Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Arizona Biltmore Estates Ass'n v. Tezak, 868 P.2d 1030.

42 citing documents.

Knight v. Ludwig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Knight v. Ludwig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
ntion of the parties ascertained from the language used in the instrument, or the circumstances surrounding the creation of the servitude, and to carry out the purpose for which it was created.” ¶ 13 (2006) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Restatement (Third) of Property (Servitudes) § 4.1(1) (2000)); accord Ariz. Biltmore Estates Ass’n v. Tezak
Mountz v. Mountain Gate Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Mountz v. Mountain Gate Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Heritage v. Weinberg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Heritage v. Weinberg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Comanche v. Pollard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Comanche v. Pollard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See Ariz. Biltmore Estates Ass’n v. Tezak, (citing Divizio v. Kewin Enters., Inc., ).
Dreamland Villa Community Club, Inc. v. Raimey 226 P.3d 411 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Dreamland Villa Community Club, Inc. v. Raimey 226 P.3d 411 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
“Deed restrictions constitute ‘a contract between the subdivision’s property owners as a whole and the individual lot owners.’ ” ¶ 7 , ( ¶ 8 , , ).
Nolan v. Starlight Pines Homeowners Ass'n 167 P.3d 1277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Nolan v. Starlight Pines Homeowners Ass'n 167 P.3d 1277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Ass’n, ¶ 23 , (alteration in original) (quoting Ariz. Biltmore Estates Ass’n v. Tezak, , ); see also Pinetop Lakes Ass’n v. Hatch, , (“The grantee who accepts a deed containing restrictive covenants has entered into a contractual relationship.”).
Tritschler v. Allstate Insurance Co., Better Way Services Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Tritschler v. Allstate Insurance Co., Better Way Services Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Co. , , (propriety of summary judgment reviewed de novo); Ariz. Biltmore Estates Ass’n v. Tezak , , (issues of law, including contract interpretation, reviewed de novo).
Wilson v. Playa De Serrano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Wilson v. Playa De Serrano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Powell v. Washburn 125 P.3d 373 Ariz. 2006
Powell v. Washburn 125 P.3d 373 Ariz. 2006
Ass’n v. Turner, ¶ 5, Ariz. Biltmore Estates Ass’n v. Tezak, 177 Ariz. 447, 448
California Casualty Insurance v. American Family Mutual Insurance 94 P.3d 616 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
California Casualty Insurance v. American Family Mutual Insurance 94 P.3d 616 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Co., ¶ 6 , (we review propriety of summary judgment de novo); Arizona Biltmore Estates Ass’n v. Tezak, , (issues of law, including contract interpretation, reviewed de novo).
Burke v. Voicestream Wireless Corp. II 87 P.3d 81 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Burke v. Voicestream Wireless Corp. II 87 P.3d 81 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Ariz. Biltmore Estates Ass’n v. Tezak
Shamrock v. Wagon Wheel Park Homeowners Ass'n 75 P.3d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Shamrock v. Wagon Wheel Park Homeowners Ass'n 75 P.3d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Such a restriction constitutes “a contract between the subdivision’s property owners as a whole and the individual lot owners.” ¶ 8 , (quoting Arizona Biltmore Estates Ass’n v. Tezak, , ).
Johnson v. Pointe Community Ass'n, Inc. 73 P.3d 616 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Johnson v. Pointe Community Ass'n, Inc. 73 P.3d 616 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
8 ¶ 23 In Arizona, a recorded declaration that contains restrictive covenants common to all properties in a development forms a contract between “the [development’s] property owners as a whole and the individual lot owners.” Ariz. Biltmore Estates Ass’n v. Tezak, , (citing Divizio v. Kewin En *490 ters., Inc., , ).
GARDEN LAKES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC. v. Madigan 62 P.3d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
GARDEN LAKES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC. v. Madigan 62 P.3d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
ANALYSIS ¶ 12 The Declaration constitutes a contract between “the subdivision’s property owners as a whole and the individual lot owners.” Horton, 200 Ariz. at 525, ¶ 8, 29 P.3d at 872 (citing Ariz. Biltmore Estates Ass’n v. Tezak, , ).
Horton v. Mitchell 29 P.3d 870 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Horton v. Mitchell 29 P.3d 870 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Ahwatukee Custom Estates Management Ass'n v. Turner 2 P.3d 1276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Ahwatukee Custom Estates Management Ass'n v. Turner 2 P.3d 1276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
See Arizona Biltmore Estates Ass’n v. Tezak
Samaritan Health System v. Superior Court 981 P.2d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Samaritan Health System v. Superior Court 981 P.2d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
See Arizona Biltmore Estates Ass’n v. Tezak
L. Harvey Concrete, Inc. v. Agro Construction & Supply Co. 939 P.2d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
L. Harvey Concrete, Inc. v. Agro Construction & Supply Co. 939 P.2d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Arizona Biltmore Estates Ass’n v. Te-zak
Willamette Crushing Co. v. State 932 P.2d 1350 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Willamette Crushing Co. v. State 932 P.2d 1350 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Citibank (Arizona) v. Bhandhusavee 937 P.2d 356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Citibank (Arizona) v. Bhandhusavee 937 P.2d 356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Arizona Biltmore Estates Ass’n v. Tezak, , (construction of contracts); Valley Nat’l Bank v. Kohlhase, 182 Ariz, 436, 438, (statutory interpretation).
Scholten v. Blackhawk Partners 909 P.2d 393 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Scholten v. Blackhawk Partners 909 P.2d 393 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Arizona Biltmore Estates Ass’n v. Tezak