## Facts

- Garden Lakes Community Association, a homeowners’ association, governed the subdivision through a recorded declaration requiring Architectural Review Committee (ARC) approval for exterior changes.
- The Association adopted architectural guidelines regulating solar energy devices (SEDs), including requirements tied to placement, roof integration, and minimizing visibility from neighboring property or public view.
- Homeowners William and Joan Madigan and Henry and Lavonne Speak purchased lots subject to the declaration and guidelines.
- The homeowners installed roof-mounted SEDs without obtaining ARC approval and in ways the Association claimed did not meet the guidelines’ design and visibility standards.
- The Association sued for breach of the declaration and guidelines, seeking a mandatory injunction requiring removal or modification of the SEDs, along with monetary penalties and attorneys’ fees.
- The homeowners asserted the restrictions were void under A.R.S. § 33-439(A), which renders unenforceable any restriction that “effectively prohibits” installation or use of SEDs.
- At a consolidated bench trial with an advisory jury, the Association presented evidence that the homeowners could comply by using alternatives (e.g., a patio cover mount or screening).
- The homeowners presented evidence that the proposed alternatives were unworkable, expensive, and would reduce SED efficiency.
- The trial court found the guidelines effectively prohibited SED use, denied injunctive relief, entered judgment for the homeowners, and awarded fees and costs.

## Issues

1. Whether the Association’s SED guidelines were unenforceable under A.R.S. § 33-439(A) because, as applied, they “effectively prohibited” the installation or use of solar energy devices.
2. Whether the trial court properly denied the Association’s request for a mandatory injunction requiring removal or alteration of the homeowners’ solar installations.

## Decision

- The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for the homeowners.
- The court held the Association’s guidelines, as applied on this record, effectively prohibited SED installation or use under A.R.S. § 33-439(A) and were therefore void and unenforceable.
- The court upheld the trial court’s denial of a permanent injunction and its award of attorneys’ fees and costs to the homeowners.
- The court rejected the Association’s proposed interpretation that “effectively prohibits” requires near-total or literal impossibility of installing solar devices.
- The court deferred to the trial court’s resolution of conflicting evidence on feasibility, cost, and efficiency impacts.

## Legal Principles

- Under A.R.S. § 33-439(A), deed restrictions and related rules are unenforceable if, in practical operation, they “effectively prohibit” the installation or use of solar energy devices.
- “Effectively prohibits” is a functional, fact-dependent standard; a restriction may be invalid even if solar installation is theoretically possible, when compliance makes use impracticable, economically unreasonable, or materially inefficient.
- Homeowners’ associations may impose reasonable aesthetic and architectural regulations on the manner and placement of SEDs, but those regulations are invalid when they cross into effective prohibition.
- Appellate review gives deference to supported trial-court fact findings on feasibility, cost, and performance effects of purported compliance alternatives.
- Injunctive relief cannot be granted to enforce restrictions that are void under A.R.S. § 33-439(A).

## Conclusion

The court held that an HOA’s architectural solar-device guidelines were unenforceable where their application would make compliant solar use impractical or unreasonably burdensome, and it therefore affirmed denial of injunctive relief and the homeowners’ fee award under A.R.S. § 33-439(A).


Garden Lakes Cmty. Ass’n, Inc. v. Madigan, 204 Ariz. 238 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003)