Hawk v. PC Village Ass'n
233 Ariz. 94
Ariz. Ct. App.2013Background
- In 2009, Arizona amended law to render unenforceable covenants prohibiting posting of for-sale signs (A.R.S. § 33-441).
- Pine Canyon CC&Rs, recorded 2002 and amended 2004, governed Hawks’ lot in a Flagstaff master-planned community.
- Section 12.3 of the CC&Rs prohibited any visible for-sale or for-rent signs on properties.
- Section 12.18 authorized the Association to enter lots to correct CC&Rs violations at owner’s expense.
- In 2011, Hawks posted two for-sale signs; Association removed them; Hawks sued for declaratory/injunctive relief and fees.
- Superior Court granted summary judgment for Hawks, enjoining Association from removing compliant signs and awarded fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 33-441 supersedes CC&Rs prohibiting signs | Hawks contend § 33-441 invalidates CC&Rs restricting signs. | Association contends statute does not govern or override covenants. | § 33-441 supersedes CC&Rs and invalidates prohibition on signs. |
| Constitutional impairment of contract rights | Hawks claim statute does not substantially impair contractual rights. | Association claims substantial impairment and unconstitutional contract-clause impact. | Statute does not substantially impair contracts; contract clauses not violated. |
| Retroactivity/adjudication of pre-existing CC&Rs | § 33-441 applies regardless of when CC&Rs were created/recorded. | Association argues lack of retroactive effect or timing concerns. | Statute applies to covenants regardless of creation/recording date. |
| Attorney’s fees under § 12-341.01 | Hawks sought full requested fees as prevailing party. | Association argues the award should be limited; time entries questioned. | Court did not abuse discretion; fee award reasonable and approved. |
Key Cases Cited
- Garden Lakes Cmty. Ass’n v. Madigan, 204 Ariz. 238, 62 P.3d 983 (App. 2003) (guidelines voided by statute prohibiting certain solar-device covenants)
- Scholten v. Blackhawk Ptrs., 184 Ariz. 326, 909 P.2d 393 (App. 1995) (contract rights vest and may be foreclosed by restrictive covenants)
- Energy Reserves Grp., Inc. v. Kansas Power & Light Co., 459 U.S. 400, 103 S. Ct. 697, 74 L. Ed. 2d 569 (Supreme Court 1983) (contract impairment analysis and public purpose)
- Robson Ranch Quail Creek, LLC v. Pima Cnty., 215 Ariz. 545, 161 P.3d 588 (App. 2007) (reasonable expectations in land-use covenants and impairment analysis)
- In re Estate of Dobert, 192 Ariz. 248, 963 P.2d 327 (App. 1998) (implied burden on showing impairment under contract clauses)
- Fulton Homes Corp. v. BBP Concrete, 214 Ariz. 566, 155 P.3d 1090 (App. 2007) (multifactor test for reasonableness of fee awards)
- Orfaly v. Tucson Symphony Soc’y, 209 Ariz. 260, 99 P.3d 1030 (App. 2004) (fee application specifics and record-keeping requirements)
- McClead v. Pima Cnty., 174 Ariz. 348, 849 P.2d 1378 (App. 1992) (contract impairment standards and public purpose)
- Samaritan Health Sys. v. Super. Ct., 194 Ariz. 284, 981 P.2d 584 (App. 1999) (contract clauses and impairment analysis framework)