The Arizona Supreme Court recently ruled that homeowners can enforce anti-nuisance provisions in their community's covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) and recover attorney fees in disputes. This decision affects homeowners associations (HOAs) across the state and clarifies how CC&Rs function in legal disputes between neighbors.

In the case of Burkett v. Dryja, filed under docket number CV-25-0143-PR, Stephanie Burkett, acting as trustee of the Stephanie Rae Burkett Revocable Trust, sued her neighbors, John and Anita Dryja. The dispute arose when Burkett claimed that the Dryjas' new air conditioning unit created a nuisance by causing noise and vibrations in her home. The case highlights the importance of CC&Rs in planned communities and their role in resolving neighbor disputes.

Background

Burkett and the Dryjas live in Moondance Estates, a subdivision governed by the Moondance Estate Community Association, which has specific CC&Rs. These CC&Rs outline how homeowners can use their properties and include provisions for enforcing these rules. One provision prohibits creating a nuisance, while another states that the prevailing party in legal disputes related to the CC&Rs can recover attorney fees.

In June 2021, the Dryjas replaced their air conditioning unit, which Burkett alleged was too noisy and caused vibrations in her home. After unsuccessful attempts to resolve the issue, Burkett filed a lawsuit against the Dryjas and the Association, claiming that the Dryjas violated the anti-nuisance provision of the CC&Rs. The trial court ruled in favor of the Dryjas, but denied their request for attorney fees, stating that Burkett's claim was based in tort rather than contract.

The Ruling

The Arizona Supreme Court, led by Justice William Montgomery, reversed the lower court's ruling regarding attorney fees. The court determined that the anti-nuisance provision in the CC&Rs is a contractual obligation that homeowners can enforce against one another, even if the conduct it prohibits also constitutes a tort. The court stated, "A recorded anti-nuisance covenant like the one here is a contractual obligation that one owner may enforce against another, and that it remains enforceable even if the conduct it prohibits also constitutes a tort."

Furthermore, the court ruled that the attorney fee provision in the CC&Rs applies to actions enforcing the anti-nuisance provision. Since Burkett initiated a court proceeding related to the CC&Rs and the Dryjas prevailed, the court concluded that the Dryjas were entitled to recover their reasonable attorney fees.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for homeowners and HOAs in Arizona. It clarifies that anti-nuisance provisions in CC&Rs are enforceable as contracts, allowing homeowners to seek legal remedies for violations. The decision also establishes that prevailing parties in such disputes are entitled to attorney fees, which may encourage more homeowners to assert their rights under CC&Rs.

The ruling reinforces the importance of CC&Rs in maintaining community standards and resolving conflicts between neighbors. Homeowners can now rely on these provisions to address nuisances and seek compensation for legal costs incurred during disputes.

What's Next

The Dryjas may now seek to recover their attorney fees as determined by the superior court. There is no indication that this case will be appealed further, but it sets a precedent for future disputes involving CC&Rs and anti-nuisance provisions in Arizona.