Updated September 13, 2026.
For decades, Arizona HOA boards have been voting behind closed doors. They have approved budgets, authorized foreclosures, granted spending authority, and decided member appeals in executive session, outside the view of the homeowners affected by those decisions.
On April 28, 2026, the Arizona Court of Appeals addressed that practice directly. In A Z N H Revocable Trust v. Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association, 1 CA-CV 25-0424, the court held that a planned-community board cannot vote or take formal action in a closed session. The Arizona Supreme Court denied review on September 8, 2026, and the case closed the following day. The Court of Appeals’ published opinion therefore remains in place.
The Legislature has also acted. Senate Bill 1290 was approved by the Governor on June 22, 2026, as Laws 2026, Chapter 222. Effective September 12, 2026, A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) expressly limits a closed portion of a planned-community meeting to “consideration without action” of the statute’s five permitted topics.
That amendment makes the no-voting rule explicit for planned communities. It does not amend the condominium statute, A.R.S. § 33-1248, so the condominium analysis remains based on that statute’s text and the reasoning of A Z N H, not on the new language in Chapter 222.
What Is an Executive Session?
An executive session, also called a closed session, is a portion of a board meeting that is closed to association members. Under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), an HOA board can close a meeting only to consider one or more of five specific topics:
- Legal advice from an attorney for the board or association.
- Pending or contemplated litigation.
- Personal, health, or financial information about an individual member, employee, or contractor employee.
- Job performance, compensation, health records, or specific complaints about an individual employee or contractor employee.
- A member’s appeal of a violation or penalty, unless that member asks for the meeting to be open.
Any other topic must be discussed in open session. The condominium equivalent, A.R.S. § 33-1248(A), uses the same five categories.
For background on what an illegal closed meeting looks like in practice and the warning signs members can spot themselves, see my earlier post on illegal executive sessions in Arizona HOAs.
What the Court Held in A Z N H v. Sunland Springs
Sunland Springs Village is a planned community in Mesa. Its board had been doing substantial business in closed sessions: approving a $917,000 budget item, granting the community manager up to $7,000 in discretionary spending authority, ruling on thirteen age-waiver requests, and authorizing foreclosures against two homeowners. A homeowner trust sued, arguing this violated the open meeting law.
The Court of Appeals agreed.
“Consideration” Does Not Include Voting
The court started with the plain meaning of the word. Drawing on standard dictionaries, the court read “consideration” as describing thought, reflection, and the formulation of an opinion. Each of those is a process that comes before a decision. Voting is not consideration of a question. It is the formal expression of a decision after consideration has occurred.
The Speaking Rights Argument
Section 33-1804(A) requires the board to allow a member to speak “after the board has discussed a specific agenda item but before the board takes formal action on that item.” If voting could happen in closed session, that right would be a nullity. Members cannot speak before a vote that occurs in a room they are not allowed to enter.
Courts cannot adopt readings that render statutory language superfluous. So “consideration” cannot include the vote itself.
The Public Bodies Comparison
The court also looked at Arizona’s open meeting law for public bodies, A.R.S. § 38-431.03. That statute expressly allows minutes to be taken in executive session but explicitly prohibits voting there. The Sunland Springs HOA had argued that because § 33-1805(B) allows minutes of closed HOA meetings, voting in closed sessions must also be allowed. The court rejected the argument by analogy: closed-session minutes and closed-session voting are two different things, and one does not imply the other.
The Arizona Supreme Court Denied Review
The Arizona Supreme Court denied the petition for review in Case No. CV-26-0167-PR on September 8, 2026, and the case closed on September 9. The Court of Appeals’ published opinion remains in place. The denial of review does not create a separate Supreme Court opinion, but it ends the pending challenge that existed when this article was first published.
What the Court Said About Legislative Intent
The most consequential part of the opinion is how the court treated the policy statement in § 33-1804(F). That subsection reads, in part:
It is the policy of this state as reflected in this section that all meetings of a planned community, whether meetings of the members’ association or meetings of the board of directors of the association, be conducted openly and that notices and agendas be provided in advance for those meetings that contain the information that is reasonably necessary to inform the members of the matters to be discussed or decided and to ensure that members have the ability to speak after discussion of agenda items, but before a vote of the board of directors or members is taken. Toward this end, any person or entity that is charged with the interpretation of these provisions, including members of the board of directors and any community manager, shall take into account this declaration of policy and shall construe any provision of this section in favor of open meetings.
The court treated this as a binding interpretive command from the legislature. When the meaning of any term in § 33-1804 is ambiguous, the rule of decision is openness. Boards and community managers have a statutory duty, not just a policy preference, to read close calls in favor of open meetings rather than closed ones.
This framing has implications well beyond closed-session voting. Practices that have grown up around aggressive readings of the closed-session exceptions are now vulnerable to challenge under that lens. If a board treats an exception broadly when a narrower reading is possible, the broader reading may not survive judicial review.
The court also rejected the HOA’s argument that subsection (F) only applies to open meetings. The phrase “those meetings” refers back to “all meetings” earlier in the same sentence. Section 33-1804(F) governs the entire statute, including the closed-session provisions.
The Agenda Holding
The opinion did not stop at voting. The court also reshaped what HOA meeting agendas have to say.
Sunland Springs’ agendas had identified closed-session topics only by citing the paragraph of § 33-1804(A) that authorized closure (for example, “A.4: employee performance”). The trial court found that sufficient. The Court of Appeals reversed.
Section 33-1804(F) requires agendas to contain “the information that is reasonably necessary to inform the members of the matters to be discussed or decided.” A bare statutory cross-reference does not give members enough to exercise their right to speak before formal action.
The court was careful to balance this requirement. Associations do not have to reveal personally identifying information or attorney-client privileged content. But they have to give members more than a paragraph citation.
This is a meaningful change. Most Arizona HOAs have followed the same agenda practice Sunland Springs followed. Going forward, that practice does not comply with the law. If your HOA’s agenda for an executive session simply reads “executive session per A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(3),” that agenda is no longer sufficient.
Does This Apply to Arizona Condominiums?
The A Z N H case arose under the planned-community statute, A.R.S. § 33-1804. Arizona’s condominium statute, A.R.S. § 33-1248, contains closely parallel language and the same policy favoring open meetings, so the court’s reasoning is highly relevant to condominiums.
Chapter 222, however, did not amend § 33-1248. The condominium statute still refers to “consideration” without adding the new phrase “without action.” No published Arizona appellate decision has yet applied A Z N H directly to a condominium association.
That makes the issue important, but not identical. Condominium boards should obtain current legal advice before voting in executive session, and owners should avoid assuming that the 2026 statutory amendment itself governs their association.
What This Means If You Live in an Arizona HOA or Condominium
Three things changed on April 28, 2026.
A board vote taken in executive session after that date stands on shaky legal ground. That includes votes on assessments, contracts, foreclosure authorizations, design review decisions, and rule changes. If you suspect your board has done this, the meeting minutes are worth a closer look. To request those minutes, see my guide on accessing HOA records in Arizona. If your board is dragging its feet on producing records, see when Arizona HOAs resist records requests.
Closed-session agendas that just cite a statutory paragraph no longer comply with the law. You are entitled to enough information to know what is being discussed and to speak meaningfully before any vote.
These holdings apply regardless of what your governing documents say. Both § 33-1804 and § 33-1248 explicitly override contrary provisions in the declaration, bylaws, or rules. If your HOA’s bylaws say the board can vote in executive session, that provision is unenforceable. For more on how state law overrides governing documents, see my post on HOA rules vs. CC&Rs and what actually controls.
What Boards and Management Companies Need to Do
Boards and management companies that have been treating “consideration” as including votes need to change practice immediately.
Discussion in closed session remains permissible for the five enumerated topics. The vote itself has to come back into open session. The agenda has to give members enough information to participate meaningfully. The designation of which topics go to closed session, if delegated to an officer like the board president, should rest on a documented delegation rather than informal practice.
A board that continues to vote in closed session after April 28 is exposed to ADRE complaints, declaratory judgment actions, and challenges to the validity of the underlying decisions.
What You Can Do If Your Board Is Breaking the Rule
If you believe your HOA or condominium board is voting in executive session, you have several options.
Start by requesting the meeting minutes and any board resolutions. Both planned community and condominium statutes give you the right to inspect these records. If the minutes show a vote occurring in executive session, you have evidence of a violation.
You can raise the issue at the next open meeting. Sometimes boards will correct course once they understand the law has changed. Many board members do not have legal training and rely on what their attorney or management company has told them.
If the board does not correct the practice, you can file a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) under the HOA dispute resolution process. An administrative law judge will hear the dispute and can issue civil penalties.
You can file a declaratory judgment action in superior court. The remedy in A Z N H itself was a declaratory judgment, and the homeowner won. For an overview of what to think through before going that route, see what homeowners can do before suing their HOA in Arizona and the recent Arizona case that changed how homeowners sue HOAs.
SB 1290 Is Now Laws 2026, Chapter 222
SB 1290 is no longer pending. Governor Katie Hobbs approved it on June 22, 2026, as Laws 2026, Chapter 222. The amendment took effect September 12, 2026.
Chapter 222 adds two words to A.R.S. § 33-1804(A): “without action.” A planned-community board may close a portion of a meeting only for “consideration without action” of one or more of the five subjects listed in the statute. The board may discuss a permitted subject in executive session, but any vote or other formal action must occur in an open meeting.
The final chapter law does not amend A.R.S. § 33-1248, the parallel statute governing condominium associations. For condominiums, the statutory text continues to refer to “consideration” without the new phrase “without action.” The reasoning in A Z N H remains highly relevant, but the 2026 amendment itself applies only to planned communities.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can an HOA board vote in executive session in Arizona?
For a planned community, no. The Arizona Court of Appeals held on April 28, 2026, that a board cannot vote or take formal action in a closed session. As of September 12, 2026, A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) also says expressly that a closed portion of a meeting is limited to “consideration without action.” The Arizona Supreme Court denied review of the Court of Appeals decision on September 8, 2026.
What can an HOA board do in executive session?
Under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), a planned-community board may close part of a meeting only for consideration without action of five categories: legal advice, pending or contemplated litigation, specified personal information, specified employee matters, and a member appeal of a violation or penalty. Discussion is permitted. Voting and other formal action are not.
Does this rule apply to Arizona condominiums?
The A Z N H case arose under the planned-community statute, A.R.S. § 33-1804. Arizona’s condominium statute, A.R.S. § 33-1248, contains closely parallel language and the same policy favoring open meetings, so the court’s reasoning is highly relevant. However, Chapter 222 did not amend § 33-1248, and no published Arizona appellate decision has yet applied A Z N H directly to a condominium association.
What if my HOA’s bylaws say the board can vote in executive session?
That bylaw provision is unenforceable. Both A.R.S. § 33-1804 and A.R.S. § 33-1248 expressly override contrary provisions in the declaration, bylaws, or rules.
What should the agenda for an executive session look like?
Under A Z N H, the agenda must contain enough information to reasonably inform members what will be discussed. Just citing the statutory paragraph that authorizes closure (such as “A.4”) is no longer sufficient. The agenda does not need to reveal personally identifying information or attorney-client privileged content, but it has to do more than cite a paragraph.
Specifically A Z N H stated:
“To comply with Section 33-1804, a meeting agenda must
provide information that reasonably advises association members about
the items being addressed at a meeting, even a closed meeting. Section
33-1804(F) does not require associations to reveal any personally
identifying information or attorney-client privileged information discussed
in closed meetings. However, an association must provide an agenda
containing more than just a reference to the paragraph under Section
33-1804(A) that justifies closing the meeting.”
What can I do if my HOA board is voting in executive session?
You can request meeting minutes, raise the issue at an open meeting, file an ADRE petition, or file a declaratory judgment action in superior court. You may also want to consult an attorney to evaluate your specific situation.
If you need advice about an Arizona HOA or condominium meeting, you can book an HOA consultation.
Disclaimer
This post is for general informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this post does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Anjali Patel or any law firm she is associated with.
The information here describes Arizona law and the appellate record as of September 13, 2026. Laws 2026, Chapter 222 took effect September 12, 2026. The Arizona Supreme Court denied review in A Z N H Revocable Trust v. Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association on September 8, 2026. Court decisions and statutes may later be modified, distinguished, amended, or superseded. This is general information, not legal advice tailored to a particular association or dispute.
Every legal situation is different. Whether and how the principles discussed here apply to your specific HOA, condominium, or dispute depends on facts not addressed in this post, including the language of your governing documents, the conduct of your association, the timing of relevant events, and other matters that require individualized analysis.
If you have a specific question about your situation, you should consult an Arizona-licensed attorney. Do not act or refrain from acting based on the contents of this post without seeking professional legal advice.
Resources
The full opinion is available from the Arizona Court of Appeals: https://apps.azcourts.gov/aacc/appella/1CA/CV/CV250424.PDF
A.R.S. § 33-1804 (planned community open meetings): https://www.azleg.gov/ars/33/01804.htm
A.R.S. § 33-1248 (condominium open meetings): https://www.azleg.gov/ars/33/01248.htm
Laws 2026, Chapter 222 (official chapter law): https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/57leg/2r/laws/0222.htm
Arizona Supreme Court docket, CV-26-0167-PR: https://apps.azcourts.gov/aacc/appella/ASC/CV/CV260167.pdf