IB Property Holdings, LLC v. Rancho Del Mar Apartments Ltd. Partnership
228 Ariz. 61
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- IB sued Rancho and MPI over access to Bilby Road via Phase II-III easements; phases were once treated as a single entity under shared use agreements.
- Rancho granted an easement to RTC predecessor in 1991; Rancho/Phase I gate was installed and Bilby Road access was intermittently blocked.
- IB obtained Phase II after Del Moral defaulted on secured debt; gate enforcement and Bilby Road access became central to occupancy, income, and property value.
- Easement language and scope were disputed as to whether access was limited to emergency vehicles or broader ingress/egress.
- Trial court granted a preliminary injunction to preserve access; Rancho sought dissolution; appellate court reviewed under Shoen framework and irreparable-harm analysis.
- Court rejected Rancho’s arguments that the wrong standard or lack of irreparable harm invalidated the injunction, and affirmed the injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Shoen remains the governing standard for injunctions in AZ. | IB supports Shoen; Winter does not apply in AZ. | Rancho urges Winter standard should apply. | Shoen standard remains controlling in Arizona. |
| Whether IB proved irreparable harm if injunction denied. | IB will suffer irreparable harm due to loss of occupancy and value. | Damages could compensate; irreparable harm not shown. | IRREPARABLE harm shown; damages inadequate to fully remedy. |
| Whether parol evidence was admissible to interpret the easement scope. | Extrinsic evidence clarifies intent to interpret terms. | Evidence should be admitted to show parties’ intent. | Parol evidence excluded; terms plain; no interpretation required. |
| Whether abandonment, waiver, or estoppel defeated IB’s likelihood of success. | No termination or modification of easement; reliance issues. | Actions suggested termination or limitation by abandonment/waiver/estoppel. | No evidence of abandonment/waiver/estoppel; IB has strong likelihood on merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shoen v. Shoen, 167 Ariz. 58 (Ariz. 1990) (establishes the traditional injunctive-relief standard for AZ)
- Smith v. Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Comm'n, 212 Ariz. 407 (Ariz. 2006) (affirms Shoen standard in AZ law)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (S. Ct. 2008) (requires likelihood of irreparable harm for injunctions (federal rule))
- Cracchiolo v. State, 135 Ariz. 243 (Ariz. 1983) (damages may be adequate remedy at law absent irreparable harm)
- Peairs v. Phoenix Orthopaedic Surgeons, 164 Ariz. 54 (Ariz. 1989) (damages uncertainty affects irreparable-harm analysis)