Arizona Court of Appeals Clarifies Homeowners Association Open Meeting Requirements

By Jill Casson Owen, Benjamin J. Hawkins, and Stephen Wright

A Z N H Revocable Trust v. Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association, No. 1 CA-CV 25-0424 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 28, 2026)

OVERVIEW
The Arizona Court of Appeals issued an opinion clarifying how homeowners associations must conduct meetings under A.R.S. § 33-1804. The decision reinforces the legislative policy favoring transparency in association governance, bringing association meeting requirements more in line with the open meeting standards applicable to public bodies under A.R.S. § 38-431 et seq. (Arizona’s Open Meeting Law).

KEY HOLDINGS

1. All Voting and Formal Actions Must Occur in Open Meetings
The Court affirmed that association boards cannot vote or take formal action during closed (executive) sessions. Under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), associations may close portions of meetings only for “consideration” of certain enumerated topics, such as legal advice, pending litigation, or personal/financial information about individual members. The Court interpreted “consideration” to mean discussion and deliberation, not voting. The Court noted that dictionaries define “consider” as “spending time thinking about a possibility” and “formulating an opinion,” which are processes that precede formal action. This interpretation mirrors how Arizona’s Open Meeting Law (A.R.S. § 38-431.03(D)) prohibits public bodies from voting in executive session.

The Court emphasized that A.R.S. § 33-1804(F) contains a legislative policy statement requiring that all association meetings “be conducted openly” and that members have “the ability to speak after discussion of agenda items, but before a vote.” If voting could occur in closed sessions, members would be deprived of this statutory right.

2. Closed Meeting Agendas Must Provide Reasonably Necessary Information
The Court reversed the trial court’s ruling on agenda requirements. Simply citing the paragraph of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) that justifies closing a meeting (e.g., “legal advice” or “pending litigation”) is insufficient. Agendas must contain “information that is reasonably necessary to inform the members of the matters to be discussed or decided.” This does not require disclosure of privileged attorney-client information or personally identifying member information, but associations must provide enough detail for members to understand what business is being addressed.

3. Meeting Notices Were Adequate
The Court affirmed that the association’s meeting notices, which included date, time, place, and the statutory paragraph justifying closure, satisfied A.R.S. § 33-1804(C) and (D). This aspect of the decision confirms that associations need not include substantive descriptions of agenda items in meeting notices (as distinct from agendas).

4. Delegation of Authority to Identify Closed Meeting Reasons (Remanded)
The Court remanded for further factual development on whether the board properly delegated authority to the association president to determine which matters would be addressed in closed meetings. A.R.S. § 33-1804(C) requires the “board” to identify the statutory basis for closing a meeting, but the Court acknowledged that boards may delegate this responsibility under corporate governance principles (A.R.S. § 10-3801(B)).

KEY TAKEAWAYS

CONCLUSION
The A Z N H v. Sunland Springs decision clarifies the boundaries of closed meetings under A.R.S. § 33-1804. While boards retain the ability to discuss sensitive matters in executive session, formal action and voting must occur in the open. Agendas must provide meaningful information about closed meeting topics. These requirements ensure that association members can participate meaningfully in governance decisions affecting their community.

Lastly, we note that condominium associations in Arizona are governed under a separate statutory regime (A.R.S. § 33-1201 et seq.) than planned community associations. The applicable provisions of the open meeting statute for condominiums (A.R.S. § 33-1248) are nearly identical to A.R.S. § 33-1804. While A Z N H v. Sunland Springs does not specifically address condominium associations, we expect the Court’s reasoning and justifications in this case may similarly apply to condominium associations.