A fight over a replacement air-conditioning unit's noise and vibrations has reached Arizona's highest court, which handed down a ruling that could reshape how homeowners associations across the state settle neighbor disputes. The Arizona Supreme Court unanimously decided that community covenants require the losing party in such fights to pay the winning side's reasonable attorney fees, returning the case to the trial court in a dispute involving the Moondance Estates subdivision.
The case began when Stephanie Burkett sued her neighbors, John and Anita Dryja, along with their homeowners association, according to KVOA. Burkett alleged that noise and vibrations from the Dryjas' replacement air-conditioning unit violated the community's covenants, conditions and restrictions, known as CC&Rs, which govern how residents can use their property within the subdivision.
Lower Courts Sided With the Dryjas, but Denied Them Fees
A trial court ruled against Burkett on every claim, finding that the air conditioner's noise did not violate community rules or amount to a nuisance. Yet even as the trial court awarded attorney fees to the homeowners association, it denied those same fees to the Dryjas, the couple actually accused of the violation, per the station's report.
The Dryjas appealed that fee denial, but an appeals court upheld it, ruling that the duty to avoid creating a nuisance exists separately from community covenants. That distinction meant that, in the lower courts' view, prevailing against a covenant claim didn't automatically entitle the Dryjas to recoup their legal costs the way the homeowners association had.
Supreme Court Reverses Course
The Arizona Supreme Court disagreed, concluding that community covenants establish enforceable contractual duties between neighbors. Justice William G. Montgomery wrote that these covenants remain enforceable even if independent laws prohibit the same conduct, a distinction that undercut the appeals court's reasoning that nuisance duties exist apart from the CC&Rs themselves.
That contractual framing matters under Arizona law. A state statute, Arizona Revised Statutes 12-341.01, allows a court to award reasonable attorney fees to the successful party in a contested action arising out of an express or implied contract. The provision is discretionary rather than automatic, but the Supreme Court's ruling ties covenant enforcement cases like this one directly into that contract-fee framework, meaning the losing party in such disputes can be ordered to pay.
With that reasoning in place, the court reversed the lower court decisions and found that community rules require the losing party to pay attorney fees in covenant enforcement cases. The case now returns to the trial court, which must determine the exact amount Burkett will have to pay the Dryjas, the amount not yet disclosed as the matter heads back down.
What It Means for Arizona Homeowners
For homeowners across Arizona who live under community covenants, the ruling signals that neighbors who sue over alleged CC&R violations and lose could be on the hook for the other side's legal costs, not just the costs of the homeowners association defending the rules. That shifts the financial calculus for anyone considering a covenant-based lawsuit against a neighbor, whether the dispute is over a noisy appliance, a fence, or any other restriction spelled out in a subdivision's governing documents.
