Forest Highlands v. Alexander, 1 CA-CV 16-0714

The Alexanders purchased property in the Forest Highlands development in 2005 and were subject to recorded CC&Rs and association rules.
In May 2014 Mr. Alexander was involved in an incident with children; the Board charged him with violations of Association Rule 2.2 (misconduct, theft, reckless driving, endangering others).
After a noticed hearing the Board imposed a $250 fine plus $2,707.90 in attorneys’ fees and costs as a special assessment; the Alexanders refused to pay and also stopped regular assessment payments.
Forest Highlands recorded a lien under the CC&Rs and sued for breach of contract (unpaid regular and special assessments) and alternatively unjust enrichment.
The superior court granted summary judgment for Forest Highlands for unpaid assessments, late fees, and awarded attorneys’ fees; the Alexanders appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether summary judgment was improper because a jury trial was demanded	Forest Highlands: case suitable for summary judgment; no material factual dispute prevents judgment	Alexanders: Seventh Amendment/Jury Trial right requires jury, summary judgment usurps that right	Court: Orme School controls; jury right attaches only when genuine factual disputes exist; summary judgment did not violate jury right
Whether granting summary judgment violated due process	Forest Highlands: procedures and record sufficient for summary judgment	Alexanders: court denied further proceedings and thus denied due process	Court: Alexanders failed to identify any material factual dispute; summary judgment procedurally proper

Orme School v. Reeves, 166 Ariz. 301 (1990) (summary judgment does not violate right to jury trial when no genuine factual disputes exist)
Galloway v. United States, 319 U.S. 372 (1943) (federal courts may direct verdicts; supports non-violation of jury right by summary disposition)
Great Am. Mortg., Inc. v. Statewide Ins. Co., 189 Ariz. 123 (App. 1997) (standard of review for summary judgment)