Arizona HOA Governing Statute
1. Overview — How HOAs are governed in Arizona
Arizona regulates community associations through two parallel statutes. They sit side by side in Title 33 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, and they never fully overlap. The Arizona Condominium Act, at Title 33, Chapter 9, A.R.S. § 33-1201 et seq., governs condominiums, and it applies to every condominium created in the state, no matter when it was recorded.1 The Arizona Planned Communities Act, at Title 33, Chapter 16, A.R.S. § 33-1801 et seq., governs non-condominium homeowners associations, and it applies to all planned communities, with defined exemptions for schools and timeshare plans.2
Arizona pairs that two-track structure with an owner-protective overlay. Associations cannot prohibit solar energy device installations (§ 33-1816 for planned communities; § 33-1816 read with § 33-439 for condos). The statutes protect flag and political sign displays (§ 33-1261 for condos; § 33-1808 for planned communities). And members keep a statutory baseline right to rent their property, subject to time restrictions a declaration may set (§ 33-1260.01 for condos; § 33-1806.01 for planned communities).3
Dispute resolution runs through two channels. The Arizona Department of Real Estate accepts homeowner-versus-association petitions and refers them to the Office of Administrative Hearings under A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq. Superior Court remains the venue for assessment foreclosures, declaratory judgment actions on covenants, and most multi-party disputes.4
Chapter 9 traces back to the 1980 Uniform Condominium Act. But Arizona has not adopted the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act, and it has continued to amend both chapters on its own state-specific track.5 The result is one of the more comprehensive non-UCIOA regimes in the country.
2. The statutory framework
The Arizona Condominium Act, A.R.S. § 33-1201 et seq., governs how every condominium in the state is created, altered, terminated, and managed. Section 33-1201 applies the chapter to all condominiums "without regard to the date the condominium was created," subject to limited carve-outs for pre-1986 declarations.1 The Act is organized into four articles. Article 1 covers general provisions, definitions, and variation under § 33-1202 and § 33-1203. Article 2 covers creation, alteration, and termination, including § 33-1211's recorded-declaration requirement and § 33-1228's termination procedure. Article 3 covers management, including § 33-1242 association powers, § 33-1243 board duties and annual audit, § 33-1248 open meetings, and § 33-1250 voting and proxies. Article 4 covers administration, including § 33-1270's reference to the Department of Real Estate.6
Section 33-1202 defines the key terms, among them "association," "common elements," "common expense liability," "common expense lien," "declaration," "development rights," "limited common element," and "unit."7 Section 33-1260 mandates resale disclosure. In condominiums of fewer than fifty units, the unit owner delivers the package; in condominiums of fifty or more units, the association does. Either way, delivery must happen within ten days of written notice of a pending sale, and the package must include the bylaws, rules, the declaration, current assessment information, reserve balances, insurance status, pending litigation, and a signed acknowledgment statement. The association may charge an aggregate fee of no more than $400, plus a $100 rush fee and a $50 update fee.8
Condo-specific owner-protective provisions include § 33-439, which voids any restriction that effectively prohibits installing or using a solar energy device as defined in § 44-1761, and which applies to both condominiums and planned communities;9 § 33-1261, which protects flags, for-sale signs, and political signs; and § 33-1260.01, which secures rental rights subject to declaration time-period restrictions.
Chapter 9 differs from UCIOA in several ways that matter day to day. Arizona has not adopted UCIOA's deemed-rejection budget ratification mechanism. It has not adopted UCIOA's super-priority assessment lien against first mortgages. And it retains the 1980 Uniform Condominium Act's framework on declarant rights and termination, with state-specific amendments such as the 2018 revisions to § 33-1228.10 Practitioners coming from Colorado, Connecticut, or another UCIOA jurisdiction should not assume any UCIOA provision carries into Arizona analysis.
The Arizona Planned Communities Act, A.R.S. § 33-1801 et seq., applies to "all planned communities" in the state. Section 33-1802 defines a planned community as a real estate development with a nonprofit or unincorporated association that holds the recorded power to assess members. The chapter exempts schools that receive state funds, timeshare plans subject to Chapter 20, and pre-1974 owner associations that lack authority to enforce use covenants.2
Chapter 16 runs as a single article, numbered in sequence from § 33-1801 through § 33-1820. Core provisions include § 33-1803 (assessment limitations, fining authority, and late-fee caps); § 33-1804 (open meetings, executive session limits, and agenda delivery); § 33-1805 (records access); § 33-1806 (resale disclosures); § 33-1806.01 (rental property and agent disclosures); § 33-1807 (assessment liens and foreclosure thresholds); § 33-1808 (flag display, political signs, caution signs, for-sale signs, and political activities); § 33-1810 (annual audit); § 33-1811 (board contracts and conflicts); § 33-1812 (proxies and absentee ballots); § 33-1813 (board member removal); § 33-1816 (solar energy devices); § 33-1817 (declaration amendment and architectural review); § 33-1818 (community authority over public roadways); § 33-1819 (artificial turf); and § 33-1820 (declarant control termination, added in 2024).11
Resale disclosure under § 33-1806 mirrors the condominium framework, with planned-community-specific items. In planned communities with fewer than fifty units, the selling member delivers the package; in communities of fifty or more units, the association delivers it within ten days of written notice of a pending sale.12
Owner-protective provisions specific to Chapter 16 include § 33-1816, which states that "an association shall not prohibit the installation or use of a solar energy device as defined in section 44-1761," and which shifts attorney fees to any party who substantially prevails;13 § 33-1808, which protects display of the American flag, the POW/MIA flag, the Arizona state flag, the Arizona Indian nations flag, the Gadsden flag, the first responder flag, blue star and gold star service flags, and historic versions of the American flag, and which limits the window for restricting political signs to outside the 71-day pre-election to 15-day post-election period;14 and § 33-1806.01, which provides that "a member may use the member's property as a rental property unless prohibited in the declaration" and limits the information an association may demand about tenants.15
Chapter 16 differs from Chapter 9 in several mechanical ways. It contains no analogs to several condominium-specific provisions on unit boundaries, plats, and limited common elements. The assessment-limitation cap in § 33-1803 — regular assessments cannot rise more than 20% over the prior fiscal year without a majority member vote — has no condo parallel.16 The 2025 amendment to § 33-1807 raised the planned-community foreclosure threshold to 18 months delinquent or $10,000, while the parallel condominium threshold in § 33-1256 remains 12 months or $1,200.17 Practitioners must treat the two chapters as separate statutes.
Both Chapter 9 and Chapter 16 let declarations vary the statutory defaults, but specified provisions are mandatory and cannot be waived. Section 33-1203 of Chapter 9 addresses variation directly. Within each chapter, the order of precedence runs from the chapter itself (its mandatory provisions control), then the recorded declaration, then the articles of incorporation, then the bylaws, then the rules and regulations the board adopts.18
Most Arizona community associations organize as nonprofit corporations, so they also answer to the Arizona Nonprofit Corporation Act, A.R.S. § 10-3101 et seq. That Act governs corporate formation, director fiduciary duties, member rights, indemnification, and dissolution. Where it conflicts with Chapter 9 or Chapter 16, the community association statute controls; where it does not conflict, both apply.19 Common-law contract and property doctrine still governs how courts interpret the declaration and how they handle CC&R amendment challenges — as the Arizona Supreme Court confirmed in Kalway v. Calabria Ranch HOA, LLC and as Division One of the Court of Appeals applied in Gross v. The Shores at Rainbow Lake Community Association.20
3. Compliance obligations created by the statutory framework
Governance obligations
Open meeting obligations come from § 33-1248 (condos) and § 33-1804 (planned communities). Both sections require board meetings to be open to members, and both define a narrow set of permissible executive session topics — legal advice, pending litigation, personal employment matters, and member appeals. As amended by HB 2662 in 2024, both require the agenda to accompany the meeting notice: at least 48 hours before board meetings, and 10 to 50 days before member meetings.21 SB 1039 (2025), which Governor Hobbs signed on March 31, 2025 and which took effect September 26, 2025, requires an association to retain any board recording of an open meeting for at least six months and to make it available, unedited, on member request.22 Both provisions are mandatory.
Records access comes from § 33-1258 (condos) and § 33-1805 (planned communities). Associations must make financial and other records reasonably available within ten business days, with limited exceptions for attorney-client privileged material, executive session minutes, pending litigation, and personnel matters. This is mandatory.
Board duties and audit obligations appear in § 33-1243 (condos) and § 33-1810 (planned communities). Both require an annual financial audit, review, or compilation, completed within 180 days of fiscal year-end and made available within 30 days of completion. Section 33-1242 (condos) and § 33-1803 (planned communities) codify board powers and member-violation notice procedures; both require notice and an opportunity to be heard before an association imposes fines.23 This is mandatory.
Financial obligations
Assessment authority flows from the declaration. Section 33-1803 (planned communities only) caps regular assessment increases at 20% of the prior fiscal year without a majority member vote, and caps special assessments at 20% of total annual assessments without a majority member vote.16 Chapter 9 sets no parallel statutory cap. Both chapters cap late-payment fees at the greater of $15 or 10% of the unpaid amount.
Arizona does not require a reserve study or reserve funding by statute. But § 33-1260 (condos) and § 33-1806 (planned communities) require disclosure of reserve balances at resale, and § 33-1806(A)(8) requires planned communities with fifty or more lots to deliver the most recent reserve study, if any, with the resale package.24 Disclosure is mandatory; funding is voluntary.
Section 33-1256 (condos) and § 33-1807 (planned communities) govern assessment liens and foreclosure. After the 2025 SB 1494 amendment, a planned community may foreclose only when an owner is delinquent 18 months or $10,000, whichever comes first; the condominium threshold under § 33-1256 remains 12 months or $1,200.17 This is mandatory.
Disclosure obligations
Resale disclosure under § 33-1260 (condos) and § 33-1806 (planned communities) requires delivery of the bylaws, rules, declaration, current assessment status, reserve information, insurance status, pending litigation, and an acknowledgment signature within ten days of written notice. Fees are capped at an aggregate $400, plus a $100 rush fee and a $50 update fee.8 This is mandatory.
Rental-related disclosure under § 33-1260.01 (condos) and § 33-1806.01 (planned communities) requires the member to give the association the tenant's name, contact information, and designated-agent identity. The association may not demand the lease, the rental application, credit reports, or other personal information beyond what the statute authorizes.15 This is mandatory.
Violation notice content under § 33-1242 (condos) and § 33-1803 (planned communities) must identify the specific provision violated, the date of the violation, the observer's name, the process to contest it, and a statement of the member's right to petition the Department of Real Estate under § 32-2199.01.25 This is mandatory.
Dispute resolution obligations
Internal due process — notice of a violation and an opportunity to be heard — is mandatory under § 33-1242 (condos) and § 33-1803 (planned communities) before any monetary penalty.23
Administrative dispute resolution runs through A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq. (Title 32, Chapter 20, Article 11). Either party to a dispute between an owner and a condominium or planned community association may petition the Department of Real Estate for a hearing about violations of the documents or of Title 33, Chapter 9 or 16. The Commissioner refers properly framed petitions to the Office of Administrative Hearings, where an administrative law judge hears the matter and may order compliance and civil penalties.4 The filing fee is $500 per single issue. ADRE does not regulate ongoing HOA operations and cannot answer legal questions; its statutory role is limited to administering the dispute process.26
Superior Court keeps jurisdiction over assessment foreclosure actions (§ 33-1256, § 33-1807), declaratory judgment actions on CC&R interpretation and amendment, breach of fiduciary duty claims against directors, and any dispute outside the jurisdiction defined in § 32-2199.01. Appeals run to the Arizona Court of Appeals — Division One in Phoenix, Division Two in Tucson — with discretionary review by the Arizona Supreme Court.
4. Arizona's recent legislative and judicial activity
Recent bills
Arizona lawmakers have spent recent sessions fine-tuning how associations collect debts, define liens, and regulate political displays.
SB 1494 · 2025 Regular Session
This bill raised the planned-community foreclosure threshold under § 33-1807 from one year or $1,200 to 18 months or $10,000. It does not apply to condominiums; § 33-1256 keeps the prior threshold.[17]
| Property managers | Recalibrate collection workflows so foreclosure referral is gated on the new 18-month/$10,000 trigger for planned communities only; condo workflows are unchanged. |
| HOA board members | For planned communities, expect longer carrying periods on delinquent accounts and weigh intermediate tools — judgment liens, payment plans, small claims — before foreclosure is available. |
| Community association attorneys | Audit form complaints and demand letters so the threshold pleaded matches the applicable chapter; misalignment risks dismissal. |
| Homeowners | Planned-community owners gain a longer runway before lien foreclosure; condominium owners do not. |
HB 2648 · 2024 Regular Session
HB 2648 split "common expense lien" and "member expenses" into separate categories. It limited what the statutory assessment lien includes — assessments, late charges if the declaration authorizes them, collection fees, and court-awarded attorney fees — and what stays outside the lien as member expenses: fines, late penalty charges, and interest.[27]
| Property managers | Rebuild ledger categorization to separate common expense lien items from non-lien member expenses; misclassification can extinguish lien rights. |
| HOA board members | Confirm the declaration authorizes late charges before treating them as part of the statutory lien. |
| Community association attorneys | Review pre-2024 lien filings and demand letters; the bill narrows what may be foreclosed under the statutory lien. |
| Homeowners | Fines and similar penalties are not part of the foreclosable lien and must be collected through other judgment processes. |
SB 1378 · 2025 Regular Session
SB 1378 broadened the definition of "political sign" to include flags that try to influence an election. That brings political flags within the same display-window protection — 71 days before to 15 days after an election — that already covered yard signs.[28]
| Property managers | Update rules and violation templates; a flag that meets the new definition cannot be removed during the 71-day pre-election to 15-day post-election window. |
| HOA board members | Distinguish a protected political flag from an association-specific political sign (board candidacy, recall, or ballot measure), which stays subject to year-round regulation. |
| Community association attorneys | Re-paper any sign and flag regulations adopted before September 26, 2025 to reflect the expanded definition. |
| Homeowners | Political flags receive the same statutory protection as political yard signs during the election window. |
Recent court rulings
Arizona's appellate courts have recently clarified how condominium terminations and CC&R amendments hold up when owners push back.
Cao v. PFP Dorsey Invs., LLC
The Arizona Supreme Court held that A.R.S. § 33-1228 of the Condominium Act — which let an 80% vote of allocated interests force the sale of unit owners' property on termination — does not violate the eminent domain provision of the Arizona Constitution as applied to dissenting owners, because the recorded declaration the owners agreed to incorporated the Act. The Court also held that § 33-1228(C) required the sale of all property in the condominium on termination, not just the units the dissenting owners held. It vacated Division One's decision and remanded.[29]
| Property managers | Termination procedures must follow § 33-1228 strictly; partial sales of dissenting-owner units alone are not authorized. |
| HOA board members | Boards weighing condominium termination should obtain counsel before any vote and document compliance with the Act and the declaration's incorporation language. |
| Community association attorneys | Re-read the 2018 version of § 33-1228 against any pending termination; Cao confirmed it applies when the declaration incorporates the Act "as amended." |
| Homeowners | Dissenting owners cannot block a properly noticed termination but are entitled to fair market value through binding arbitration. |
Gross v. Shores at Rainbow Lake Cmty. Ass'n
Division One applied Kalway v. Calabria Ranch HOA, LLC to a planned community's CC&R amendment. It held that an amendment banning short-term leases of fewer than 30 days was invalid, because it imposed a new restriction that was neither reasonable nor foreseeable from the original declaration, which had allowed leasing with no minimum term. The court upheld a separate amendment limiting occupancy to no more than four unrelated people as a permissible clarification of the original "single family" definition. It also held that the Planned Communities Act, A.R.S. §§ 33-1801 to -1819, does not displace common-law limits on CC&R amendments.[30]
| Property managers | Treat any newly amended use restriction as potentially unenforceable until counsel confirms the original declaration gave notice of a foreseeable restriction in that category. |
| HOA board members | Before pushing a 30-day or similar rental-restriction amendment, audit the original declaration for notice; "reasonable and foreseeable" is the governing standard. |
| Community association attorneys | Use Gross to vet amendment campaigns; recording an unenforceable amendment can expose the association to slander-of-title and fee liability. |
| Homeowners | Owners may challenge post-purchase amendments that prohibit conduct the original declaration permitted. |
Active legislative debates
The 2026 session brought a wave of HOA bills covering foreclosure parity, disclosure remedies, board conduct, assessment caps, virtual meetings, and pet rules — none yet signed.
SB 1246
This bill would extend the planned-community foreclosure threshold — 18 months or $10,000 — to condominiums, closing the gap § 33-1256 still leaves in place.[31]
| Property managers | Watch for a possible new condo foreclosure threshold and prepare to recalibrate condo collection workflows. |
| HOA board members | Condo boards may soon face longer delinquency runways before foreclosure is available. |
| Community association attorneys | Track the bill so demand letters cite the correct threshold if § 33-1256 changes. |
| Homeowners | Condo owners could gain the same longer runway planned-community owners already have. |
HB 2397
This bill would expand resale disclosures and, per the Associated Asset Management bill tracker, "authorize purchasers or sellers to pursue legal remedies if an HOA or owner knowingly or recklessly fails to provide required disclosures or provides materially false or misleading information."[31]
| Property managers | Tighten resale-package accuracy; the bill would let buyers or sellers pursue legal remedies for false or missing disclosures. |
| HOA board members | Confirm your association's disclosure process is documented and timely. |
| Community association attorneys | Prepare to advise on liability exposure for reckless or misleading disclosures. |
| Homeowners | Buyers and sellers may gain a direct remedy when an HOA mishandles required disclosures. |
HB 4011
This bill would add a statutory "duty to act reasonably," requiring boards to exercise discretionary powers "neutrally, fairly, without favoritism and in a nonarbitrary fashion."[31]
| Property managers | Document that discretionary decisions are made neutrally and consistently. |
| HOA board members | Be ready to exercise discretionary powers without favoritism and on a nonarbitrary basis. |
| Community association attorneys | Anticipate a new statutory "duty to act reasonably" standard in board-decision challenges. |
| Homeowners | Owners could gain firmer footing to challenge arbitrary board action. |
HB 2277
This bill would require member ratification for assessment increases of 5% or more in associations of 50 or more members — far below the current 20% threshold.[31]
| Property managers | Build budget workflows that flag any increase of 5% or more for member ratification in associations of 50 or more. |
| HOA board members | Plan for a possible member vote on modest assessment increases. |
| Community association attorneys | Track the threshold; it would sit well below the current 20% cap. |
| Homeowners | Owners in larger associations may get a vote on smaller increases. |
HB 2613
This bill would authorize virtual meetings and electronic voting for community associations.[31]
| Property managers | Prepare platforms and records for virtual meetings and electronic voting. |
| HOA board members | Review whether your governing documents allow remote participation. |
| Community association attorneys | Watch for new rules on notice and authentication in electronic voting. |
| Homeowners | Owners may gain easier remote access to meetings and ballots. |
SB 1290
This bill would bar boards from taking action in closed executive sessions, tightening existing executive-session limits.[31]
| Property managers | Expect tighter limits on what boards can decide in closed session. |
| HOA board members | Be ready to move final action into open meetings. |
| Community association attorneys | Track the bill's bar on board action in closed meetings. |
| Homeowners | Owners could gain more visibility into board decisions. |
HB 4017, SB 1582, SB 1729
These bills each target pet restrictions based on breed, size, and weight.[31]
| Property managers | Watch for limits on enforcing breed, size, and weight restrictions. |
| HOA board members | Review pet rules that turn on breed or weight for possible conflict with new law. |
| Community association attorneys | Prepare to revise pet-restriction covenants if any bill passes. |
| Homeowners | Owners may gain protection against breed- or size-based pet bans. |
5. National positioning and related coverage
Arizona sits alongside California (the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act), Florida (Chapter 718 condominiums and Chapter 720 planned communities), and Texas (Property Code Chapters 81–82 and 209) as a comprehensive non-UCIOA jurisdiction. What sets Arizona apart is its two-statute architecture — Chapter 9 for condos, Chapter 16 for planned communities, never cross-applied — a strong owner-protective overlay (statutory solar rights with mandatory fee-shifting, expansive flag and political sign protections, and statutory baseline rental rights), and a dispute resolution framework that channels owner-versus-association petitions through ADRE and the Office of Administrative Hearings under § 32-2199 et seq. while leaving foreclosure and broader equitable disputes in Superior Court. For multi-state operators, the practical lesson is plain: you cannot derive an Arizona template from a California or UCIOA playbook without verifying every citation chapter by chapter.
6. Closing note
HOA Weekly's Arizona Governing Statute coverage updates quarterly to track legislative amendments, ADRE guidance, and appellate rulings interpreting Chapters 9 and 16. Federal frameworks — including the Fair Housing Act, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and the Over-the-Air Reception Devices rule — also apply to Arizona associations, and we cover them separately.
Footnotes
- Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 33-1201 (2025). ↩
- Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 33-1801 (2025). ↩
- Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 33-1260.01, 33-1261, 33-1806.01, 33-1808, 33-1816 (2025). ↩
- Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 32-2199.01 (2025); Ariz. Dep't of Real Estate, Homeowners Association Dispute Information (last visited May 25, 2026). ↩
- Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 33, ch. 9 (2025) (based on Unif. Condo. Act (1980); Arizona has not adopted the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act); see Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act, Unif. L. Comm'n (last visited May 25, 2026). ↩
- Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 33, ch. 9 (2025). ↩
- Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 33-1202 (2025). ↩
- Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 33-1260 (2025). ↩
- Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 33-439 (2025); Garden Lakes Cmty. Ass'n v. Madigan, 204 Ariz. 238 (Ct. App. 2003). ↩
- Cao v. PFP Dorsey Invs., LLC, 257 Ariz. 82 (2024) (discussing Arizona's modifications to the Uniform Condominium Act on which § 33-1228 is based). ↩
- Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 33, ch. 16 (2025); § 33-1820 added by H.B. 2698, 56th Leg., 2d Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 2024). ↩
- Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 33-1806 (2025). ↩
- Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 33-1816 (2025). ↩
- Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 33-1808 (2025). ↩
- Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 33-1260.01, 33-1806.01 (2025). ↩
- Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 33-1803 (2025). ↩
- S.B. 1494, 57th Leg., 1st Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 2025) (amending Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 33-1807). ↩
- Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 33-1203 (2025). ↩
- Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 10-3101 (2025) (Arizona Nonprofit Corporation Act). ↩
- Kalway v. Calabria Ranch HOA, LLC, 252 Ariz. 532 (2022); Gross v. Shores at Rainbow Lake Cmty. Ass'n, No. 1 CA-CV 23-0394 (Ariz. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2024). ↩
- H.B. 2662, 56th Leg., 2d Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 2024) (amending Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 33-1248, 33-1804). ↩
- S.B. 1039, 57th Leg., 1st Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 2025) (amending Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 33-1248, 33-1804); see Travis L. Firm, 2025 Arizona Legislative Update (2025). ↩
- Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 33-1242, 33-1803 (2025). ↩
- Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 33-1260, 33-1806 (2025). ↩
- Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 32-2199.01, 33-1242(C)–(D), 33-1803(C)–(D) (2025). ↩
- Ariz. Dep't of Real Estate, Homeowners Association Dispute Information (last visited May 25, 2026). ↩
- H.B. 2648, 56th Leg., 2d Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 2024) (amending Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 33-1202, 33-1256, 33-1802, 33-1807). ↩
- S.B. 1378, 57th Leg., 1st Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 2025) (amending Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 33-1261, 33-1808). ↩
- Cao v. PFP Dorsey Invs., LLC, 257 Ariz. 82, 545 P.3d 459 (2024). ↩
- Gross v. Shores at Rainbow Lake Cmty. Ass'n, No. 1 CA-CV 23-0394 (Ariz. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2024). ↩
- Mulcahy L. Firm, 2026 Pending Legislation Summary (May 18, 2026); Associated Asset Mgmt., 2026 Arizona Legislative Session — HOA Bill Tracking (last visited May 25, 2026); Ariz. State Legislature, Bill Status Inquiry, 57th Leg., 2d Reg. Sess. (last visited May 25, 2026). ↩