Condominium amendments | A.R.S. § 33-1227(D) | CV2019-010791
Pioneer Condominium Association obtained a 25-8 vote for an amended declaration that added a 30-day minimum rental term and raised an occupancy age threshold. The court held those provisions changed the uses to which units were restricted and therefore required unanimous consent under Arizona’s Condominium Act. The ruling was a case-specific Superior Court judgment, not a published appellate opinion.
Last updated July 13, 2026. Case: Toepke v. Pioneer Condominium Association, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2019-010791; final judgment entered February 8, 2021.
Scope note: This page summarizes an unpublished Maricopa County Superior Court ruling based on the court’s minute entries. It is a case-specific trial-court decision, not binding appellate precedent. The later compliance order did not decide whether the association could restore language from its original declaration. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The takeaway
A condominium declaration amendment that adds or changes rental-duration and occupancy-age restrictions changes the uses to which units are restricted. Under A.R.S. § 33-1227(D), those changes required unanimous unit-owner consent, so Sections 2 and 15 could not be enforced after only a 25-8 vote.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Mardy C. Toepke (Plaintiff)
Condominium unit owner and association member. - Kate E. Toepke (Plaintiff)
Condominium unit owner and association member.
Respondent Side
- Pioneer Condominium Association of Sun City West (Defendant)
Condominium association that adopted and recorded the amended declaration.
Neutral Parties
- Hon. Rosa Mroz (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court
Issued the September 24, 2019 preliminary-injunction ruling. - Hon. Randall H. Warner (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court
Issued the summary-judgment, fee, finality, and compliance rulings.
What happened
Pioneer Condominium Association proposed an amended declaration in late 2018 and submitted it to unit owners. The amendment passed 25-8 and was recorded in January 2019. The Toepkes challenged Section 2, which imposed a 30-day minimum rental term, and Section 15, which raised and modified occupancy-age requirements.
On September 24, 2019, Judge Rosa Mroz preliminarily enjoined enforcement of Section 2. The court found that adding a rental-duration restriction changed a unit-use restriction and that the owners showed a strong likelihood of success under A.R.S. § 33-1227(D).
On September 14, 2020, Judge Randall H. Warner granted each side’s summary-judgment motion in part. He held Sections 2 and 15 invalid for lack of unanimous consent and ordered declaratory and injunctive relief, but rejected the owners’ damages and other contract, tort, Condominium Act, and false-recording claims.
The court awarded the owners $25,000 in attorneys’ fees and $386.30 in costs, then made the judgment final under Rule 54(c) on February 8, 2021. In May 2021, the court found that the association had complied by recording a declaration without Sections 2 and 15. It did not decide whether restoring language from the original declaration was independently authorized.
Video overview of the case record
An AI-generated video overview of Toepke v. Pioneer Condominium Association (CV2019-010791 (Maricopa Cnty. Super. Ct.)). A condo association needed unanimous owner consent to add rental and occupancy use restrictions. This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own records control.
Listen: audio deep dive on the case record
An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the case record in Toepke v. Pioneer Condominium Association. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked records below.
Procedural timeline
Complete uploaded source-document index
This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/toepke-v-pioneer-condominium-association/raw/: 15 PDFs. Files are ordered by the date/sequence embedded in the normalized filename; non-court review materials, when present, are labeled separately from court filings.
Preliminary Injunction Oral Argument
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Evidentiary Hearing Confirmed
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Evidentiary Hearing Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Preliminary Injunction Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Adr Referral And Trial Setting
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Division Reassignment And Conference Order
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Remote Trial Setting Order
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Trial Setting Conference
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Summary Judgment Argument And Supplemental Briefing
Type: Decision or judgment
Decision document; read it to understand the controlling result before moving to later filings.
Summary Judgment Ruling
Type: Decision or judgment
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Attorneys Fees Request Denied
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
Trial Setting Conference Vacated
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Fees Costs And Form Of Judgment Ruling
Type: Decision or judgment
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Rule 54 C Final Judgment Order
Type: Decision or judgment
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Enforcement And Compliance Order
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
FAQ
What did the court decide in Toepke v. Pioneer Condominium Association?
The court held that Sections 2 and 15 of the association’s amended declaration changed unit-use restrictions and were invalid because they lacked unanimous unit-owner approval under A.R.S. § 33-1227(D). It granted declaratory and injunctive relief to the owners but entered judgment for the association on the owners’ damages and other contract, tort, and statutory claims.
Why did the 25-8 owner vote not suffice?
The court read A.R.S. § 33-1227(D) to require unanimous consent when an amendment changes the uses to which a condominium unit is restricted. Section 2 newly prohibited rentals shorter than 30 days, and Section 15 raised and modified occupancy-age requirements, so the court treated both as changed use restrictions.
Did the owners win every claim?
No. They obtained declaratory and injunctive relief against Sections 2 and 15. The association received summary judgment on the claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant, breach of the association’s duty of care, a damages claim under the Condominium Act, and a false-recording claim under A.R.S. § 33-420.
Did the association comply with the judgment?
Yes, according to the May 12, 2021 minute entry. The association recorded a March 19, 2021 declaration that removed Sections 2 and 15. The court therefore denied the owners’ motion to enforce the judgment.
Did the court approve the age language restored from the original declaration?
No. The compliance order expressly said the judgment neither prohibited nor authorized restoring language from the original declaration. The court found that question was not part of the case and was not sufficiently briefed, so it did not decide it.
Is this decision binding precedent?
No. This is an unpublished Maricopa County Superior Court ruling, not a published appellate opinion. It may be informative about how one trial court applied A.R.S. § 33-1227(D), but it is not binding appellate precedent.
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 | CV2019-010791 (Maricopa Cnty. Super. Ct.) |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Superior Court |
| Decision / key date | February 8, 2021 |
| Judge / panel | Hon. Rosa Mroz, Hon. Randall H. Warner |
| Parties | Mardy C. Toepke and Kate E. Toepke (plaintiff unit owners) v. Pioneer Condominium Association of Sun City West (defendant association) |
| Governing law | |
| Topics | CC&RsBoard GovernanceVoting And ElectionsProcedure |
| Outcome / holding | A condominium declaration amendment that adds or changes rental-duration and occupancy-age restrictions changes the uses to which units are restricted. Under A.R.S. § 33-1227(D), those changes required unanimous unit-owner consent, so Sections 2 and 15 could not be enforced after only a 25-8 vote. |
| Primary public source | View source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Uploaded source package | 15 PDFs |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 7 roadmap entries |
| Video overview | Toepke v. Pioneer Condominium Association |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 6 questions |
| Curated download aliases | 3 download links |
Key Issues & Findings
Mardy and Kate Toepke challenged two provisions in Pioneer Condominium Association’s amended declaration after the association obtained a 25-8 owner vote. Section 2 newly prohibited rentals shorter than 30 days, while Section 15 raised and modified occupancy-age requirements. The Maricopa County Superior Court held that both provisions changed the uses to which units were restricted and therefore required unanimous unit-owner consent under A.R.S. § 33-1227(D). The court granted the owners declaratory and injunctive relief against enforcement of those sections. It granted the association summary judgment on the owners’ claims for damages, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant, breach of the association’s duty of care, violation of the Condominium Act, and false recording under A.R.S. § 33-420. The court entered final judgment under Rule 54(c), awarded the owners $25,000 in attorneys’ fees and $386.30 in costs, and later found that the association complied by recording a declaration without Sections 2 and 15.
The court began with the text of A.R.S. § 33-1227(D), which requires unanimous owner consent for an amendment that changes “the uses to which any unit is restricted.” Section 2 imposed a new 30-day minimum rental term where the prior declaration had no rental-duration limit. The court rejected the association’s reliance on A.R.S. § 33-1260.01(A): that statute permits declarations to contain rental-time restrictions, but it does not change the voting requirement for adding one.
The ruling illustrates a distinction boards and owners should examine before amending condominium declarations: the ordinary amendment threshold may not be enough when a proposal changes how a unit may be used. Rental-duration and occupancy-age provisions can trigger the unanimous-consent rule in A.R.S. § 33-1227(D).