Ray and Lindsay v. Gilbert, 1 CA-CV 20-0443

In 2005 Greater Phoenix Income Properties (GPI) and the Town of Gilbert executed a recorded development reimbursement agreement: Town would construct public improvements and GPI would reimburse ~ $760,000; a lien secured payment and the agreement bound successors.
The agreement was authorized under A.R.S. § 9-500.05 and contained a prevailing-party attorney-fees clause.
Ray and Lindsay, LLC (R&L) purchased the Property in December 2016. About 13 months later R&L asked the Town to reduce the reimbursement amount and release the lien.
R&L sued, arguing the reimbursement was actually an involuntary assessment under A.R.S. § 9-243 that abated after ten years because the Property remained undeveloped.
The superior court granted the Town judgment on the pleadings and awarded attorney fees; R&L appealed and the court of appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the reimbursement obligation is an involuntary assessment under A.R.S. § 9-243 (subject to 10-year abatement)	R&L: The agreement is effectively an § 9-243 assessment that abated after ten years of nondevelopment.	Town: The obligation is a voluntary, negotiated development agreement under § 9-500.05 that binds successors and is not subject to § 9-243's abatement.	Court: Held it is a development agreement under § 9-500.05, not an § 9-243 assessment; the ten-year abatement does not apply.
Whether the Town may recover attorney fees	R&L: Challenges the superior court’s authority to award fees.	Town: Prevailing party in a contract action; fees authorized by A.R.S. § 12-341.01 and the agreement’s fee clause.	Court: Affirmed award of reasonable attorney fees to Town under § 12-341.01 and the contract clause.

Muscat by Berman v. Creative Innervisions LLC, 244 Ariz. 194 (App. 2017) (standard for accepting complaint allegations on judgment-on-pleadings review)
J.D. v. Hegyi, 236 Ariz. 39 (2014) (primary goal of statutory interpretation is to effect legislative intent expressed in plain language)
Premier Physicians Grp., PLLC v. Navarro, 240 Ariz. 193 (2016) (statutory plain-language interpretation governs)
State ex rel. Fox v. New Phoenix Auto Auction, Ltd., 185 Ariz. 302 (App. 1996) (use of technical statutory terms indicates legislative intent)
Achen-Gardener, Inc. v. Superior Ct., 173 Ariz. 48 (1992) (limits on municipal authority in development agreements where state law imposes mandatory duties)
Bennett Blum, M.D., Inc. v. Cowan, 235 Ariz. 204 (2014) (review of court's authority to award attorney fees and interpretation of § 12-341.01)
McDowell Mountain Ranch Cmty. Ass'n v. Simons, 216 Ariz. 266 (App. 2007) (contractual attorney-fees provisions enforceable)