For decades, Arizona HOA boards have been doing something the open meeting law arguably never allowed. They have been voting behind closed doors. Approving budgets in executive session. Authorizing foreclosures in executive session. Granting their property managers spending authority in executive session. Deciding member appeals, contracts, and design review questions, all out of view of the homeowners those decisions affect.
Homeowner advocates have argued for thirty years that the statute, A.R.S. § 33-1804, does not allow this. Boards can consider certain narrow topics in closed session, the argument went, but voting is not consideration. HOA attorneys and management companies have told boards the opposite. Until April 28, 2026, no Arizona appellate court had squarely resolved the question.
Now one has. In A Z N H Revocable Trust v. Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association, 1 CA-CV 25-0424, the Arizona Court of Appeals held that HOA boards cannot vote or take formal action in closed sessions. Every board vote, on every issue, must happen in an open meeting where members can attend and speak. The opinion is published, which means it is binding on every Arizona court below the Supreme Court. It applies statewide. It applies now.
The decision also reshapes what HOA agendas have to say, and the same logic almost certainly reaches Arizona condominium associations. If your board has been making decisions you never got to weigh in on, this is the case that changes that.
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.
Can an Arizona HOA Vote in Executive Session? (2026 Update)
For decades, Arizona HOA boards have been doing something the open meeting law arguably never allowed. They have been voting behind closed doors. Approving budgets in executive session. Authorizing foreclosures in executive session. Granting their property managers spending authority in executive session. Deciding member appeals, contracts, and design review questions, all out of view of the homeowners those decisions affect.
Homeowner advocates have argued for thirty years that the statute, A.R.S. § 33-1804, does not allow this. Boards can consider certain narrow topics in closed session, the argument went, but voting is not consideration. HOA attorneys and management companies have told boards the opposite. Until April 28, 2026, no Arizona appellate court had squarely resolved the question.
Now one has. In A Z N H Revocable Trust v. Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association, 1 CA-CV 25-0424, the Arizona Court of Appeals held that HOA boards cannot vote or take formal action in closed sessions. Every board vote, on every issue, must happen in an open meeting where members can attend and speak. The opinion is published, which means it is binding on every Arizona court below the Supreme Court. It applies statewide. It applies now.
The decision also reshapes what HOA agendas have to say, and the same logic almost certainly reaches Arizona condominium associations. If your board has been making decisions you never got to weigh in on, this is the case that changes that.
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.
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 was decided under the planned communities statute, A.R.S. § 33-1804. But the same logic almost certainly applies to Arizona condominium associations.
The condominium equivalent, A.R.S. § 33-1248, is materially identical. It allows closed sessions only for “consideration” of the same five categories of topics. It contains the same speaking-rights language. And it includes a parallel policy statement at § 33-1248(F) directing interpreters to construe ambiguities in favor of open meetings.
Every interpretive move the court made in A Z N H would apply with equal force to § 33-1248. The plain meaning of “consideration” does not change between planned communities and condominiums. The structural argument from the speaking-rights provision applies word-for-word in § 33-1248. And the legislative-intent analysis under § 33-1804(F) translates directly to § 33-1248(F).
A condominium association whose board is voting in executive session is exposed to the same challenge that succeeded against Sunland Springs. Condominium boards should not wait for that case to update their practice.
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.
The Pending Bill: SB 1290
A pending bill at the Arizona Legislature, SB 1290, would write essentially the same rule directly into the statute. The amendment would insert the words “without action” into § 33-1804(A), making explicit what A Z N H now holds by interpretation. The bill has passed the Arizona House and is awaiting Senate action as of this writing.
Whether SB 1290 passes this session or not, the A Z N H holding is the law in Arizona today. The bill would simply lock the rule into statute and reduce the chance of a future judicial reversal.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can an HOA board vote in executive session in Arizona?
No. As of April 28, 2026, the Arizona Court of Appeals has held that HOA boards cannot vote or take formal action in closed (executive) sessions. All votes must occur in open meetings. A Z N H Revocable Trust v. Sunland Springs Village HOA, 1 CA-CV 25-0424.
What can an HOA board do in executive session?
Under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), boards can close a meeting only to consider five categories of topics: legal advice, pending or contemplated litigation, personal/health/financial information about a member or employee, job performance and complaints about employees, and member appeals of violations. Discussion is permitted. Voting is not.
Does this rule apply to Arizona condominiums?
The A Z N H case was decided under the planned communities statute. The condominium statute, A.R.S. § 33-1248, contains nearly identical language. The court’s reasoning would almost certainly apply to condominium associations, although a future case under § 33-1248 has not yet been decided.
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.
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 as of the date of publication. Court opinions are subject to further review, including potential petitions for reconsideration, petitions for review to the Arizona Supreme Court, and subsequent appellate or trial court decisions that may modify, distinguish, or supersede the holdings described. Statutes are subject to amendment by the Arizona Legislature. Pending legislation referenced in this post may pass, fail, or be amended before enactment. Readers should confirm the current state of the law and shepardize any case citations before relying on them.
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