Assessments | A.R.S. §§ 33-1256, 33-1807 | 1 CA-CV 25-0384
A Sierra Verde Ranch owner argued the POA’s failure to maintain roads and a well excused his assessments. Division One explained why the payment obligation is independent and affirmed foreclosure of the lien.
Last updated July 1, 2026. Case: Sierra Verde Ranch Property Owners Association, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Scott B. McLaren, Defendant/Appellant; 1 CA-CV 25-0384; S1300CV202400347.
Scope note: This educational case page summarizes a court ruling for Arizona HOA homeowners, boards, and counsel. It is not legal advice.
The rule in one sentence
An owner who accepts a deed subject to recorded CC&Rs is contractually bound to pay HOA assessments, and that payment obligation is independent of the association’s duty to maintain common areas. An owner’s allegation that the association failed to maintain roads or a well therefore neither excuses nonpayment nor creates a genuine fact dispute precluding summary judgment and lien foreclosure. Affirmed.
Case Participants
Neutral Parties
- Sierra Verde Ranch Property Owners Association (Appellee)
Plaintiff below and appellee; the property owners association that sued McLaren for unpaid assessments and to foreclose its lien, and prevailed at trial and on appeal. - Scott B. McLaren (Appellant)
Defendant below and appellant; self-represented (of Seligman) owner of Tract 174 who refused to pay assessments and appealed the summary judgment and foreclosure. - Danny M. Ford (Counsel)
Goodman Law Group, LLP
Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee Sierra Verde Ranch Property Owners Association (Goodman Law Group, LLP, Mesa). - Samuel A. Thumma (Judge)
Court of Appeals judge who authored the memorandum decision. - Paul J. McMurdie (Judge)
Presiding Judge of the Court of Appeals panel; joined the decision. - Kent E. Cattani (Judge)
Court of Appeals judge; joined the decision. - Kristyne Marie Schaaf-Olson (Judge)
Judge Pro Tempore (Retired) of the Yavapai County Superior Court whose judgment was reviewed on appeal.
What happened and why it matters
Scott McLaren bought Tract 174 in the Sierra Verde Ranch subdivision in Seligman (Yavapai County) in April 2020, taking title by a warranty deed that expressly made the parcel subject to recorded CC&Rs. Those CC&Rs created the Sierra Verde Ranch Property Owners Association, made every parcel owner an automatic member, and obligated each owner to pay annual assessments secured by a lien enforceable through foreclosure. After McLaren paid the 2021 and 2022 assessments late and then refused to pay the 2023 and 2024 assessments, the POA sued for breach of contract and to foreclose its assessment lien. The superior court granted the POA summary judgment on the contract claim and, on reconsideration, on the foreclosure claim, entering a judgment awarding roughly $848 in unpaid assessments and fees, $1,022 in collection costs, and $12,545 in attorneys’ fees. McLaren appealed, arguing lack of mutual assent to the CC&Rs, the POA’s prior material breach for failing to maintain access roads and a water well, denial of his right to a jury trial, and various procedural and evidentiary errors. The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, affirmed. It held that a deed taken subject to recorded CC&Rs binds the owner as a contract, and that the obligation to pay assessments is independent of the association’s maintenance duties, so alleged non-maintenance neither excused payment nor raised a triable issue. The court also rejected McLaren’s jury-trial, affirmative-defense, and additional-evidence arguments and awarded the POA its reasonable appellate fees and costs.
Reviewing the grant of summary judgment de novo and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to McLaren, the court asked whether the POA showed there was no genuine dispute of material fact and that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 56(a), noting it would affirm if the ruling was correct for any reason.
On contract formation, the court rejected McLaren’s claim that he never assented because he misunderstood whether the POA was an “association” or a “corporation.” His warranty deed expressly stated that he took the parcel subject to recorded CC&Rs, and those CC&Rs, recorded before he bought, provide that every owner “in accepting a deed . . . automatically becomes a member of the Association” and agrees to be bound. Citing ACEMA v. Turner and Powell v. Washburn, the court reiterated that a covenant running with the land is a contract between the association and the owners, and that the CC&R obligations, including annual assessments, are enforceable as a contract against owners like McLaren; the POA’s precise legal status did not affect the validity or applicability of the CC&Rs.
The core of the decision addressed McLaren’s prior-material-breach theory — that the POA’s alleged failure to maintain roads and its closure of a well excused his duty to pay. The court observed that McLaren had neither sued nor counterclaimed to enforce the CC&Rs, and had not shown a material breach that would suspend his own performance under Zancanaro v. Cross. More fundamentally, the court applied the independent-covenant doctrine: the obligation to pay assessments arises from ownership of property subject to the CC&Rs and does not depend on the association’s performance of maintenance. Quoting Mountain View Condos. Homeowners Ass’n v. Scott (“the obligation to pay assessments arises from unit ownership and is not dependent upon completion of improvements”) and Casita de Castilian, Inc. v. Kamrath, the court explained that the duty to pay and the association’s maintenance duties are distinct. It distinguished the out-of-state Rivers Edge decision as non-binding, and held that even though these CC&Rs were silent on the point, the payment obligation was independent of the POA’s responsibility to maintain common areas. McLaren’s failure to allege he could not use his parcel, or to identify any CC&R duty to maintain a specific road or well, left no triable issue.
The court then dispatched McLaren’s remaining arguments. Under National Bank of Arizona v. Thruston, the POA as movant was not required to negate McLaren’s affirmative defenses; the proponent of an affirmative defense bears the burden of proving it. Summary judgment did not deprive McLaren of a jury trial because there were no genuine fact issues to try (Cagle v. Carlson). The denial of his motion to submit additional evidence was reviewed only for abuse of discretion, and McLaren showed none; a party opposing summary judgment may not rest on the allegations of its pleadings but must set forth specific facts. Finally, arguments not asserted below — including his point that he declined to seek damages that would fall on his neighbors — were not a valid defense to summary judgment. The court affirmed and awarded the POA its reasonable appellate attorneys’ fees and costs under the CC&Rs and A.R.S. §§ 12-341 and 12-341.01, contingent on ARCAP 21 compliance.
This decision restates a durable principle of Arizona community-association law: when a deed takes property subject to recorded CC&Rs, those covenants operate as a contract, and an owner’s duty to pay assessments is generally treated as independent of whatever the association does or fails to do with common areas. Owners who are dissatisfied with maintenance — here, roads and a well — cannot ordinarily self-help by withholding assessments; the court pointed out that the proper route is to enforce the CC&Rs affirmatively (by suit or counterclaim), not to raise non-maintenance as a defense to a collection action. The opinion also shows how the planned-community statutes, A.R.S. §§ 33-1256(A) and 33-1807(A), gate lien foreclosure: the trial court initially denied foreclosure until the POA demonstrated the owner owed at least $1,200 or was delinquent for more than a year.
The case is also a cautionary illustration of fee exposure. Because the CC&Rs and A.R.S. §§ 12-341 and 12-341.01 authorize a fee award to the prevailing party, a relatively small assessment dispute — a few hundred dollars in unpaid dues — grew into a judgment that included more than $12,500 in trial attorneys’ fees plus collection costs, with additional fees awarded on appeal. As an unpublished memorandum decision under Arizona Supreme Court Rule 111(c), it is not precedential and may be cited only as the rule allows, but it usefully synthesizes the settled authorities (Scott and Casita de Castilian) that owners and boards alike rely on when disputes over assessments and maintenance arise.
Video overview of the ruling
An AI-generated video overview of Sierra Verde Ranch Property Owners Association, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Scott B. McLaren, Defendant/Appellant (1 CA-CV 25-0384). An owner who accepts a deed subject to recorded CC&Rs is contractually bound to pay HOA assessments, and that… This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own ruling controls.
Listen: audio deep dive on the ruling
An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the court’s reasoning and disposition in Sierra Verde Ranch Property Owners Association, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Scott B. McLaren, Defendant/Appellant. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.
Step-by-step litigation record
Complete source-document index
This index contains 1 PDF from the reviewed public source packet. Byte-identical copies are listed once. Files are ordered by the date and sequence in the public filename, and party filings or research materials are labeled separately from court rulings.
Opinion
Type: Decision or judgment
Opinion holding that an owner who accepts a deed subject to recorded CC&Rs is contractually bound to pay HOA assessments, and that payment obligation is independent of the association's duty to maintain common areas.
FAQ
What was this case about?
Scott McLaren bought a parcel in the Sierra Verde Ranch subdivision near Seligman subject to recorded CC&Rs that obligated owners to pay annual assessments to the property owners association (POA). After he paid late in 2021-2022 and refused to pay in 2023 and 2024, the POA sued for breach of contract and to foreclose its assessment lien. The superior court granted summary judgment and foreclosure, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Why did McLaren argue he did not have to pay assessments?
McLaren argued he never truly assented to the CC&Rs (claiming the POA did not disclose its corporate status) and that the POA had first materially breached the CC&Rs by failing to maintain access roads and by closing a water well, which he said excused his duty to pay. He also raised jury-trial and various procedural and evidentiary objections.
Why did the court hold that McLaren was bound by the CC&Rs?
His warranty deed expressly stated that he took the property subject to recorded CC&Rs, and those CC&Rs — recorded before he bought — provide that every owner automatically becomes a member and agrees to be bound. Citing ACEMA v. Turner and Powell v. Washburn, the court reiterated that CC&Rs are a contract between the association and owners, enforceable against owners like McLaren regardless of the POA’s precise legal form.
Does an association's failure to maintain common areas excuse paying assessments?
Generally no. Applying the independent-covenant doctrine, the court held that the duty to pay assessments arises from ownership of property subject to the CC&Rs and is independent of the association’s maintenance duties. Quoting Mountain View Condominiums v. Scott and Casita de Castilian v. Kamrath, the court explained that alleged non-maintenance is not a defense to a collection action; the proper remedy is to enforce the CC&Rs, which McLaren never did by suit or counterclaim.
How much did the owner ultimately owe, and were attorneys' fees awarded?
The July 2025 judgment awarded the POA $848.48 in unpaid assessments and related fees, $1,022.14 in collection costs, and $12,545 in attorneys’ fees, and foreclosed the assessment lien. On appeal, the court awarded the POA additional reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs under the CC&Rs and A.R.S. §§ 12-341 and 12-341.01, subject to compliance with ARCAP 21.
Is this decision binding precedent?
No. It is an unpublished memorandum decision of the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One. Under Arizona Supreme Court Rule 111(c), it is not precedential and may be cited only as authorized by the rule.
Case Dossier
This dossier combines the case metadata, linked court sources, and the explanatory sections below. It distinguishes court rulings from party filings, allegations, and requested relief.
Case Summary
| Case ID / citation | 1 CA-CV 25-0384 |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Court of Appeals |
| Decision / key date | December 18, 2025 |
| Judge / panel | Samuel A. Thumma, Paul J. McMurdie, Kent E. Cattani |
| Parties | Sierra Verde Ranch Property Owners Association (Plaintiff/Appellee) v. Scott B. McLaren (Defendant/Appellant, self-represented) |
| Governing law |
|
| Topics | AssessmentsCC&RsForeclosureAttorney FeesProcedure |
| Outcome / holding | An owner who accepts a deed subject to recorded CC&Rs is contractually bound to pay HOA assessments, and that payment obligation is independent of the association's duty to maintain common areas. An owner's allegation that the association failed to maintain roads or a well therefore neither excuses nonpayment nor creates a genuine fact dispute precluding summary judgment and lien foreclosure. Affirmed. |
| Primary public source | View source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Reviewed source package | 1 PDF |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 9 roadmap entries |
| Video overview | Sierra Verde Ranch Property Owners Association, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Scott B. McLaren, Defendant/A |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 6 questions |
| Featured download links | 1 download link |
Key Issues & Findings
Scott McLaren bought Tract 174 in the Sierra Verde Ranch subdivision in Seligman (Yavapai County) in April 2020, taking title by a warranty deed that expressly made the parcel subject to recorded CC&Rs. Those CC&Rs created the Sierra Verde Ranch Property Owners Association, made every parcel owner an automatic member, and obligated each owner to pay annual assessments secured by a lien enforceable through foreclosure. After McLaren paid the 2021 and 2022 assessments late and then refused to pay the 2023 and 2024 assessments, the POA sued for breach of contract and to foreclose its assessment lien. The superior court granted the POA summary judgment on the contract claim and, on reconsideration, on the foreclosure claim, entering a judgment awarding roughly $848 in unpaid assessments and fees, $1,022 in collection costs, and $12,545 in attorneys' fees. McLaren appealed, arguing lack of mutual assent to the CC&Rs, the POA's prior material breach for failing to maintain access roads and a water well, denial of his right to a jury trial, and various procedural and evidentiary errors. The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, affirmed. It held that a deed taken subject to recorded CC&Rs binds the owner as a contract, and that the obligation to pay assessments is independent of the association's maintenance duties, so alleged non-maintenance neither excused payment nor raised a triable issue. The court also rejected McLaren's jury-trial, affirmative-defense, and additional-evidence arguments and awarded the POA its reasonable appellate fees and costs.
Reviewing the grant of summary judgment de novo and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to McLaren, the court asked whether the POA showed there was no genuine dispute of material fact and that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 56(a), noting it would affirm if the ruling was correct for any reason.
On contract formation, the court rejected McLaren's claim that he never assented because he misunderstood whether the POA was an "association" or a "corporation." His warranty deed expressly stated that he took the parcel subject to recorded CC&Rs, and those CC&Rs, recorded before he bought, provide that every owner "in accepting a deed . . . automatically becomes a member of the Association" and agrees to be bound. Citing ACEMA v. Turner and Powell v. Washburn, the court reiterated that a covenant running with the land is a contract between the association and the owners, and that the CC&R obligations, including annual assessments, are enforceable as a contract against owners like McLaren; the POA's precise legal status did not affect the validity or applicability of the CC&Rs.
The core of the decision addressed McLaren's prior-material-breach theory — that the POA's alleged failure to maintain roads and its closure of a well excused his duty to pay. The court observed that McLaren had neither sued nor counterclaimed to enforce the CC&Rs, and had not shown a material breach that would suspend his own performance under Zancanaro v. Cross. More fundamentally, the court applied the independent-covenant doctrine: the obligation to pay assessments arises from ownership of property subject to the CC&Rs and does not depend on the association's performance of maintenance. Quoting Mountain View Condos. Homeowners Ass'n v. Scott ("the obligation to pay assessments arises from unit ownership and is not dependent upon completion of improvements") and Casita de Castilian, Inc. v. Kamrath, the court explained that the duty to pay and the association's maintenance duties are distinct. It distinguished the out-of-state Rivers Edge decision as non-binding, and held that even though these CC&Rs were silent on the point, the payment obligation was independent of the POA's responsibility to maintain common areas. McLaren's failure to allege he could not use his parcel, or to identify any CC&R duty to maintain a specific road or well, left no triable issue.
The court then dispatched McLaren's remaining arguments. Under National Bank of Arizona v. Thruston, the POA as movant was not required to negate McLaren's affirmative defenses; the proponent of an affirmative defense bears the burden of proving it. Summary judgment did not deprive McLaren of a jury trial because there were no genuine fact issues to try (Cagle v. Carlson). The denial of his motion to submit additional evidence was reviewed only for abuse of discretion, and McLaren showed none; a party opposing summary judgment may not rest on the allegations of its pleadings but must set forth specific facts. Finally, arguments not asserted below — including his point that he declined to seek damages that would fall on his neighbors — were not a valid defense to summary judgment. The court affirmed and awarded the POA its reasonable appellate attorneys' fees and costs under the CC&Rs and A.R.S. §§ 12-341 and 12-341.01, contingent on ARCAP 21 compliance.
This decision restates a durable principle of Arizona community-association law: when a deed takes property subject to recorded CC&Rs, those covenants operate as a contract, and an owner's duty to pay assessments is generally treated as independent of whatever the association does or fails to do with common areas. Owners who are dissatisfied with maintenance — here, roads and a well — cannot ordinarily self-help by withholding assessments; the court pointed out that the proper route is to enforce the CC&Rs affirmatively (by suit or counterclaim), not to raise non-maintenance as a defense to a collection action. The opinion also shows how the planned-community statutes, A.R.S. §§ 33-1256(A) and 33-1807(A), gate lien foreclosure: the trial court initially denied foreclosure until the POA demonstrated the owner owed at least $1,200 or was delinquent for more than a year.
The case is also a cautionary illustration of fee exposure. Because the CC&Rs and A.R.S. §§ 12-341 and 12-341.01 authorize a fee award to the prevailing party, a relatively small assessment dispute — a few hundred dollars in unpaid dues — grew into a judgment that included more than $12,500 in trial attorneys' fees plus collection costs, with additional fees awarded on appeal. As an unpublished memorandum decision under Arizona Supreme Court Rule 111(c), it is not precedential and may be cited only as the rule allows, but it usefully synthesizes the settled authorities (Scott and Casita de Castilian) that owners and boards alike rely on when disputes over assessments and maintenance arise.