Miscellaneous & related Arizona laws

This is probably the strongest single remedy in Arizona law for an owner facing an improper association lien. A person who records a document claiming an interest in or a lien against real property, knowing or having reason to know it is forged, groundless, contains a material misstatement or false claim, or is otherwise invalid, is liable to the owner or beneficial title holder for not less than $5,000, or treble the actual damages caused by the recording — whichever is greater — plus reasonable attorney fees and costs (§ 33-420(A)).

Two further teeth. The owner may bring a special action in superior court to immediately clear title (§ 33-420(B)). And critically, a document purporting to create a lien or encumbrance that is not authorized by statute, judgment or other specific legal authority is presumed to be groundless and invalid (§ 33-420(D)). Someone merely named in such a document who knows it is invalid is liable for not less than $1,000 or treble actual damages, whichever is greater, plus reasonable attorney fees and costs — but only if the owner or beneficial title holder first makes a written request to release or correct the document and that person wilfully refuses to do so within 20 days of the request (§ 33-420(C)). Send the written demand first; the twenty-day refusal is what triggers the liability. Recording such a document is a class 1 misdemeanor (§ 33-420(E)).

Arizona treats a defect claim brought by the association differently from one brought by an individual owner, and confusing the two is a common mistake.

If the association sues, it must clear several hurdles first. Notwithstanding anything in the nonprofit code or the community-association chapters, an association may file a dwelling action only after: the board gives full written disclosure to all members of the material information about the action — its nature, the relief sought, demands, offers to settle, and the expenses and fees; the association holds a meeting of members and the board on notice given the way § 33-1248 or § 33-1804 requires; the board authorizes the filing under the community documents, with an affirmative duty to demonstrate compliance; and the association gives the seller notice and the right to repair or replace under § 12-1363 (§ 33-2002). A “dwelling” here includes property and improvements owned by the association or jointly by all members (§ 33-2001).

That chapter applies only to association dwelling actions. It expressly does not reach actions filed by individual members against a seller, claims for personal injury or death or damage to property other than a dwelling, or common law fraud claims — and neither chapter reaches a Registrar of Contractors proceeding under Title 32, chapter 10, which stays open to an association and to individual members alike (§§ 33-2003(A), 12-1366(A)(5)). An individual purchaser's claim runs under the dwelling action statutes (§§ 12-1361–12-1366), which have their own machinery: written notice by certified mail specifying the basis in reasonable detail, the dwelling made available for inspection within 10 days of a request, a good-faith written seller response within 60 days (silence past 60 days frees the purchaser to sue), and, if the seller elects to repair, coordination within 30 days and reasonable efforts to begin within 35 days (§ 12-1363). Limitations and repose — including the eight-year outside limit in § 12-552 — are tolled through the process and for 30 days after substantial completion of repairs (§ 12-1363(F)). Skip these steps and the action shall be dismissed (§ 12-1363(P)). The one exception: a defect involving an immediate threat to life or safety does not require the purchaser to run the process first (§ 12-1362(A)).

The two chapters are not alternatives. An individual owner's dwelling action runs under Title 12 alone; an association's dwelling action is subject to both — the Title 12 notice-and-repair machinery and the Title 33, chapter 18 disclosure, meeting and authorization conditions. Each chapter says so expressly (§§ 33-2003(B), 12-1366(B)).

Arizona sets an exclusive method for identifying and valuing common areas (§ 42-13401): the county assessor identifies common areas for valuation (§ 42-13402), and values are computed on the assumption that no other property use is possible (§ 42-13403(A)). The statute then fixes the number outright: land, buildings and improvements used for common areas are valued at $500 per parcel, and while the assessor may split that between land and improvements, the parcel total cannot exceed it (§ 42-13403(B)).

Two limits worth knowing. The article does not reach the common elements of a condominium as defined in § 33-1202, or a golf course — both are expressly outside the definition (§ 42-13402(B)). And the property must be deeded to the association, which must be organized to maintain it, with all residential owners required to be members or to pay mandatory assessments and with an appurtenant right to use the area (§ 42-13402(C)).

There is also a filing condition. As a requirement for valuation under this article, the subdivider (on subdivision approval by the state real estate department) or the community or homeowners' association that owns the common area must record a deed restriction with the county recorder and file a copy with the county assessor, restricting the property to use as a common area (§ 42-13404(A)). Both steps are required. If the property is later converted to a different use in violation of the restriction, the assessor reclassifies and revalues it using standard appraisal methods (§ 42-13404(B)).

Arizona protects solar, but not identically for every community. In a planned community, an association shall not prohibit the installation or use of a solar energy device; it may adopt reasonable placement rules only if they do not prevent installation, impair the device's functioning, restrict its use, or adversely affect its cost or efficiency — and a party who substantially prevails against the board is awarded attorney fees and costs (§ 33-1816).

That section sits only in the planned community chapter. There is no equivalent in the Condominium Act. A condominium owner relies instead on the general rule that any covenant or restriction in a deed or other instrument affecting the transfer or sale of real property that effectively prohibits a solar energy device is void and unenforceable (§ 33-439(A)) — subject to an exception for instruments entered into before April 17, 1980 (§ 33-439(B)). Both cross-reference the definition of “solar energy device” at § 44-1761.

The asymmetry runs to remedies, not just scope. Section 33-1816(C) makes a fee award mandatory — “the court shall award” reasonable attorney fees and costs to a party who substantially prevails in an action against the board. Section 33-439 carries no fee-shifting provision at all, so a condominium owner who wins under it pays their own lawyer. Note too that § 33-439 is not condo-specific: it voids a solar-prohibiting covenant in any such instrument, so a planned-community owner can rely on it in addition to § 33-1816.

Arizona's election code makes it a class 2 misdemeanor to knowingly remove, alter, deface or cover the political sign of a candidate for public office (§ 16-1019(A)). For a sign supporting or opposing a ballot measure, question or issue, that protection runs only for the election at which the measure appears on the ballot, and only from 71 days before through 15 days after it. And it does not apply at all where the person removing the sign is the owner (or authorized agent of the owner) of the private property it sits on, or where the sign was placed in violation of state law or a local ordinance (§ 16-1019(B)) — which is why the protections inside the two association acts, not this one, are usually what an owner relies on against a board. This sits alongside the sign protections written into the community-association acts themselves — § 33-1261 for condominiums and § 33-1808 for planned communities, which bar an association from prohibiting certain displays notwithstanding the community documents. If signs are the dispute in your community, read the act that governs you first, then this section.

In the small claims division of a justice court — jurisdiction capped at $5,000, exclusive of interest and costs (§ 22-503(A)) — a natural person, corporation, partnership, marital community or association may commence or defend an action, though an assignee or someone who was not a real party to the original transaction may not commence one (§ 22-512(A)). Two features matter here. No attorney may appear on either side unless both parties stipulate in writing before the hearing (§ 22-512(B)(7), (D)). And an association’s own employee, or a management-company employee, may appear for it if specifically authorized in writing and the association is an original party (§ 22-512(C)(2)).

Note what small claims cannot hear: forcible entry and detainer, specific performance, class actions, and defamation (§ 22-503(B)) — which rules out most covenant-enforcement injunctions. For modest money disputes it is an accessible route, and it sits alongside Arizona's administrative hearing process, where a corporation may likewise be represented by a non-lawyer.

The counterweight: a superior court presiding judge may designate a pro se litigant a vexatious litigant for vexatious conduct, after which that person may not file a new pleading, motion or other document without prior leave of the court (§ 12-3201). Self-representation is available; abusing it has consequences.