A Tucson homeowner sued neighbours over the noise and vibrations from their new air conditioner; Arizona's Supreme Court issued a ruling on the dispute and legal fees

A dispute between neighbours in Tucson over the noise and vibrations from a newly installed air conditioning unit has reached Arizona's highest court, with the ruling focusing on who should pay the legal costs of the case. The disagreement began after one homeowner complained that the equipment next door disturbed her home, particularly her bedroom. Although the neighbours won the original lawsuit, they were initially denied attorney fees. The Arizona Supreme Court has now overturned that part of the decision, ruling that they are entitled to seek reasonable legal fees under their community's recorded property rules.Arizona Supreme Court clarifies legal fees in Tucson air conditioner disputeThe case, known as Burkett v. Dryja, involved Stephanie Burkett and her neighbours, John and Anita Dryja, who owned adjoining homes in Moondance Estates, a residential community in Tucson.According to the Arizona Supreme Court's October 28, 2026, opinion, the neighbourhood was governed by recorded covenants, conditions and restrictions, commonly called CC&Rs. These rules set out how residents could use their properties and what behaviour was permitted within the community.Among other provisions, the rules prohibited homeowners from creating public or private nuisances. They also allowed residents to take legal action against other property owners who failed to follow the restrictions.Another important provision dealt with legal expenses. It stated that the party who successfully enforced the agreement in court could recover reasonable attorney fees and related costs from the losing party. That provision eventually became the central issue before the Supreme Court.A new air conditioning unit caused trouble between neighboursThe disagreement began in June 2021, when the Dryjas replaced their existing air conditioning equipment. The new unit was installed in a different position on their patio.Burkett complained that the equipment produced noise and vibrations that could be heard and felt inside her house. According to the court's opinion, the disturbance was particularly noticeable in her primary bedroom.She wanted the neighbours to address the problem but the disagreement was not resolved through discussions. Burkett also approached the Moondance Estates Community Association, asking it to intervene and enforce the neighbourhood's rules.The association investigated the complaint and concluded that the air conditioning unit had been installed properly. It also determined that the equipment was not objectionably loud and decided against taking further action.With the disagreement continuing, Burkett filed a lawsuit against the Dryjas and the association. She argued that the noise and vibrations amounted to a nuisance prohibited by the community's property restrictions.Her lawsuit sought damages and a court order requiring the neighbours to stop the disturbance. The possible remedies included removing, relocating or replacing the air conditioning unit. She also wanted the association to enforce its governing documents.Why did the neighbours initially lose their claim for attorney feesThe case went to trial in Pima County Superior Court, where proceedings lasted three days. The court ultimately ruled in favour of the Dryjas and the community association.It found that the air conditioning unit's noise, although annoying when heard inside Burkett's bedroom, did not amount to a legally actionable nuisance or violate the neighbourhood's restrictions. It also concluded that Burkett had not established that the neighbours or the association had breached a contractual obligation.The question of legal expenses, however, produced a different outcome for the two defendants.The association was awarded $60,000 in attorney fees and costs because the court considered Burkett's claims against it to be based on contract.The Dryjas were not given the same award. The trial court reasoned that the nuisance claim against them could have been brought under general law, even if the neighbourhood's written restrictions did not exist.The Arizona Court of Appeals upheld this decision in 2025. It agreed that the neighbours' obligation not to create a nuisance existed independently of the community agreement. The Dryjas challenged that conclusion before the Arizona Supreme Court.What did Arizona's highest court decide about community rulesIn its opinion, authored by Justice William G Montgomery, the Supreme Court disagreed with the lower courts.It explained that homeowners who purchase property subject to recorded CC&Rs are bound by those restrictions. These agreements do not simply establish obligations between residents and their homeowners association. They also create enforceable rights and responsibilities between individual property owners.The Moondance Estates agreement specifically allowed homeowners to enforce its provisions against other residents.The court also pointed out that its nuisance restrictions covered more than general legal protections. They addressed conduct that could disturb other residents, including objectionable sounds caused by factors such as loudness, frequency and shrillness.The justices explained that an action could violate both a written property agreement and a general legal duty. The existence of a similar obligation under general law did not make the contractual restriction unenforceable.This distinction was important because Burkett had relied on the community's restrictions when bringing her lawsuit against the neighbours.Why does the ruling matter for homeowners and legal costsThe Supreme Court also examined the wording of the agreement's attorney fee provision. Section 10.3 required the successful party in legal proceedings connected with enforcing the restrictions to recover reasonable attorney fees and costs from the unsuccessful party.The court found that Burkett's lawsuit was directly connected to enforcing those restrictions. She had relied on the agreement to seek damages and court orders against the Dryjas.Since the neighbours successfully defended themselves against her claims, the justices concluded that the fee provision applied. The court further clarified that the agreement made the award mandatory when its conditions were met, rather than leaving it entirely to the trial court's discretion.As a result, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the part of the lower court's judgment that denied the Dryjas attorney fees. It also vacated the Court of Appeals' opinion. The case has been sent back to the trial court to determine how much the Dryjas can reasonably recover in attorney fees.According to the Arizona Supreme Court's official news release, the neighbours were also granted reasonable attorney fees and costs associated with the appeal, subject to the applicable procedural requirements. Burkett's request for appellate costs was denied because she did not prevail.You use AI every day. Now get your AI Quotient. Take the AIQ test.