HOWARD R. STANDAGE, Plaintiff/Appellant,
WHITE MOUNTAIN VACATION VILLAGE SUBDIVISION ASSOCIATION, an Arizona corporation, Defendant/Appellee.
Not for Publication – Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CV2010-093375 The Honorable Emmet J. Ronan, Judge
Fuller & Stowell, P.C., Donald O. Fuller Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant
Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C., J. Gary Linder, Eileen Dennis GilBride, & Heather E. Bushor Counsel for Defendant/Appellee
Presiding Judge Andrew W. Gould and Judge Michael J. Brown joined.
Donn Kessler, Judge
¶1 Howard R. Standage appeals from the trial court's entry of partial judgment dismissing his claims for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 In 2003, Standage purchased a lot in White Mountain Vacation Village subject to the subdivision's 2002 Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions ("the 2002 CC&R's"). Section 3.1 of the 2002 CC&R's limited the use of the lots to "Recreational Vehicles" and provided that "no mobile home, dwelling house, or any other unit intended as permanent living quarters may be placed on any Lot."
¶3 Standage filed a complaint in 2010 alleging that the White Mountain Vacation Village Home Owners Association ("the HOA") had breached its duty to properly enforce the 2002 CC&R's by approving the installation of Park Model Homes, retaining walls, fences, landscaping, and impermeable improvements. Standage's complaint included claims for declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and breach of contract. In addition, Standage alleged that as a result of the approvals given by the HOA, improvements to the lot adjoining his property resulted in additional water flow onto and damage to his property.
¶4 In response, the HOA filed an amended set of CC&R's ("the 2010 CC&R's") expanding the definition of "Recreational Vehicles" to include Park Model Homes, vehicles not intended to be moved on a regular basis, and vehicles primarily used to provide permanent living quarters. The HOA then filed a motion to dismiss alleging the allegations in Standage's complaint were rendered moot in light of the 2010 CC&R's. The trial court denied the HOA's motion.
¶5 The parties filed briefs on the issues to be litigated and the remedies requested. The HOA argued that the only issues which could be litigated were if it breached the CC&R's and if so, any damages to Standage, but that the other claims affected the rights of other lot owners and could not proceed without Standage naming them as parties. Standage argued that no other homeowners' rights would be affected, but if they were, the HOA had to add them. The trial court dismissed Standage's claims for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief because it would affect other lot owners in the subdivision who were not parties to the lawsuit. The court found that ordering such relief would violate due process requirements, and the interest of non-party lot owners would not be adequately represented by Standage or the HOA.
¶6 Standage timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") section 12-2101(A)(1), ...