Dreamland Villa Community Club, Inc. v. Raimey / Raimey v. Dreamland Villa Community Club, Inc.
Maricopa · AZ · Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Member win · other
What happened
Dreamland Villa Community Club historically operated as a voluntary recreation club for lot owners in several Dreamland Villa sections. In 2003–2004 it recorded Second Amended Declarations requiring lot owners in six sections to join and pay lienable assessments. After the club obtained collection judgments, owners including Raimey cross-appealed. The 2010 Court of Appeals opinion held a generic majority-amendment clause could not impose mandatory club membership and assessments where original declarations described only lot-level use restrictions, there were no common areas, and membership had been voluntary—declaring the amended declarations invalid. On remand the trial court limited relief to named appellants until a 2011 special action held invalidity runs to all owners in the six sections, directed restitution of assessments paid under vacated judgments, and required a recordable notice of invalidity.
What the court (or agency) held
A generic majority-amendment clause cannot impose mandatory club membership and lienable assessments where original declarations described only lot-level use restrictions, there were no common areas, and club membership had always been voluntary. The 2010 opinion declared the Second Amended Declarations invalid and unenforceable. On remand the 2011 special action held that invalidity runs to all owners in the six sections—not just the named appellants—and directed restitution of assessments paid under the vacated judgments, plus a recordable notice of invalidity.
Why this matters for members
Voluntary clubs cannot bootstrap mandatory assessments through thin amendment clauses when the original recorded scheme had no common areas or mandatory membership. Invalidity can extend community-wide, with restitution and recordable notice.
What the member did
Cross-appealed the validity of the assessment amendments; after a cramped remand judgment, sought special-action review to extend the holding to every lot in the affected sections and to recover money already paid.
Questions for the board
- Did original declarations create mandatory membership and assessments, or only lot-use rules?
- Are we relying on a generic amendment clause to create new lienable assessments?
- What notice have owners received if prior amendments were declared invalid?
Questions for a lawyer
- Do Armstrong/Dreamland-type limits on amendment power apply to these declarations?
- Does invalidity of amended declarations extend beyond named parties?
- What restitution and recording steps follow a mandate like Raimey?
Citation
Dreamland Villa Community Club, Inc. v. Raimey / Raimey v. Dreamland Villa Community Club, Inc., 224 Ariz. 42, 226 P.3d 411 (App. 2010); follow-on special action 1 CA-SA 10-0255 (2011) (2011-07-21). Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One. Outcome chip: fees/assessments hub / secondary. Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/az-court-of-appeals/1575175.html
_General information, not legal advice. Outcomes turn on facts and current law._
General information, not legal advice. Outcomes turn on facts and current law.