NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

ANTHEM PARKSIDE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC., 

Plaintiff/Appellant,

v.

ANNA CHABROWSKI, et al., Defendants/Appellees.

No. 1 CA-CV 22-0630

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CV2020-009624

The Honorable Bradley H. Astrowsky, Judge

REMANDED

COUNSEL

Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP, Tempe

By Kellie J. Callahan, Katherine J. Merolo

Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant

Anna Chabrowski, Derek Chabrowski, Anthem

Defendants/Appellees

FILED 8-15-2023
ANTHEM PARKSIDE v. CHABROWSKI, et al.

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge David D. Weinzweig and Judge Michael S. Catlett joined.

C R U Z, Judge:

¶1 Anthem Parkside Community Association, Inc. (“Anthem”) 

appeals the superior court’s order denying it attorneys’ fees after granting 

it injunctive relief against Anna and Derek Chabrowski (collectively 

“Chabrowski”). For the following reasons, we remand to the superior court 

for an award of attorneys’ fees.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Chabrowski owned a home in Anthem Parkside, a planned 

community. Owners of lots within the planned community are subject to 

recorded deed restrictions, including a Declaration of Covenants, 

Conditions and Restrictions for Anthem Parkside (“Declaration”) and the 

Anthem Parkside Community Association Residential Design Guidelines 

(“Guidelines”). In 2017, Anthem observed that the exterior paint on 

Chabrowski’s home had fallen into disrepair in violation of the Declaration 

and needed to be repainted. It sent Chabrowski multiple letters regarding 

the condition of the paint, but they failed to repaint the home. In 2020, 

Anthem filed suit against Chabrowski in superior court seeking injunctive 

relief.

¶3 In December 2021, Anthem moved for summary judgment. It 

sought its attorneys’ fees and costs incurred under the Declaration and 

Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 12-341.01. The superior court 

granted the motion for summary judgment. It granted Anthem injunctive 

relief and ordered Chabrowski to repaint the home within forty-five days. 

It awarded Anthem, as the “successful party,” costs in the amount of 

$630.44. Without explanation, it awarded Anthem no attorneys’ fees.

¶4 Anthem moved for reconsideration of the denial of an award 

of attorneys’ fees. The court did not rule on the motion, but later entered a 

final judgment under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 54(c). Anthem 

timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(1).
ANTHEM PARKSIDE v. CHABROWSKI, et al.

Decision of the Court

3

DISCUSSION

¶5 On appeal, Anthem argues the superior court erred as a 

matter of law by declining to award attorneys’ fees to it pursuant to the 

Declaration. We review de novo the superior court’s interpretation of a fee 

provision. Murphy Farrell Dev., LLLP v. Sourant, 229 Ariz. 124, 133, ¶ 31

(App. 2012).

¶6 A contractual provision for attorneys’ fees will be enforced 

according to its terms. Heritage Heights Home Owners Ass’n v. Esser, 115 Ariz. 

330, 333 (App. 1977). “CC & Rs constitute a contract between the 

subdivision’s property owners as a whole and individual lot owners.” 

Ahwatukee Custom Ests. Mgmt. Ass’n v. Turner, 196 Ariz. 631, 634, ¶ 5 (App. 

2000). Unlike attorneys’ fees awarded under A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A), which 

are permissive, the superior court lacks discretion to refuse to award fees 

under a contractual provision. McDowell Mountain Ranch Cmty. Ass’n v. 

Simons, 216 Ariz. 266, 269, ¶ 14 (App. 2007); A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A) (“This 

section shall not be construed as altering, prohibiting or restricting present 

or future contracts . . . that may provide for attorney fees.”).

¶7 Declaration Article XIV section 14.7 provides:

Attorneys’ Fees

In the event of an action instituted to enforce any of the 

provisions contained in the Governing Documents, the party 

prevailing in such action shall be entitled to recover from the 

other party thereto as part of the judgment, reasonable 

attorneys’ fees and costs, including administrative and lien 

fees, of such suit.

Here, the superior court granted Anthem’s motion for summary judgment 

and ordered Chabrowski to repaint the home. The court specifically found 

Anthem was the “successful party.” It was therefore obligated to assess 

attorneys’ fees and costs in favor of Anthem as the prevailing party

pursuant to the contractual Declaration. Accordingly, we remand to the 

superior court for a determination of Anthem’s reasonable attorneys’ fees 

upon its submission of an application for attorneys’ fees.

¶8 Anthem requests attorneys’ fees and costs on appeal pursuant 

to Article XIV, Section 14.7 of the Declaration. Because it is the prevailing 

party, we award Anthem its costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees upon 

compliance with ARCAP 21.
ANTHEM PARKSIDE v. CHABROWSKI, et al.

Decision of the Court

4

CONCLUSION

¶9 For the foregoing reasons, we remand to the superior court 

for further proceedings consistent with this decision.