Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Shalimar Ass'n v. D.O.C. Enters., Ltd.

Court of Appeals of Arizona
688 P.2d 682 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984)


Facts

Shalimar Estates is a residential land development in Tempe, Arizona. The initial developer intended for a centrally-located golf course to be an integral part of the development. Starting in 1960, he used the golf course in advertisements for the surrounding houses. Many buyers relied on the advertisement when deciding to purchase houses beginning in 1960. The deeds for the surrounding properties each contained restrictions, including where structures could be located, that were designed to improve the appearance of the golf course. Additionally, at the property sales, the developer told the buyers that the golf course would be maintained as such for the next 40 years, with the time period to be extended another 25 years unless a majority of the homeowners agreed in writing to change the golf course. Despite this, no restrictions were ever recorded against the golf course property itself. In 1978, three Canadian men, a lawyer and the two real estate agents, purchased the golf course land intending to develop it. The men visited the golf course several times and had notice that the initial developer had intended to restrict the land to being used as a golf course. Nonetheless, they intended to develop the golf course. Acting on behalf of the homeowners, Shalimar Association (plaintiff) filed suit against D.O.C. Enterprises, Ltd. (defendant), an entity created by the Canadians to handle the development. The trial court found that, due to the restrictions on the homeowners’ properties, there was an implied restriction on the use of the golf course, and that the Canadians would have learned of the restriction if they had made reasonable inquiries. The judge barred them from developing the golf course until the 40-year period had expired. They appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Froeb, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 199,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.