In a unanimous decision, the Arizona Court of Appeals has ruled some common arguments used by opponents to thwart proposed developments have no basis in Arizona law.
Tina and John Pavlak bought a home in the Sonoran Estates community, part of Red Mountain Ranch in Mesa, in 2014. An adjacent lot was vacant and carried terms from the City of Mesa and the area homeowners association that any new home or additions would adhere to the “building envelope” of the lot.
The Pavlaks claimed they made improvements to their property based on those assurances.
In 2024, the City and the HOA approved a request by Funk Family Enterprises to change the adjacent lot’s envelope after the company purchased the site. Those changes allowed a home to be built further uphill to optimize its value and provide a better view.
The Pavlaks sued to block construction. They claimed the change next door lowered their property value by $300K and caused a loss of the value of the $287K in their property improvements. A trial judge dismissed as frivolous a claim of consumer fraud but allowed claims the plans created a nuisance to proceed.
Nuisance claims are a common objection from opponents when a planned development would block or reduce the opponents’ scenic views or potentially create sightlines that could look into backyards.
The trial judge ruled that since the HOA had a process to modify the building envelope, the homeowners could not reasonably expect the envelope would not be changed.
The Pavlaks appealed the decision, leading to the recent Court of Appeals ruling.
The appellate judges ruled unanimously there is no basis “at all” in Arizona law to allow for claims of loss of privacy or view obstruction. Appellate Judge Samuel Thumma said a nuisance claim “must constitute more than slight inconvenience or petty annoyance.”
He also wrote, “Arizona has never recognized a private nuisance claim based on alleged loss of privacy. Moreover, the Pavlaks have not shown that this should be the case to do so.”
Thumma’s ruling pointed out a loss of value does not stop the owners’ ability to use the property and cannot be the sole basis for a nuisance claim.
The Court also found there was no malicious conduct associated with Funk Family Enterprises’ plan or construction, and an alleged loss of privacy is not sufficient on its own to justify a nuisance claim.
Regarding view obstruction, Thumma said, “Arizona has never recognized a right to an unobstructed or scenic view across a neighbor’s property, and this court does not recognize such a right here.”
The Pavlaks could appeal the decision to the Arizona Supreme Court. Unless the appeal is accepted and the Supreme Court overturns the appellate decision, the current ruling will stand as precedent. (Source: Arizona Daily Star)