Kulpins v. Weaver, 1 CA-CV 15-0707

Background

Neighbors in an HOA: Doug and Kim Kulpins sued Lynn S. Weaver (Trustee) alleging her backyard trees and landscaping blocked their view and violated the HOA’s recorded covenants (CC&Rs); they sought breach of contract and a permanent injunction requiring trimming/removal.
Weaver planted several trees approved by the HOA Design Review Guidelines (DRGs); some mature Ficus were installed by the developer.
The parties stipulated to key facts, including that the CC&Rs and DRGs contain no height restrictions for trees, the CC&Rs do not create a view easement, DRC approval is required for visible improvements, and the DRC approved Weaver’s landscaping after installation without height/location limits.
At bench trial the superior court denied the Kulpins’ claims; the court entered judgment for Weaver without issuing express findings of fact. The Kulpins appealed.
On appeal the court reviewed whether lack of requested Rule 52(a) findings or Rule 65(h) requirements warranted remand, and whether substantial evidence supported denial of injunctive relief and breach claims; the court also addressed appellate attorney fees.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court’s failure to make express findings of fact required remand under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 52(a)	Kulpins: court must make findings; absence of findings is reversible error	Weaver: Kulpins did not request findings under Rule 52(a); court was not required to make them	No error — Kulpins did not timely request findings; appellate presumption supplies necessary findings supported by the record
Whether the court erred in denying a permanent injunction and finding breach of the CC&Rs	Kulpins: landscaping blocked views, DRC approval was required before installation, CC&Rs breached; they sought trimming/removal	Weaver: CC&Rs contain no height/view restriction; used plants approved by DRGs; mature developer-planted trees are protected; DRC approved after-the-fact	Affirmed — record shows no view easement, no height limits in CC&Rs, DRC approval and developer plantings support denial of injunctive relief and breach claim
Whether the DRC’s after-the-fact approval was an unreasonable exercise of design control	Kulpins: after-the-fact approval insufficient and unreasonable	Weaver: DRC has discretionary authority and can consider neighboring outlook; post-approval does not render action unreasonable	Court may presume DRC acted within its discretionary authority; trial record supports reasonableness
Whether appellee is entitled to appellate attorney fees	Kulpins: no coherent basis presented on appeal	Weaver: requests fees under ARCAP 21, CC&Rs, and A.R.S. § 12-341.01	Weaver, as prevailing party, may recover reasonable appellate fees/costs upon compliance with rules

Key Cases Cited

Ahwatukee Custom Est. Mgmt. Ass’n, Inc. v. Turner, 196 Ariz. 631 (App. 2000) (standard of review for denial of injunctive relief — abuse of discretion)
Flying Diamond Airpark, LLC v. Meienberg, 215 Ariz. 44 (App. 2007) (definition of abuse of discretion and appellate review when findings are absent)
Fleming v. Becker, 14 Ariz. App. 347 (1971) (presumption of necessary findings to support judgment when trial court issues none)
Moore v. Title Ins. Co. of Minn., 148 Ariz. 408 (App. 1985) (affirming judgment despite contradictory evidence when reasonable evidence supports it)
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195 (App. 2007) (scope of DRC’s discretionary design-control powers)
Trantor v. Fredrikson, 179 Ariz. 299 (1994) (errors not raised in trial court generally cannot be raised on appeal)
Elliott v. Elliott, 165 Ariz. 128 (App. 1990) (Rule 52(a) requires trial court to make special findings when timely requested)