Northern Arizona Properties v. Pinetop Properties Group
In Northern Arizona Properties v. Pinetop Properties Group, 151 Ariz. 9, 725 P.2d 501 (App. 1986), the Court held that an investment condominium, which was only occasionally occupied by the owners as a vacation property, fell within the statutory definition of trust property utilized as a single one-family dwelling. 151 Ariz. at 12, 725 P.2d at 504 (construing A.R.S. 33-729(A)).
In construing a statute with language identical to the relevant language here, we defined "dwelling" broadly as "a shelter (as a house or a building) in which people live." Id.
The property in Pinetop was held as an investment and did not constitute someone's permanent residence or normal place of abode, but was used for very short term transient occupancy. Id. at 10, 725 P.2d at 502.
The Court noted that only the legislature could correct the statutory language to except these types of homeowners from the protection of the statute. Id. at 12, 725 P.2d at 504.
In the twenty-six years since Pinetop was published, the legislature has not changed the wording of the statute.
In Pinetop, the Court stated that the statute "does not require that the dwelling constitute someone's permanent residence or normal place of abode." 151 Ariz. at 12, 725 P.2d at 504.
The supreme court's decision in Mid Kansas agreed that this type of sporadic vacation use constituted use as a dwelling. 167 Ariz. at 128-29, 804 P.2d at 1316-17.
Thus, what constitutes a one-family or two-family dwelling is not determined by how many families pass through the residence, but on the number of families there at a time.