Raimey v. Ditsworth
227 Ariz. 552
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- In Raimey, Dreamland Villa Community Club (DVCC) prevailed and petitioners challenged the validity of the Second Amended Declarations; this court held them invalid and unenforceable against all homeowners in the Six Sections.
- The court awarded petitioners their appellate attorneys’ fees but did not address trial-court fees or restitution on remand; the mandate ordered the trial court to comply with Raimey’s decision.
- On remand, the trial court limited the invalidation to only those homeowners who participated in the cross-appeal, creating a dispute about the scope of Raimey’s holding.
- Petitioners argued Raimey’s invalidation applied uniformly to all homeowners within Sections 7, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18; DVCC argued it applied only to cross-appellants.
- The supreme court held that Raimey’s invalidation applies to all homeowners within the Six Sections, and the mandate could not be limited to certain homeowners.
- The court remanded to enter a new judgment declaring the Second Amended Declarations invalid as to all homeowners, and to address restitution, notice of invalidity, and remaining fee issues on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of Raimey on remand | Raimey applies to all homeowners in the Six Sections. | Raimey applies only to cross-appellants. | Raimey applies to all homeowners; judgments invalid as to all. |
| Notice of invalidity on public records | Petitioners may record a notice of invalidity for public awareness. | Notions of notice should be limited and formal recording unnecessary. | Permits recording a simple notice of invalidity to inform the public. |
| Restitution for vacated judgments | Petitioners entitled to restitution of amounts paid with interest. | Restitution not expressly addressed; may be limited. | Restitution ordered for those who satisfied vacated judgments, with equitable adjustments. |
| Attorneys' fees on remand | Remand should allow pre- and post-appellate fees. | Fees limited to those expressly decided by Raimey. | Trial court to reconsider pre- and post-appellate attorneys' fees on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dreamland Villa Cmty. Club, Inc. v. Raimey, 224 Ariz. 42 (App. 2010) (ultimate holding that Second Amended Declarations are invalid and unenforceable)
- Scholten v. Blackhawk Partners, 184 Ariz. 326 (App. 1995) (extension of covenants applies uniformly to all owners)
- Warner v. Camelback Del Este Homeowners Ass'n, 156 Ariz. 21 (App. 1984) (uniform enforcement of deed restrictions; patchwork restrictions disfavored)
- Vargas v. Superior Court, 60 Ariz. 395 (1943) (mandate binding and enforceable according to its terms)
- Armstrong v. Ledges Homeowners Ass'n, Inc., 360 N.C. 547 (2006) (court may deem an amendment invalid for existing owners yet binding for future owners; dicta)
- McDonnell v. S. Pac. Co., 79 Ariz. 10 (1955) (nonparties and judgments; jurisdiction limits to party effects)
- Purcell v. Superior Court, 172 Ariz. 166 (App. 1992) (recording to remove invalid recorded documents)
- La Esperanza Townhome Ass'n, Inc. v. Title Sec. Agency of Ariz., 142 Ariz. 235 (App. 1984) (deed restrictions can only be changed uniformly)
- Kadish v. Ariz. State Land Dept., 177 Ariz. 322 (App. 1993) (remand and fee considerations when appellate court does not address certain issues)