Losing Neighbor Lawsuits Can Trigger Attorney Fee Awards
Arizona homeowners under HOA rules with fee-shifting clauses may owe a neighbor's legal costs after a failed nuisance claim.
Updated on Nov. 3, 2026 in Apartments
Live Poll
Should the losing party in a neighbour lawsuit always pay the winner's legal fees?
The Arizona Supreme Court has reversed a lower-court decision that denied attorney fees to neighbors John and Anita Dryja in a dispute over air conditioner noise. The case, Burkett v. Dryja, is now returned to Pima County Superior Court to set a reasonable fee amount. The ruling applies to residents of Moondance Estates in Tucson and other community associations with similar fee-shifting agreements.
Why it matters
The court found that the community's recorded rules against nuisances, combined with a fee clause requiring the losing party to pay the winner's reasonable attorney fees, made the award mandatory once the conditions were met. For Arizona homeowners in planned communities, this means a neighbor who sues over a nuisance can face significant legal costs if the case fails. The decision clarifies how far those association agreements reach.
The dispute centered on an air conditioning unit the Dryjas installed in June 2021 in a different position on their patio. The association was awarded $60,000 in attorney fees and costs, and the Dryjas' own fee recovery now returns to the trial court for calculation.
The players
Arizona Supreme Court
The state's highest court, which reviews civil appeals and set the fee-shifting rule in this case.
Moondance Estates Community Association
The homeowners association for the Tucson community whose recorded rules prohibit nuisances and allow owners to sue one another.
The details
Stephanie Burkett sued her neighbors and the Moondance Estates Community Association, claiming the new unit produced noise and vibrations felt inside her home, particularly in her primary bedroom. The association investigated and concluded the unit was properly installed and not objectionably loud, and the trial court ruled for the Dryjas and the association after a three-day trial. The Arizona Supreme Court found Burkett's suit was directly tied to enforcing the community's nuisance restrictions, which made the fee clause in Section 10.3 apply.
Timeline
June 2021: The Dryjas replaced their air conditioning equipment.
2025: The Arizona Court of Appeals upheld the denial of fees to the Dryjas.
October 28, 2026: The Arizona Supreme Court issued its unanimous opinion reversing that denial.
The Home Front
Recorded covenants in planned communities such as Moondance Estates are the rulebook that governs neighbor disputes in Arizona. This decision places fee-shifting clauses at the center of how those rules are enforced across the state's many HOA-governed neighborhoods.
If you live under a recorded HOA declaration, review its nuisance rules and any fee-shifting clause before filing or defending a complaint about noise or equipment. Keep records of when and where a disturbance occurs, and consult a licensed attorney before deciding whether a dispute is worth pursuing.
The takeaway
Recorded community rules can carry real financial consequences, so read your HOA declaration's fee provisions before a neighbor dispute escalates. Consult a licensed attorney to understand how a clause like Section 10.3 would apply to your own situation.
What happens next
The Pima County Superior Court will determine the reasonable amount of attorney fees and costs the Dryjas may recover, including those tied to the appeal.
Further reading
For more on how shared-community rules affect residents, see Apartments coverage.
Source note: This article includes information reported by The Times of India.
Live Poll
Should the losing party in a neighbour lawsuit always pay the winner's legal fees?
