

Complete uploaded source-document index

This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/vista-del-corazon-homeowners-association-v-smith/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.

Source 1 2024-03-08

Memorandum Decision

Type: Decision or judgment

Memorandum decision holding that applying Kalway v.

Download source file

2024-03-08_001_memorandum-decision.pdf

FAQ

Is the Vista Del Corazon v. Smith decision binding precedent?

No. It is an unpublished memorandum decision of the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two (No. 2 CA-CV 2023-0071, filed March 8, 2024). Under Arizona rules, memorandum decisions are generally not precedential and are not citable as binding authority, although this one illustrates how courts apply the binding precedent in Kalway v. Calabria Ranch HOA.

Can an Arizona HOA ban short-term rentals by amending its CC&Rs?

Not automatically. The court held that a ban on rentals shorter than ninety days was an entirely new restriction that the community’s original 1997 CC&Rs gave no fair notice could be imposed. Under Kalway, such a new restriction generally requires the unanimous consent of affected owners, not just a majority or supermajority vote, so the ban was unenforceable here even after an eighty-percent re-vote.

Does following the CC&R amendment procedure make an amendment valid?

Not by itself. The court explained that technically complying with A.R.S. § 33-1817 and the CC&Rs’ amendment clause (here, a seventy-five-percent threshold) is not dispositive. If the original declaration did not give owners fair notice that a particular kind of restriction could be added, the common law still requires unanimous consent for that new restriction.

Did A.R.S. § 33-1806.01 give the HOA power to restrict short-term rentals?

No. The court held that § 33-1806.01(A) protects an owner’s right to lease subject to validly imposed rental-time-period restrictions; it does not itself give HOAs an unfettered power to create such restrictions, and it did not abrogate the common-law notice requirement recognized in Dreamland and Kalway.

Which amendment provisions survived and which were struck?

The court left in place provisions carried over from the original CC&Rs (such as the bar on leasing less than the entire lot and an owner’s responsibility for an occupant’s compliance) and a new sentence defining ‘lease’ and ‘rent,’ which was tied to existing terms. It held unenforceable by injunction the short-term-rental ban, the advertising ban, the mandatory lease terms, the new power for the HOA to evict an owner’s tenants, and the broad requirement to disclose lease information.

What happened to the attorney-fee award?

Because it vacated the injunction, the court also vacated the related attorney-fee award the trial court had given the HOA. As the prevailing parties on appeal, Smith and Kintz were awarded their appellate fees and costs under the CC&Rs’ fee provision (§ 17.1), upon compliance with the rules; the HOA, having lost, recovered nothing on appeal.

Case Dossier

Case Summary

Case ID / citation	2 CA-CV 2023-0071
Court / tribunal	Court of Appeals
Decision / key date	March 8, 2024
Judge / panel	Presiding Judge Brearcliffe (authored), Judge Kelly (concurred), Judge Eckerstrom (concurred in part and dissented in part)
Parties	Vista Del Corazon Homeowners Association (Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant/Appellee) v. Deanna Smith and Mychal A. Kintz (Defendants/Counter-Claimants/Appellants)
Governing law	A.R.S. § 33-1806.01 A.R.S. § 33-1817 A.R.S. § 12-2101 A.R.S. § 33-1310 A.R.S. § 1-201 A.R.S. § 12-341.01 A.R.S. § 12-341 A.R.S. § 12-349
Topics	cc-and-rsfinesdisclosureattorneys-fees
Outcome / holding	Applying Kalway v. Calabria Ranch HOA, the court held that an HOA cannot use the CC&R amendment process to impose entirely new restrictions or affirmative obligations on owners unless the original CC&Rs gave fair notice that such restrictions could be added; following the technical amendment procedure (here, an eighty-percent vote) does not cure the lack of notice, and absent unanimous consent the new short-term-rental ban and most related provisions are unenforceable. The permanent injunction compelling compliance was therefore an abuse of discretion and was vacated.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package	1 PDF
Step-by-step docket roadmap	12 roadmap entries
Video overview	No video embed currently configured
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	6 questions
Curated download aliases	1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Vista Del Corazon Homeowners Association sued homeowners Deanna Smith and Mychal Kintz to stop them from renting their Pinal County home for short terms and to enforce CC&R amendments the HOA adopted in 2021 and re-adopted by an eighty-percent vote in 2022. The amendments banned rentals shorter than ninety days, prohibited advertising short-term rentals, required disclosure of lease information, dictated lease terms, and let the HOA evict an owner’s tenants. The trial court found the amendments valid and entered a permanent injunction enforcing them. Division Two of the Arizona Court of Appeals vacated, applying Kalway v. Calabria Ranch HOA: even a properly conducted amendment vote cannot impose entirely new restrictions unless the original 1997 CC&Rs gave homeowners fair notice that such restrictions could later be added. Because the short-term-rental ban and most related provisions were new and unforeseeable, the injunction was an abuse of discretion.

Key Issues & Findings

The court first confirmed it could review the legal basis for the injunction even though it lacked jurisdiction over the underlying partial summary judgment ruling, because the injunction was “inextricably bound up” with the trial court’s conclusion that the 2022 amendments were valid. It then rejected the trial court’s view that A.R.S. § 33-1806.01(A) had abrogated the common-law limits on CC&R amendments. That statute preserves an owner’s right to lease subject to validly imposed rental-time-period restrictions; it does not give HOAs an unfettered power to create such restrictions, and it does not displace the notice requirement recognized in Dreamland and Kalway.

Under Kalway, an amendment is valid only if it is “reasonable and foreseeable” from the original CC&Rs, meaning the original declaration gave notice that a covenant existed and could be refined, corrected, or filled in. A general amendment clause (here allowing change by a seventy-five-percent vote), general-purpose recitals, and a flexible definition of “Declaration” were not enough to put owners on notice that any particular new restriction could be imposed. Technical compliance with A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)(1) and the CC&Rs’ amendment procedure was not dispositive; absent fair notice, the common law requires the unanimous consent of affected owners, which the HOA did not obtain.

Reviewing each provision, the court held that the short-term-rental ban (§ 4.22.2), the advertising ban (§ 4.22.3), the mandatory lease terms (§ 4.22.4), the new power to evict an owner’s tenants (§ 4.22.5), and the broad lease-disclosure requirement (last sentence of § 4.22.1) were entirely new and untethered to the 1997 CC&Rs, and so could not be enforced by injunction; the original CC&Rs allowed rentals of any duration and even excepted leasing from the ban on trades and businesses. Only provisions carried over from the original CC&Rs and the new sentence defining “lease” and “rent” (tethered to existing terms) were enforceable. Because the injunction rested on an erroneous view of the law and the equitable balance had shifted, the court vacated it in its entirety and remanded. It also vacated the related fee award to the HOA and awarded Smith and Kintz their appellate fees under the CC&Rs’ fee clause.

Why It Matters

This case shows that following the formal CC&R amendment procedure, even with a large supermajority vote (eighty percent), is not enough to make new use restrictions enforceable in Arizona. Under Kalway, owners must have had fair notice from the original declaration that a particular kind of restriction could later be added; brand-new bans on short-term rentals, advertising, or tenant-related obligations generally require unanimous consent. For HOAs pursuing short-term-rental restrictions, the decision is a cautionary complement to Kalway and Dreamland: amendments can fail not only on procedure but on the more fundamental ground that they impose obligations no reasonable owner could have foreseen. It also illustrates that an injunction enforcing such amendments is an equitable remedy the trial court must independently justify.

← Back to Court of Appeals cases

Turtle Rock III HOA v. Fisher: HOA Daily Fines Deemed Per Se Unreasonable Without Written Schedule

Posted on June 29, 2026 by [email protected]

HOA Daily Fines & CC&Rs | A.R.S. § 33-1803(B) | 1 CA-CV 16-0455

An Arizona case illustrating the strict evidentiary standards homeowners associations must meet to legally impose fines. While homeowners must raise objections at trial to preserve them, HOAs must present their written fee policies to enforce monetary penalties.

Last updated June 30, 2026. Case: Turtle Rock III, Court of Appeals No. 1 CA-CV 16-0455; affirmed in part and reversed in part — opinion depublished by the Arizona Supreme Court (No. CV-17-0327-PR), so it is non-precedential.

Download the appellate opinion Download the appellate mandate Download the record index Source-file index FAQ

Scope note: This page covers the litigation between Turtle Rock III HOA and homeowner Lynne Fisher regarding property maintenance, daily fines, and subsequent appeal proceedings. While the opinion remains highly persuasive, it was depublished by the Arizona Supreme Court and therefore lacks precedential value. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The trial court’s injunction ordering property repairs is affirmed because the homeowner waived her interior maintenance objections by failing to raise them below, but the award of monetary penalties and attorneys’ fees is reversed because the association failed to present competent evidence of a pre-existing, promulgated fee schedule.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association (Plaintiff)
Arizona non-profit corporation and planned community association
Clint G. Goodman (Counsel)
Goodman Law Group, LLP
Attorney representing Plaintiff/Appellee Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association
Scott L. Potter (Counsel)
Goodman Law Offices, P.C.
Attorney representing Plaintiff/Appellee Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association
Maura A. Abernethy (Counsel)
Goodman Law Group, LLP
Attorney representing Plaintiff/Appellee Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association
Ashley N. Moscarello (Counsel)
Goodman Law Group, LLP
Attorney representing Plaintiff/Appellee Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association
Gregory J. Wahl (Board Member)
Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association
HOA Board Member who verified the initial Complaint
Verl Curtiss (Witness)
Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association
HOA representative who testified at the evidentiary hearing
Annette Milauskas (Witness)
Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association
HOA member listed as witness and present at the evidentiary hearing

Respondent Side

Lynne A. Fisher (Defendant)
Homeowner and record owner of property located at 901 E. Michigan Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona
James Roger Wood (Counsel)
The Law Offices of J. Roger Wood, PLLC
Lead attorney representing Defendant/Appellant Lynne A. Fisher; later disbarred
Erin S. Iungerich (Counsel)
The Law Offices of J. Roger Wood, PLLC
Attorney representing Defendant/Appellant Lynne A. Fisher
James B. Sweeney (Counsel)
The Law Offices of J. Roger Wood, PLLC
Attorney representing Defendant/Appellant Lynne A. Fisher

Neutral Parties

Hon. David M. Talamante (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court
Trial court judge who presided over the consolidated trial and evidentiary hearing
Hon. David K. Udall (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court
Original trial court judge before reassignment
Hon. Randall H. Warner (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court
Presiding Civil Judge who reassigned the case to Judge Talamante
Hon. Margaret Benny (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court
Superior Court Commissioner assigned to handle default judgment proceedings
Hon. Jon W. Thompson (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Appellate judge who delivered the opinion of the court
Hon. Kent E. Cattani (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Appellate judge who participated in the decision
Hon. Paul J. McMurdie (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Appellate judge who participated in the decision
Hon. Scott Bales (Judge)
Arizona Supreme Court
Chief Justice who signed the order denying review and depublishing the appellate opinion
Hon. Melina Brill (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Judge Pro Tempore who signed procedural scheduling orders
Hon. Barbara Vidal Vaught (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Judge Pro Tempore who signed the order extending time for the answering brief
Amy M. Wood (Other)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Clerk of the Court of Appeals, Division One
Ruth Willingham (Other)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Former Clerk of the Court of Appeals, Division One
Janet Johnson (Other)
Arizona Supreme Court
Clerk of the Arizona Supreme Court
Michael K. Jeanes (Other)
Maricopa County Superior Court
Clerk of the Superior Court of Maricopa County
Chris DeRose (Other)
Maricopa County Superior Court
Clerk of the Superior Court of Maricopa County

What happened

Beginning in January 2014, the Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association sent numerous notices of violation to Lynne Fisher regarding maintenance issues at her property, including weedy landscaping, damaged gates, and a wood-rotted garage door. The HOA also cited interior conditions, such as dilapidated blinds and excessive storage items visible from the street. When Fisher failed to cure these issues, the HOA began assessing a daily fine of $25 and eventually filed a lawsuit in November 2015 for breach of contract and injunctive relief.

At the April 2016 evidentiary hearing, which was consolidated with a trial on the merits, Fisher’s counsel appeared but Fisher did not, and her counsel presented no evidence or witnesses. The trial court subsequently entered an injunction ordering Fisher to replace her backyard door, keep her yard free of weeds, replace her front window blinds, and move interior items that prevented the blinds from closing properly. The court also entered judgment against Fisher for $3,850 in penalties, $10,839.70 in attorneys’ fees, and $474 in costs.

Fisher appealed the judgment to the Arizona Court of Appeals, which affirmed the injunction but reversed the fines and fee awards. The HOA petitioned the Arizona Supreme Court, which initially granted review on the issue of ad hoc penalties but later vacated its order as improvidently granted, denying the petition and depublishing the Court of Appeals’ opinion.

Video overview: Enforcing HOA Fines

This video explains how an Arizona homeowners association lost its award of daily fines and attorneys’ fees because it failed to present its written fine schedule in court.

Procedural timeline

Step 2015-11-04 Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association files a Complaint for breach of contract and injunctive relief against record owner Lynne A. Fisher in Maricopa County Superior Court.

Step 2015-11-20 Superior Court issues an Order to Show Cause setting a preliminary return hearing.

Step 2015-11-30 Defendant Lynne Fisher is personally served with the summons, complaint, and application for injunction.

Step 2015-12-11 Counsel enters a Notice of Appearance for Fisher and files a Notice of Change of Judge as a Matter of Right.

Step 2015-12-16 The case is reassigned from Judge David Udall to Judge David Talamante.

Step 2015-12-30 Plaintiff files an Affidavit and Application for Entry of Default after Fisher fails to file a timely response.

Step 2016-01-04 Court enters a minute entry noting default paperwork issues regarding a default coversheet.

Step 2016-01-05 Court sets a return hearing on the application for preliminary injunction.

Step 2016-01-08 Fisher files her Answer admitting residency but denying CC&R violation allegations, alongside a Demand for Jury Trial.

Step 2016-01-12 HOA files an Objection to Defendant’s Demand for Jury Trial, arguing no jury right exists in equitable enforcement actions.

Step 2016-01-20 Court holds a status conference where it sets an evidentiary hearing.

Step 2016-02-26 Court issues an order scheduling an evidentiary hearing for April 15, 2016.

Step 2016-03-01 HOA files a Request for Clarification regarding whether the evidentiary hearing will be consolidated with a trial on the merits.

Step 2016-03-11 Court clarifies that the evidentiary hearing will address both injunctive relief and monetary penalties.

Step 2016-03-23 Court issues a 100-day notice directing the parties to submit a Joint Report and Scheduling Order.

Step 2016-04-02 Court issues a 150-day order providing scheduling directives.

Step 2016-04-08 HOA files its trial exhibits, including the CC&Rs, deed, account ledger, photographs, and warning letters.

Step 2016-04-12 The parties submit a Joint Pretrial Statement outlining uncontested facts and issues for trial.

Step 2016-04-15 Evidentiary hearing is held before Judge David Talamante; Fisher’s counsel is present, but Fisher fails to appear.

Step 2016-04-21 HOA files its Application for Monetary Penalties seeking $9,165.25 and Application for Attorney Fees and Costs seeking $10,839.70.

Step 2016-05-11 Fisher files her Objection to the Application for Monetary Penalties, arguing lack of proper notice under A.R.S. § 33-1803(B).

Step 2016-05-12 Fisher files a Response and Objection to the HOA’s Application for Attorney Fees and Costs.

Step 2016-05-25 HOA files replies defending its applications for fees and monetary penalties.

Step 2016-06-07 Judge David Talamante signs the final Order and Judgment, awarding the HOA injunctive relief, $3,850 in penalties, $10,839.70 in attorney fees, and $474 in costs.

Step 2016-06-23 HOA files a Petition and Declaration for Supplemental Proceedings to discover Fisher’s assets.

Step 2016-07-03 Fisher files her Notice of Appeal to the Arizona Court of Appeals.

Step 2016-07-26 The parties file a Stipulation to Post Supersedeas Bond of $15,163.70 to stay execution of judgment during the appeal.

Step 2016-08-09 Court signs the order approving the supersedeas bond stay.

Step 2016-08-30 Fisher deposits a cashier’s check of $15,163.00 with the court as a supersedeas bond.

Step 2016-11-21 Fisher files her Appellant’s Opening Brief in the Court of Appeals (1 CA-CV 16-0455).

Step 2017-02-08 HOA files its Appellee’s Answering Brief.

Step 2017-03-06 Fisher’s counsel J. Roger Wood files a Notice of Disbarment attaching his Judgment of Disbarment in case PDJ-2016-9132.

Step 2017-10-26 The Arizona Court of Appeals issues its Opinion affirming the injunction but reversing the monetary penalties and attorney fees.

Step 2017-11-01 HOA files a Motion for Reconsideration challenging the Court of Appeals’ opinion on fines and damages.

Step 2017-11-02 Court of Appeals denies the HOA’s Motion for Reconsideration.

Step 2017-11-27 HOA files a Petition for Review with the Arizona Supreme Court.

Step 2018-05-08 The Arizona Supreme Court grants the Petition for Review on reframed issues regarding ad hoc penalties (No. CV-17-0327-PR).

Type: Court/source PDF

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file

2018-08-01_097_0000-returned-us-mail-letter-re-return-of.pdf

Source 97 2018-08-01

0000 Returned Us Mail Letter Re Return Of 2

Type: Court/source PDF

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file

2018-08-01_098_0000-returned-us-mail-letter-re-return-of-2.pdf

FAQ

Can an Arizona HOA impose daily fines on a homeowner without a written fine schedule?

No. Under A.R.S. § 33-1803(B), an HOA must establish and timely distribute a written schedule of penalties before imposing fines. In this case, the court ruled that failing to introduce the written fine schedule into evidence makes any assessed daily penalties ad hoc and per se unreasonable.

Does this Court of Appeals decision set a binding legal precedent for other Arizona HOAs?

No. Although the Court of Appeals issued a published opinion in 2017, the Arizona Supreme Court subsequently vacated its review and ordered the opinion depublished in July 2018. Therefore, this decision is non-precedential and cannot be cited as binding authority, though it remains highly persuasive regarding how courts evaluate ad hoc HOA penalties.

Can an HOA regulate or issue an injunction regarding the interior of a home?

Yes, but only under limited circumstances. Here, the court affirmed an injunction requiring the homeowner to replace dilapidated front-window blinds and move interior storage items back so the blinds could close. The court noted that because these conditions were ‘visible from neighboring property,’ they fell under the HOA’s authority to maintain community aesthetics under the CC&Rs.

What happens if a homeowner fails to participate in the trial court proceedings but appeals the decision?

The homeowner will likely lose on appeal. In this case, because the homeowner failed to attend the trial and her attorney did not object to the property maintenance allegations, the Court of Appeals held she waived her right to contest the injunction. Unpreserved arguments cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.

Can an HOA recover its attorneys’ fees if its daily fines are overturned on appeal?

If an HOA’s fine award is completely reversed on appeal, it may lose its status as the ‘successful party’ regarding those monetary claims. Here, because the Court of Appeals reversed the monetary penalties, it also reversed the trial court’s award of $10,839.70 in attorneys’ fees to the HOA, and denied appellate fee requests for both parties as neither was wholly successful.

Case Dossier

Case Summary

Case ID / citation	1 CA-CV 16-0455
Court / tribunal	Court of Appeals
Decision / key date	October 26, 2017
Judge / panel	Hon. Jon W. Thompson, Hon. Kent E. Cattani, Hon. Paul J. McMurdie
Parties	Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association (Plaintiff/Appellee) v. Lynne A. Fisher (Defendant/Appellant)
Governing law	A.R.S. § 33-1803(B) A.R.S. § 12-341.01
Topics	cc-and-rsfinesattorneys-feesprocedure
Outcome / holding	The trial court’s injunction ordering property repairs is affirmed because the homeowner waived her interior maintenance objections by failing to raise them below, but the award of monetary penalties and attorneys’ fees is reversed because the association failed to present competent evidence of a pre-existing, promulgated fee schedule.

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package	97 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	39 roadmap entries
Video overview	Turtle Rock III: Enforcing HOA Fines
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	5 questions
Curated download aliases	3 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association filed a lawsuit against homeowner Lynne Fisher in Maricopa County Superior Court, alleging multiple ongoing violations of the community’s CC&Rs regarding her property’s maintenance. The violations included missing and damaged gates, weeds, and a wood-rotted garage door, alongside interior conditions and dilapidated blinds visible from the street. Following an evidentiary hearing where Fisher failed to appear but was represented by counsel, the trial court granted a permanent injunction ordering repairs and awarded the HOA $3,850 in monetary penalties, $10,839.70 in attorneys’ fees, and $474 in costs. On appeal, the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the injunction, holding that Fisher waived her objections to both the exterior and interior repairs by failing to raise them below. However, the court reversed the monetary penalties and attorneys’ fees because the HOA failed to introduce its written fine schedule into evidence, making the fines per se unreasonable.

Key Issues & Findings

The Court of Appeals affirmed the injunction because Fisher failed to object to the required maintenance items at the trial court level, thereby waiving her arguments on appeal. Additionally, because the hearing transcript was missing, the court presumed the record supported the trial court’s injunctive order regarding both the exterior repairs and the interior adjustments to her window blinds and personal property.

On the issue of monetary penalties, the court held that under state statute (A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)) and established precedent (Villas at Hidden Lakes), community associations must timely promulgate and prove a written schedule of fines before imposing monetary penalties. Because the Association failed to introduce its fine schedule into evidence during the trial, the daily penalties were deemed ad hoc and per se unreasonable.

Finally, because the monetary penalties were reversed, the associated award of trial-level attorneys’ fees was also reversed, and neither party was awarded attorneys’ fees on appeal because neither was wholly successful.

Why It Matters

This case establishes a critical limit on the enforcement and regulatory powers of Arizona homeowners associations, declaring that ad hoc fines are per se unreasonable. To lawfully impose monetary penalties, an HOA must adopt and document a written fine schedule before any violations occur and must be prepared to introduce the actual written policy into evidence in court rather than relying on oral testimony.

For homeowners, the case underscores the severe procedural consequences of failing to participate in trial court proceedings or raise timely objections, as unpreserved arguments are deemed waived on appeal. For legal practitioners, it serves as a reminder under the Best Evidence Rule that proving contractual damages or fine authority requires entering the original written policies directly into the record.

← Back to Court of Appeals cases

Tierra Ranchos HOA v. Kitchukov: Reasonableness Standard and Burden of Proof in HOA Architectural Disputes

Posted on June 29, 2026 by [email protected]

Architectural Control | A.R.S. § 12-2101 | 1 CA-CV 06-0474

This landmark case establishes how Arizona courts evaluate architectural control disputes between homeowners associations and their members. By adopting the Restatement approach, the court balanced the collective interests of the community against individual property rights. It highlights the heavy factual burden homeowners must meet when challenging a board’s aesthetic decisions.

Last updated June 29, 2026. Case: Tierra Ranchos, Arizona Court of Appeals No. 1 CA-CV 06-0474; reversed and remanded.

Download the appellate opinion Download the appellate mandate Download the record index Source-file index FAQ

Scope note: This page analyzes the Arizona Court of Appeals’ landmark decision concerning the judicial review of homeowners association design-control powers and architectural committee decisions. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The Arizona Court of Appeals held that a community association’s discretionary decisions regarding property modifications are subject to a standard of reasonableness, and the challenging homeowner bears the burden of proving that the association breached its duty. Because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the reasonableness of the Association’s disapproval of the garage’s location and the uniqueness of the lot, summary judgment was inappropriate.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Association (Plaintiff)
Arizona corporation and homeowners association for the Tierra Ranchos subdivision; Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant/Appellant in the action.
James E. Brown (Counsel)
James E. Brown, P.C.
Co-counsel representing Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant/Appellant Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Association.
Paul G. Ulrich (Counsel)
Paul G. Ulrich, P.C.
Co-counsel representing Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant/Appellant Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Association.
Pamela B. Petersen (Counsel)
Paul G. Ulrich, P.C.
Co-counsel representing Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant/Appellant Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Association.

Respondent Side

Todor Kitchukov (Defendant)
Homeowner of Lot 6 in the Tierra Ranchos subdivision; Defendant/Counter-Claimant/Appellee in the action.
Mariana Kitchukov (Defendant)
Homeowner of Lot 6 in the Tierra Ranchos subdivision, wife of Todor Kitchukov; Defendant/Counter-Claimant/Appellee in the action.
Roger C. Decker (Counsel)
Udall, Shumway & Lyons, P.L.C.
Attorney representing Defendants/Counter-Claimants/Appellees Todor and Mariana Kitchukov.
Bret A. Maidman (Counsel)
Udall, Shumway & Lyons, P.L.C.
Attorney representing Defendants/Counter-Claimants/Appellees Todor and Mariana Kitchukov.
Erin H. Walz (Counsel)
Udall, Shumway & Lyons, P.L.C.
Attorney representing Defendants/Counter-Claimants/Appellees Todor and Mariana Kitchukov.

Neutral Parties

Neal B. Thomas (Counsel)
Attorney listed on the appellate court mandate and Supreme Court transmittal service lists.
Philip Hall (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Appellate judge who authored the Department D court opinion.
Diane M. Johnsen (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Presiding judge of Department D on the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One.
Lawrence F. Winthrop (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Judge of Department D on the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One.
Barry C. Schneider (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court
Trial court judge who presided over the case in the Maricopa County Superior Court.
Philip G. Urry (Other)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Clerk of the Court of Appeals, Division One.
Michael K. Jeanes (Other)
Maricopa County Superior Court
Clerk of the Maricopa County Superior Court.
Patricia Sanderman (Other)
Maricopa County Superior Court
Supervisor of the Appeals Section of the Maricopa County Superior Court.
Rachelle M. Resnick (Other)
Arizona Supreme Court
Clerk of the Arizona Supreme Court.
Mark Rolls (Other)
Tierra Ranchos subdivision lot owner whose prior request for a relaxed five-foot setback was rejected.

What happened

In late 2003, Todor and Mariana Kitchukov submitted plans to the Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Association’s Architectural Committee to construct a guest house and detached garage on their lot. The plans, which proposed an eighty-two-foot setback from the north property line and a five-foot setback from the west property line, were approved. However, the Kitchukovs subsequently modified the plans to relocate both structures closer to the northern boundary without resubmitting them to the committee. After construction began, the committee requested they resubmit the modified plans. On December 17, 2004, the Kitchukovs submitted the new plans, which reduced the northern setback of the garage to between five and fifteen feet. The Architectural Committee approved the relocation of the guest house but disapproved the garage’s new location, stating a desire to remain consistent with other approved structures in the neighborhood.

Despite the disapproval and subsequent fines of five hundred dollars per day imposed by the Association, the Kitchukovs resumed construction of the garage in April 2005. In response, Tierra Ranchos filed a complaint in Maricopa County Superior Court seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, while the Kitchukovs counterclaimed to declare the disapproval arbitrary and the fines invalid. After appointing a Special Master to perform a site visit, the trial court granted summary judgment for the Kitchukovs, ruling that the garage minimized its impact on neighbors due to its unique location and that the committee’s decision was arbitrary. Tierra Ranchos appealed, leading the Arizona Court of Appeals to reverse the summary judgment and remand the case for trial.

Video overview: HOA Architectural Review and Reasonableness

This video examines how the Arizona Court of Appeals adopted the Restatement reasonableness standard for HOA architectural disputes, placing the burden of proof on the challenging homeowner.

Procedural timeline

Step 2003-12-02 Architectural Committee approves Kitchukovs’ initial plans in writing.

Step 2004-12-17 Kitchukovs submit modified plans showing reduced northern setback for the detached garage.

Step 2005-01-05 Architectural Committee disapproves modified location of the detached garage.

Step 2005-04-01 Kitchukovs resume construction of the garage without approval, prompting daily fines.

Step 2005-05-16 Tierra Ranchos files a complaint seeking injunctive and declaratory relief in Maricopa County Superior Court.

Step 2006-01-27 Special Master files site visit report with the trial court.

Step 2006-03-27 Trial court reconvenes oral argument on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment.

Step 2006-05-23 Trial court enters signed judgment and award of attorneys’ fees in favor of the Kitchukovs.

Step 2006-08-04 Court of Appeals issues civil notice to counsel regarding docketing and appellant’s opening brief.

Step 2006-08-11 Tierra Ranchos pays appellant’s filing fee in the Court of Appeals.

Step 2006-08-14 Court of Appeals issues fee notice to appellees and sets deadline for answering briefs.

Step 2007-01-09 Court of Appeals orders Clerk of Superior Court to transmit the record on appeal.

Step 2007-01-24 Record inventory filed with Court of Appeals.

Step 2007-04-20 Court of Appeals issues Notice of Oral Argument.

Step 2007-05-30 Oral argument held; Court of Appeals takes the matter under advisement.

Step 2007-08-09 Court of Appeals files opinion reversing summary judgment and remanding the case.

Step 2007-08-27 Motion for Reconsideration is filed.

Step 2007-11-14 Court of Appeals denies Motion for Reconsideration.

Step 2007-12-12 Kitchukovs file a Petition for Review with the Arizona Supreme Court.

Step 2007-12-18 Record is transmitted to the Arizona Supreme Court.

Type: Decision or judgment

Decision document; read it to understand the controlling result before moving to later filings.

Download source file

2008-04-04_010_0000-div-1-civil-mandate-package.pdf

Source 11 2008-04-04

0000 Div 1 Westmeadbureau Package Lette

Type: Court/source PDF

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file

2008-04-04_011_0000-div-1-westmeadbureau-package-lette.pdf

FAQ

Is the Tierra Ranchos v. Kitchukov decision binding precedent in Arizona?

Yes. This is a published, precedential opinion from the Arizona Court of Appeals, which means it serves as binding legal authority for all community associations, homeowners, and courts across Arizona.

What legal standard do Arizona courts use to review an HOA’s architectural decisions?

Arizona courts apply a standard of reasonableness based on the Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes § 6.13. Under this standard, a homeowners association has a duty to treat members fairly and act reasonably when exercising its discretionary design-control and rulemaking powers.

Who bears the burden of proof in an Arizona HOA architectural dispute?

The homeowner challenging the HOA’s decision bears the legal burden of proving that the association breached its duty to act reasonably, fairly, and in good faith.

Can an architectural dispute between an HOA and a homeowner be easily resolved by summary judgment?

Generally, no. The Court of Appeals emphasized that determinations of reasonableness, aesthetic harmony, and visual impact are inherently factual questions. Because reasonable minds can differ on these elements, they must typically be resolved at trial by a trier of fact rather than through a pre-trial summary judgment.

What was the final procedural outcome of the appeal in this case?

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s summary judgment and award of attorneys’ fees in favor of the homeowners. The case was remanded back to the Superior Court for further trial proceedings to resolve the disputed factual questions regarding the garage’s aesthetic impact and the reasonableness of the board’s decision.

Case Dossier

Case Summary

Case ID / citation	1 CA-CV 06-0474
Court / tribunal	Court of Appeals
Decision / key date	August 9, 2007
Judge / panel	Hon. Philip Hall, Hon. Diane M. Johnsen, Hon. Lawrence F. Winthrop
Parties	Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Association (Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant/Appellant) v. Todor Kitchukov and Mariana Kitchukov (Defendants/Counter-Claimants/Appellees)
Governing law	A.R.S. § 12-2101
Topics	architectural-reviewcc-and-rsfinesprocedure
Outcome / holding	The Arizona Court of Appeals held that a community association’s discretionary decisions regarding property modifications are subject to a standard of reasonableness, and the challenging homeowner bears the burden of proving that the association breached its duty. Because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the reasonableness of the Association’s disapproval of the garage’s location and the uniqueness of the lot, summary judgment was inappropriate.

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package	11 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	22 roadmap entries
Video overview	Tierra Ranchos: HOA Architectural Review and Reasonableness
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	5 questions
Curated download aliases	3 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

This case arises from a dispute between the Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Association and homeowners Todor and Mariana Kitchukov over the placement of a detached garage. The Kitchukovs originally obtained approval for their plans but later altered the garage’s setback from the north property line from eighty-two feet to between five and fifteen feet without resubmitting the plans. The Association’s Architectural Committee disapproved of the relocated garage to preserve the openness of the subdivision and maintain uniform twenty-five-foot setbacks, subsequently fining the Kitchukovs five hundred dollars per day when they resumed construction. The Kitchukovs filed a counterclaim arguing the disapproval was arbitrary. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Kitchukovs. The Arizona Court of Appeals reversed, adopting the Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes approach. The court held that community associations have a duty to act reasonably, and homeowners bear the burden of proving any breach of this duty. Because the reasonableness of the Association’s decision and the uniqueness of the property involved disputed factual questions, summary judgment was inappropriate, and the case was remanded.

Key Issues & Findings

The Court of Appeals began by determining the appropriate standard of judicial review for a community association’s discretionary decisions concerning property modifications. In doing so, the court rejected both the highly deferential “business judgment” rule and the strict objective “reasonableness” rule where the association bears the burden of proof. Instead, the court adopted the Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes § 6.13, which requires associations to act reasonably and treat members fairly, but places the burden of proving unreasonableness on the challenging member. The court noted this standard balances protecting collective community decision-making with safeguarding individual owners from improper management.

Applying this standard, the court concluded that summary judgment was improper because the reasonableness of the Association’s decision involved disputed issues of material fact. The trial court’s finding that the Kitchukov property was uniquely situated next to a canal and a ranchette, thereby minimizing the garage’s visual impact, was contested. The Association presented evidence that five other lots bordered the ranchette, and that its Architectural Committee aimed to maintain a uniform twenty-five-foot setback to preserve the “open look and feel” of the luxury subdivision.

Furthermore, the court observed that whether moving the garage would make it more visible to other residents was highly disputed, with conflicting affidavits from the homeowners and committee members regarding its current visibility. Because issues of reasonableness and visual impact are generally questions of fact for a trier of fact to resolve, the court held that a jury or judge must decide the case on its merits. Finally, because the summary judgment was reversed, the court vacated the trial court’s award of attorneys’ fees to the Kitchukovs, deferring any fee award until the merits of the case are fully resolved.

Why It Matters

This decision establishes a critical legal framework in Arizona by adopting the Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes § 6.13 standard for HOA architectural disputes. For Arizona homeowners, it clarifies that while they are protected from arbitrary or capricious board actions, they bear the legal burden of proving that an HOA board or architectural committee acted unreasonably. For HOA boards and managers, the case emphasizes that discretionary design-control decisions must be executed reasonably, consistently, and in good faith to withstand judicial review. Boards should document the specific aesthetic or community-wide rationale behind their decisions to help demonstrate reasonableness if challenged.

For legal counsel, the ruling highlights that “reasonableness” in architectural and aesthetic disputes is generally a question of fact rather than a question of law. Consequently, parties cannot easily resolve these disputes through summary judgment, potentially leading to lengthy and costly trials. Attorneys must advise their clients-whether HOAs or homeowners-of the high financial risks of litigation in design-control matters and the strategic importance of developing a strong evidentiary record, including affidavits and consistent past enforcement practices, before entering court.

← Back to Court of Appeals cases