John “Jack” D. Wilenchik jackw@wb-law.

com

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
The Wilenchik & Bartness Building
2810 North Third Street Phoenix Arizona 85004

Telephone: 602-606-2810 Facsimile: 602-606-2811

December 22, 2021

IMMEDIATE ACTION DEMANDED

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL

Steve & Laura Miller

c/o Dessaules Law Group
5343 N. 16th St., Suite 200
Phoenix, AZ 85016

VIA E-MAIL

Dessaules Law Group

5343 N. 16th St., Suite 200
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Attn: Jonathan A. Dessaules, jdessaules@dessauleslaw.com
Jesse Vassallo Lopez, jvassallo@dessauleslaw.com

Re: Demand for changes to your planned detached structure

To Steve and Laura Miller and Counsel:

This law firm represents Mike Schugg, a resident within the Circle G at Riggs
Homestead Ranch. As you may know, Mike Schugg’s property lies directly to the west of
yours, at 2495 E. Cloud Dr., Chandler, AZ 85249.

Mr. Schugg has learned that you planned to construct a detached structure very
close to his property. If built, this structure will completely obstruct our client’s views of
the San Tan Mountain Regional Park, the surrounding mountain range, and will negatively
affect the value of his home, among other things.

If this structure were to be built, Mr. Schugg’s view rights would be impaired. A
property owner’s view rights include the rights of view, access, light and air. See Williams
v. Los Angeles Railway. Co. (1907) 150 Cal. 592, 594-595, 89 P. 330. This right to a view
is an easement of a reasonable view from Mr. Schugg’s property, and the impairment or
destruction of that view is the destruction of a valuable property right. See People ex rel.
Dept. Public Works v. Lipari (1963) 213 Cal.App.2d 485, 488, 28 Cal.Rptr. 808. Mr.
Schugg’s view rights to San Tan Mountain Regional Park and the surrounding mountain
range from his backyard are valuable aspects of his home that have a direct effect on his
property’s market value. Our client also believes the proposed design and suitability of
your structure will negatively affect his property’s market value.

____________________________________________________
www.wb-law.com
Founded in 1991
Steve & Laura Miller
c/o Dessaules Law Group
December 22, 2021
Page 2 of 3

If this permanent structure is erected in its current location, it will also constitute
a nuisance under Arizona law because it (1) affects a definitive number of persons in the
enjoyment of some private right that is not common to the public and would be a (2) real
and appreciable interference with Mr. Schugg’s own property interests. See Nolan v.
Starlight Pines Homeowners Association, 216 Ariz. 482, 489, 167 P.3d 1277, 1284 (App.
2008).

Here, there are also specific CC&Rs within the Circle G at Riggs Homestead
Ranch that specifically contemplate design compatibility with the neighborhood, and the
effect of proposed buildings and structures on neighboring property. Our client’s position
is that your plans for a detached structure violate the CC&Rs, specifically Section 4.5, as
well as trigger Architectural Guidelines, which are also contemplated within the CC&Rs
for the Homestead Ranch homeowner’s association.

The Circle G at Riggs Homestead Ranch CC&Rs, Section 4.5-Duties, states:

“The Architectural Control Committee shall have the right to disapprove any plans
or specifications or grading plans, which are not suitable or desirable, in its opinion, for
aesthetic or other reasons, and in so passing upon such plans, specifications and grading
plans, and without any limitations of the foregoing, it shall have the right to take into
consideration the suitability of the proposed building or other structure, and of the
materials of which it is to be built, the site upon which it is proposed to erect the same, the
harmony thereof with the surroundings and the effect of the proposed building or other
structure on the outlook from the adjacent or neighboring property.”

The Circle G at Riggs Homestead Ranch Architectural Guidelines, Design

Compatibility, states:

“The proposed construction must be compatible with the design characteristics of

the property itself, adjoining properties, and the neighborhood setting. The Committee
considers the following criteria: enhanced exterior detailing to reflect the character of a
custom home development; side entry garages required, visitor parking provided on-site;
non-visible trash container storage required; coordination of fence returns; landscaping,
concrete driveways, and on-curb with immediate neighbors.”

RULE 408 COMMUNICATION FOLLOWS:

If you are amenable to building on a different section of your backyard-for

example, in the far southeastern area of your property or on the opposite side of your
current proposed location-this would be acceptable to our client and will settle the matter.
Steve & Laura Miller
c/o Dessaules Law Group
December 22, 2021
Page 3 of 3

We expect a prompt response to this communication within five (5) days. If no

response or communication is received, then our client may pursue legal remedies for the
threatened violation of his property rights. Please contact me at the email address listed
above with any questions.

Sincerely,

John “Jack” D. Wilenchik, Esq.

JDW/cmf