Hawk v. PC Village Ass'n
Court of Appeals of Arizona
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SWANN, Judge.
¶ 1 In 2009, the legislature passed AR.S. § 33-441, which renders unenforceable any covenant, restriction or condition prohibiting the posting of “for sale” signs. We hold that the superior court properly applied the statute to invalidate a restriction recorded before 2009, and that the court’s order did not violate the contract clauses of the United States or Arizona constitutions. We also affirm the court’s award of attorney’s fees.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶ 2 In 2009, the Hawks purchased a lot in Pine Canyon, a Flagstaff master-planned community managed by PC Village…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v. Kansas Power & Light Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1983
- Andrews v. BlakeArizona Supreme Court · 2003
- Orfaly v. Tucson Symphony SocietyCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2004
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Lee v. ING Investment Management, LLCCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2016
- SATICOY BAY, LLC SER. 9720 HITCHING RAIL VS. PECCOLE RANCH CMTY. ASS'NNevada Supreme Court · 2021
- Becker v. SummitCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2018
- Klein v. LoydenCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2019
- Kurowski v. GormanCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2015
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.