Image AI generated
Funk Family Enterprises LLC purchased Lot 10 in 2023, according to the Arizona Court of Appeals’ judgment. In 2024, the HOA and the City of Mesa approved requests to modify the building envelope, moving it uphill to improve the view from the proposed house on that property. Funk applied for a construction permit in March 2025. They also alleged a $300,000 reduction in the value of Lot 11 and the loss of $287,107 in recent backyard improvements.
The Pavlaks subsequently brought legal action, seeking to prevent construction and challenging the proposed development on several grounds. The homeowners initially pursued claims including fraudulent schemes and artifices, unjust enrichment and fraudulent misrepresentation. After those claims were dismissed, they filed an amended complaint alleging violations of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act and private nuisance. They argued that the proposed house would reduce their privacy, obstruct their view, diminish their property’s value and potentially cause rainwater runoff problems. The lower court denied their request for a preliminary injunction and dismissed their amended complaint. On appeal, the Pavlaks challenged the dismissal of their private nuisance claim. In considering the appeal, the Arizona Court of Appeals examined whether the alleged obstruction of the view could support a private nuisance claim under state law. The court explained that such a claim requires more than a change in a neighbouring property’s use or appearance. The court also noted that not every inconvenience or reduction in property value constitutes an actionable nuisance.
Citing earlier Arizona decisions, it stated that the interference must be substantial, intentional and unreasonable under the circumstances and must cause significant harm.
In paragraph 27, the court stated: “Arizona has never recognised a right to an unobstructed or scenic view across a neighbour’s property, and this court does not recognise such a right here. Because it obstructs a neighbouring property’s view, the court also referred to decisions from other jurisdictions supporting the general rule that a lawful building does not become a private nuisance merely. The judgment addressed the legal position on scenic views directly. It consequently concluded that the Pavlaks could not establish a nuisance claim based on the loss of a view caused by construction within the modified building envelope. It noted that a statute or easement could provide a different legal basis, but neither was at issue in this case. The court also considered the Pavlaks’ concerns about privacy and potential rainwater runoff. On privacy, it found that Arizona had not recognised a private nuisance claim based on the kind of loss of privacy alleged in this case. The judges distinguished the dispute from cases involving more intrusive conduct, such as prolonged surveillance or the repeated direction of floodlights at a neighbour’s home. The court also noted that the Pavlaks had not alleged that Funk had modified the building envelope out of spite or malice.
In its ruling, filed on 28 August 2026, the court found that Arizona law does not recognise loss of a view as grounds for a private nuisance claim. An Arizona Court of Appeals has ruled that homeowners have no automatic legal right to an unobstructed mountain view across a neighbour’s property, upholding the dismissal of a private nuisance claim. The case involved Tina and John Pavlak, whose neighbouring property in Mesa was approved for a house following a change to its building envelope. The couple argued that the proposed construction would obstruct their scenic view, reduce privacy and affect their property’s value.