A dispute over the wrong kind of rock in a front yard escalated into a pepper-spray fight on a North Scottsdale street in August, sending a homeowners association director to the hospital and landing him with an order of protection. The confrontation, which unfolded near 136th Street and East Via Linda Road, is the latest and most physical chapter in a years-long battle between residents of the Scottsdale Mountain community and the HOA board overseeing it.
According to the Sacramento Bee, which republished reporting from the Arizona Republic, Scottsdale Mountain HOA director Lonnie Muto was driving with his wife, Jane Muto, when he got out of the car with pepper spray, believing neighbors David Creed and Sheila Janisch had thrown something at the vehicle. What followed was a physical fight between Creed and Muto, and both Creed and Janisch were pepper-sprayed before recovering, the outlet reported. Muto was taken to the hospital with minor injuries following the August 6 altercation, per the report, which cited a police account of the incident.
Police had been called to the community before for other complaints between the two couples, according to the police report cited in the article. Following the fight, police recommended charging Muto with assault, though the report notes Muto was not arrested. A Scottsdale City Court judge issued an order of protection against Muto on August 10, though the article states it is unclear exactly who the order protects.
A Landscaping Fight That Predates the Pepper Spray
The roots of the clash trace back to landscaping changes Janisch made to her home in 2020, the dispute that the article says underlies the broader conflict. In 2024, Janisch and Creed filed a lawsuit against the Scottsdale Mountain Community Association, its board members, and Jane Muto, alleging that the association and named defendants retaliated against them over yard changes made to repair water damage. The lawsuit names several defendants, including Jane Muto, Lonnie Muto, Yuri Ellis, Tom McVay and Bill Dubé.
According to the original 2024 lawsuit, the defendants targeted the couple over gray riprap and Table Mesa brown rock added to their yard. Janisch and Creed have said other Scottsdale Mountain residents used the same gray riprap and Table Mesa brown rock without facing the same scrutiny. The association’s own design guidelines, which govern what materials homeowners can use, state plainly that river-run rock is not allowed in front yards, and that any landscaping improvements must be approved by the Architectural Committee before installation, according to a copy of the Scottsdale Mountain Community Association design guidelines. Those same guidelines specify that decomposed granite in the community must be limited to Madison Gold, Desert Gold or Desert Tan, covered to a maximum of two inches of three-quarter-inch-minus material, and require owners to keep visible landscaping clean, neat and weed-free.
Gate Access, Records and Closed-Door Meetings at Issue
Beyond the rock dispute itself, Janisch and Creed have accused the HOA board and group of a string of other actions in their lawsuit: threatening foreclosure action, defamation, deactivating their electronic gate access, refusing to provide HOA records, and holding closed executive meetings without proper notice about their applications and penalties. The association’s gate policy allows for sticker transmitters to be deactivated for violations, with reactivation requiring a $250 fee per transmitter in addition to any assessed fines, according to the same association document.
In 2025, an anonymous letter was sent to roughly 700 Scottsdale Mountain homeowners while Janisch was running for a seat on the HOA board. Per the lawsuit, the letter claimed Janisch and Creed’s suit contained numerous false claims and alleged Janisch sought a board seat to pardon fines and sanctions levied against herself.
HOA board representative Chuck Oldham said the board was aware of the police report but had no comment on it at that time, and separately said the board was confident the record would show it followed the association’s governing documents and applicable state statutes. The board has said it will not comment on specific allegations while the matter remains in active litigation. Creed, for his part, was advised by his attorney not to comment.
Part of a Broader Pattern in Valley HOAs
Dennis Legere, founder of the Arizona Homeowners Coalition, an advocacy and lobbying group for people living under HOA rules, said fights like this one are common across the Valley. Some Valley HOAs have even begun bringing security or police to their own meetings, according to Legere.
Arizona law sets some ground rules for how associations like Scottsdale Mountain’s must operate. Under Arizona Revised Statutes section 33-1804, association and board meetings must be held within the state regardless of what the community’s governing documents say, and a members’ meeting must be held at least once a year. A related statute, Arizona Revised Statutes section 33-1805, addresses which board-meeting records are exempt from disclosure when the session itself was not required to be open to all members.
Scottsdale Mountain’s association has been in court before over financial disputes. In a separate, nonprecedential case, the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the association after it sued a property owner, Fortiff LLC, to collect several years of unpaid assessments and foreclose its statutory lien, according to the Arizona Court of Appeals decision reproduced by CourtListener. That ruling, marked as not precedential, can only be cited as permitted under Arizona Supreme Court Rule 111(c), but it illustrates the association’s willingness to pursue legal remedies against homeowners over financial and compliance disputes.
