01/17/2014 — LC2013000042 VISTAS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC, SUNRISE DESERT 01/17/2014 THE HON. CRANE MCCLENNEN View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
01/21/2014 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2013-000042-001 DT
01/17/2014
Docket Code 512
Form L000
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
THE HON. CRANE MCCLENNEN
J. Eaton
Deputy
SUNRISE DESERT VISTAS PROPERTY
OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
GUY W BLUFF
v.
SUZANNE SALLUS (001)
DEPARTMENT OF FIRE BUILDING AND LIFE
SAFETY (001)
SUZANNE SALLUS
14214 E LONE MOUNTAIN RD
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85262
MARY D WILLIAMS
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS
REMAND DESK-LCA-CCC
RECORD APPEAL RULING / REMAND
Plaintiff-Appellant Sunrise Desert Vistas Property Owners Association, Inc., asks this Court
to review the Administrative Law Judge Decision, dated October 2, 2012, which was adopted on
November 8, 2012, as the Final Administrative Decision, and the Order, dated December 26,
2012, denying the Motion for Rehearing. For the following reasons, this Court affirms those
Decisions and Orders.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND.
In late February 2011, Defendant-Appellee Suzanne Sallus (Sallus) entered into escrow for
the purchase of a parcel (Parcel) in Sunrise Desert Vistas. On March 12, 2011, Equity Title Agen-
cy, Inc. (Equity), on behalf of Sallus, requested certain information from Plaintiff-Appellant Sun-
rise Desert Vistas Property Owners Association, Inc. (SDVPOA). By April 1, 2011, SDVPOA
provided certain information to Sallus. On April 2, 2011, Sallus closed escrow on the Parcel, but
had not received certain documents and information from SDVPOA.
On April 2, 2011, Sallus filed a petition with Defendant-Appellee the Arizona Department
of Fire, Building, and Life Safety (AzDFBLS) alleging SDVPOA violated A.R.S. § 33–1806 by
failing to provide her with the required documents. On June 11, 2012, the AzDFBLS issued a
Notice of Hearing advising the parties that the Office of Administrative Hearings would hold a
hearing on Sallus’s petition.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2013-000042-001 DT
01/17/2014
Docket Code 512
Form L000
Page 2
On September 12, 2012, Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer held the hearing
on Sallus’s petition. After receiving testimony, on October 2, 2012, ALJ Eigenheer issued her
Administrative Law Judge Decision, which contained 17 Findings of Fact and 16 Conclusions of
Law, and concluded Sallus had established that SDVPOA had violated its duty of disclosure. ALJ
Eigenheer recommended that SDVPOA be ordered to comply with A.R.S. § 33–1806 and pro-
vide Sallus with the required documents, and further that SDVPOA be ordered to pay Sallus’s
filing fee of $550.00. By November 6, 2012, the AzDFBLS had neither accepted, rejected, nor
modified that Administrative Law Judge Decision, so on November 8, 2012, Cliff J. Vanell, Di-
rector of the Office of Administrative Hearings, certified that Decision as the Final Administra-
tive Decision of the AzDFBLS.
On November 30, 2012, SDVPOA filed a Motion for Rehearing, and on December 26,
2012, the AzDFBLS issued its Order denying that Motion for Rehearing. On January 30, 2013,
SDVPOA filed a Complaint for Judicial Review of Administrative Decision. This Court has jur-
isdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 12–124(A) and A.R.S. § 12–905(A).
II. GENERAL STANDARDS FOR REVIEW.
The Arizona statutory authority and case law define the scope of administrative review:
The court may affirm, reverse, modify or vacate and remand the agency action. The
court shall affirm the agency action unless after reviewing the administrative record and
supplementing evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing the court concludes that the
action is not supported by substantial evidence, is contrary to law, is arbitrary and capri-
cious or is an abuse of discretion.
A.R.S. § 12–910(E).
The court must defer to the agency’s factual findings and affirm them if supported by sub-
stantial evidence. If an agency’s decision is supported by the record, substantial evidence
exists to support the decision even if the record also supports a different conclusion.
Gaveck v. Arizona St. Bd. of Podiatry Exam., 222 Ariz. 433, 215 P.3d 1114, ¶ 11 (Ct. App. 2009)
(citations omitted).
[I]n ruling on the sufficiency of the evidence in administrative proceedings, courts
should show a certain degree of deference to the judgment of the agency based upon the
accumulated experience and expertise of its members.
Croft v. Arizona St. Bd. of Dent. Exam., 157 Ariz. 203, 208, 755 P.2d 1191, 1196 (Ct. App. 1988).
A trial court may not function as a “super agency” and substitute its own judgment for
that of the agency where factual questions and agency expertise are involved.
DeGroot v. Arizona Racing Comm’n, 141 Ariz. 331, 336, 686 P.2d 1301, 1306 (Ct. App. 1984).
[The reviewing court must] view the evidence in a light most favorable to upholding the
Board’s decision and “will affirm that decision if it is supported by any reasonable inter-
pretation of the record.”
Baca v. Arizona D.E.S., 191 Ariz. 43, 46, 951 P.2d 1235, 1238 (Ct. App. 1998) (cites omitted).
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2013-000042-001 DT
01/17/2014
Docket Code 512
Form L000
Page 3
A question of statutory interpretation involves a question of law, and [the reviewing court]
is not bound by the trial court’s or the agency’s conclusions [about] questions of law.
Siegel v. Arizona St. Liq. Bd., 167 Ariz. 400, 401, 807 P.2d 1136, 1137 (Ct. App. 1991).
On appeal, [the reviewing court] is free to draw its own conclusions in determining if the
Board properly interpreted the law; however, the Board’s interpretation of statutes and
. . . regulations is entitled to great weight.
Baca, 191 Ariz. at 45–46, 951 P.2d at 1237–38.
Judicial deference should be given to agencies charged with the responsibility of carrying
out specific legislation, and ordinarily an agency’s interpretation of a statute or regulation
it implements is given great weight. However, the agency’s interpretation is not infallible,
and courts must remain the final authority on critical questions of statutory construction.
U.S. Parking Sys. v. City of Phoenix, 160 Ariz. 210, 211, 772 P.2d 33, 34 (Ct. App. 1989) (cita-
tions omitted).
III. ISSUE: WAS THERE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE ACTION OF THE
AGENCY, AND WAS THE ACTION OF THE AGENCY CONTRARY TO LAW,
ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS, OR AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION.
SDVPOA asks this Court to vacate the Final Administrative Decision of the AzDFBLS
based on the following arguments: (1) The AzDFBLS lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the
dispute between Sallus and the SDVPOA because SDVPOA was not a “planned community
association” or a “planned community”; (2) A.R.S. § 33–1806(A) did not apply to SDVPOA; (3)
substantial evidence did not support the finding that SDVPOA violated A.R.S. § 33–1806(A); (4)
the AzDFBLS abused its discretion in ordering SDVPOA to provide Sallus with copies of certain
documents because Sallus already had copies of those documents; and (5) the AzDFBLS abused
its discretion in ordering SDVPOA to pay Sallus the $550.00 filing fee. SDVPOA has provided
to this Court authorities and arguments in support of its position.
Sallus asks this Court to affirm the Final Administrative Decision of the AzDFBLS based on
the following arguments: (1) The AzDFBLS had subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute
between Sallus and the SDVPOA because SDVPOA is a “planned community”; (2) A.R.S. § 33–
1806(A) does apply to SDVPOA; (3) substantial evidence supported the finding that SDVPOA
violated A.R.S. § 33–1806(A); (4) SDVPOA never provided Sallus with copies of the requested
documents; and (5) the AzDFBLS did not abuse its discretion in ordering SDVPOA to pay Sallus
the $550.00 filing fee. Sallus has provided to this Court authorities and arguments in support of
her position. This Court concludes the authorities and arguments provided by Sallus are well-
taken, and this Court adopts those authorities and arguments in support of its decision.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2013-000042-001 DT
01/17/2014
Docket Code 512
Form L000
Page 4
IV. CONCLUSION.
Based on the foregoing, this Court concludes substantial evidence supported the action of
the AzDFBLS, and the action of the AzDFBLS was not contrary to law, was not arbitrary and
capricious, and was not an abuse of discretion. This Court further determines Sallus is entitled to
recover her costs incurred in this appeal. As far as Sallus’s request for attorneys’ fees, it appears
Sallus represented herself, and thus would not be entitled to attorneys’ fees unless she can make
some valid argument to this Court why she should receive attorneys’ fees.
If any party wishes to appeal this Court’s Decision to the Arizona Court of Appeals, that
party must do so pursuant to A.R.S. § 12–913 and Rule 9(a) of the Arizona Rules of Civil
Appellate Procedure. See Eaton v. AHCCCS, 206 Ariz. 430, 79 P.3d 1044, ¶ 7 (Ct. App. 2003)
(“The [Arizona Court of Appeals] will allow an administrative decision to stand if there is any
credible evidence to support it, but, because we review the same record, we may substitute our
opinion for that of the superior court.” “And when consideration of the administrative decision
involves the legal interpretation of a statute, this court reviews de novo the decisions reached by
the administrative officer and the superior court.”); accord, Pima Cty. Hum. Rts. Comm. v.
Arizona D.H.S., 232 Ariz. 177, 303 P.3d 71, ¶ 7 (Ct. App. 2013) (“Because the superior court did
not hold an evidentiary hearing or admit any new evidence, we review its judgment de novo,
‘reaching the same underlying issue as the superior court.’ ”); Blancarte v. Arizona DOT, 230
Ariz. 241, 282 P.3d 442, ¶ 7 (Ct. App. 2012) (“Applying a de novo review of the superior court’s
decision . . . .”); Ritland v. Arizona St. Bd. Med. Exam., 213 Ariz. 187, 140 P.3d 970, ¶ 7 (Ct.
App. 2006) (“In reviewing the Board’s decision, we are not bound by the superior court’s
judgment because we review the same record.”).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED affirming the Administrative Law Judge Decision, dated
October 2, 2012; the Certification of Decision of Administrative Law Judge, dated November 8,
2012; and the Order, dated December 26, 2012, denying the Motion for Rehearing.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, by February 6, 2014, Sallus shall provide this Court with a
proposed form of order for this Court’s signature.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, if Sallus wants this Court to order SDVPOA to pay costs
and attorneys’ fees, by February 6, 2014, Sallus shall provide this Court with and appropriate
request and appropriate supporting documentation.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, if Sallus wants this Court to order SDVPOA to pay costs
and attorneys’ fees, Sallus shall include in the proposed form of order blanks for this Court to use
if it does decide to award either costs or attorneys’ fees, or both.
011720141510
NOTICE: LC cases are not under the e-file system. As a result, when a party files a doc-
ument, the system does not generate a courtesy copy for the Judge. Therefore, you will have to
deliver to the Judge a conformed courtesy copy of any filings.
02/05/2013 — LC2013000042 VISTAS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC, SUNRISE DESERT 02/05/2013 THE HON. CRANE MCCLENNEN View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
02/06/2013 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2013-000042-001 DT
02/05/2013
Docket Code 023
Form L000
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
THE HON. CRANE MCCLENNEN
J. Eaton
Deputy
SUNRISE DESERT VISTAS PROPERTY
OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
GUY W BLUFF
v.
SUZANNE SALLUS (001)
DEPARTMENT OF FIRE BUILDING AND LIFE
SAFETY (001)
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS
REMAND DESK-LCA-CCC
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW ORDERS
On January 30, 2013, Plaintiff-Appellant, Sunrise Desert Vistas Property Owners
Association, Inc., filed a Complaint for Administrative Review against Defendant-Appellee,
Suzanne Sallus, and Defendant-Appellee, Department of Fire Building and Life Safety,
pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes Annotated (A.R.S.) §§ 12–901 to 12–914.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff-Appellant serve both Defendant-Appellees in the
manner provided by A.R.S. § 12–906.1
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff-Appellant shall file proof of service with the
Clerk of the Court as required by Rules 4(g) and 4(i) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff-Appellant provide both Defendant-
Appellees with a copy of this minute entry.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff-Appellant shall file a notice of action as
required by A.R.S. § 12-904(B).
1 A.R.S. § 12–906 incorporates the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure for service of process. See Rules 4 and 4.1,
Ariz. R. Civ. P.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2013-000042-001 DT
02/05/2013
Docket Code 023
Form L000
Page 2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff-Appellant shall order and make arrange-
ments to pay for the preparation of pertinent portions of the record as required by A.R.S. § 12–
904(B)(5).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any answers from Defendant-Appellees shall be due
20 days from the date of service of Plaintiff-Appellant’s complaint.
Plaintiff-Appellant is advised that, if Plaintiff-Appellant fails to effectuate service or to
order the record or the transcripts as ordered herein, this Court may dismiss these proceedings.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the administrative agency or board shall transmit its
record to the Clerk of this Court as required by A.R.S. § 12–904(B) and provide a Certification
of Record on Review to Plaintiff-Appellant and a notice to this court that the transmittal has
occurred.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff-Appellant and Defendant-Appellees are to
file briefs in accordance with Rule 6 of the Rules of Procedure for Judicial Review of Adminis-
trative Decisions.
05/05/2014 — LC2013000042 VISTAS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC, SUNRISE DESERT 05/05/2014 THE HON. CRANE MCCLENNEN View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
05/06/2014 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2013-000042-001 DT
05/05/2014
Docket Code 049
Form L000
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
THE HON. CRANE MCCLENNEN
J. Eaton
Deputy
SUNRISE DESERT VISTAS PROPERTY
OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
GUY W BLUFF
v.
SUZANNE SALLUS (001)
DEPARTMENT OF FIRE BUILDING AND LIFE
SAFETY (001)
SUZANNE SALLUS
14214 E LONE MOUNTAIN RD
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85262
JOHN DUKE HARRIS
MARY D WILLIAMS
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS
REMAND DESK-LCA-CCC
JUDGMENT SIGNED
Per this Court’s minute entry ruling dated, January 17, 2014, Defendant-Appellee Suzanne
Sallus has provided a proposed form of order (judgment) for this Court’s signature.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee
Suzanne Sallus, all in accordance with the formal written Judgment signed by the Court on May 5,
2014, and filed (entered) by the Clerk on May 5, 2014.
A conformed copy of the judgment was mailed to the parties and/or counsel by separate
cover.
NOTICE: LC cases are not under the e-file system. As a result, when a party files a docu-
ment, the system does not generate a courtesy copy for the Judge. Therefore, you will have to
deliver to the Judge a conformed courtesy copy of any filings.
05/24/2013 — LC2013000042 VISTAS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC, SUNRISE DESERT 05/24/2013 THE HON. CRANE MCCLENNEN View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
05/28/2013 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2013-000042-001 DT
05/24/2013
Docket Code 023
Form L000
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
THE HON. CRANE MCCLENNEN
J. Eaton
Deputy
SUNRISE DESERT VISTAS PROPERTY
OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
GUY W BLUFF
v.
SUZANNE SALLUS (001)
DEPARTMENT OF FIRE BUILDING AND LIFE
SAFETY (001)
SUZANNE SALLUS
14214 E LONE MOUNTAIN RD
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85262
MARY D WILLIAMS
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS
REMAND DESK-LCA-CCC
MINUTE ENTRY
On March 6, 2013, Plaintiff Sunrise Desert Vistas Property Owners Association, Inc.,
(Sunrise) filed a Request For Evidentiary Hearing. A.R.S. § 12–910(A) provides a party may
request an evidentiary hearing within 30 days after filing a complaint. Sunrise filed its Complaint
on January 30, 2013, therefore Sunrise had until March 1, 2013, to file a request for an
evidentiary hearing. Sunrise’s Request filed March 6, 2013, is therefore untimely.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying Sunrise’s Request For Evidentiary Hearing.
07/06/2016 — LC2013000042 VISTAS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC, SUNRISE DESERT 07/06/2016 THE HON. CRANE MCCLENNEN View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
07/07/2016 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2013-000042-001 DT
07/06/2016
Docket Code 065
Form L000
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
THE HON. CRANE MCCLENNEN
J. Eaton
Deputy
SUNRISE DESERT VISTAS PROPERTY
OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
GUY W BLUFF
v.
SUZANNE SALLUS (001)
DEPARTMENT OF FIRE BUILDING AND LIFE
SAFETY (001)
JOHN DUKE HARRIS
MARY D WILLIAMS
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS
REMAND DESK-LCA-CCC
MINUTE ENTRY
On June 8, 2016, counsel for Plaintiff Sunrise Desert Vistas Property Owners
Association, Inc. filed a Motion for Return of Supersedeas Bond. Good cause appearing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
Directing the Clerk of Superior Court to refund to Plaintiff the full amount of the
Supersedeas Bond(s) reflected by receipt #23917474 ($2,219.00) and receipt #23806891
($500.00) previously posted by Plaintiff on July 28, 2014, in the total of $2,719.00.
Payment of such refund shall be payable to Plaintiff and mailed to Plaintiff’s attorney of
record c/o Bluff & Associates, 4205 N. 7th Ave, Ste. 201, Phoenix, AZ 85013, all in accordance
with the formal written Order signed by the Court on July 6, 2016, and filed (entered) by the
Clerk on July 6, 2016.
NOTICE: LC cases are not under the e-file system. As a result, when a party files a docu-
ment, the system does not generate a courtesy copy for the Judge. Therefore, you will have to
deliver to the Judge a conformed courtesy copy of any filings.
07/22/2013 — LC2013000042 VISTAS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC, SUNRISE DESERT 07/22/2013 THE HON. CRANE MCCLENNEN View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
07/23/2013 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2013-000042-001 DT
07/22/2013
Docket Code 094
Form L000
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
THE HON. CRANE MCCLENNEN
J. Eaton
Deputy
SUNRISE DESERT VISTAS PROPERTY
OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
GUY W BLUFF
v.
SUZANNE SALLUS (001)
DEPARTMENT OF FIRE BUILDING AND LIFE
SAFETY (001)
SUZANNE SALLUS
14214 E LONE MOUNTAIN RD
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85262
MARY D WILLIAMS
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS
REMAND DESK-LCA-CCC
ORAL ARGUMENT SET
The Court has reviewed and considered Plaintiff-Appellant Sunrise Desert Vistas
Property Owners Association’s (Sunrise) Request for Oral Argument, Defendant-Appellee
Suzanne Sallus’ Response, and Sunrise’s Reply.
IT IS ORDERED setting Oral Argument on November 18, 2013, at 10:00 a.m. for
Administrative Review
before the Hon. Crane McClennen, Central Court Building,
Courtroom 504, 201 West Jefferson, Phoenix, AZ.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that oral argument will be limited to 15 minutes for each
side unless permission to exceed this limit has been granted.
NOTE: If counsel for a party does not appear at the scheduled time for the Oral
Argument, the Court will vacate the Oral Argument and make its determination based on the
appellant memoranda submitted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, by August 7, 2013, counsel and self-represented
parties, shall send an email to this Court’s Bailiff, Ramona Rubalcaba, at:
[email protected].
This email shall advise Ms. Rubalcaba that the above named parties have received
notice and will be in attendance at this Oral Argument.
Court Reporter
All court proceedings are recorded by audio method and not by a court reporter.
Should a party want a court reporter, that party must submit to this Division a written
request at least 5 days prior to the scheduled hearing.
08/11/2016 — LC2013000042 VISTAS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC, SUNRISE DESERT 08/11/2016 COMMISSIONER MYRA HARRIS View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Filed ***
08/12/2016 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2013-000042-001 DT
08/11/2016
Docket Code 023
Form L512
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
COMMISSIONER MYRA HARRIS
J. Eaton
Deputy
SUNRISE DESERT VISTAS PROPERTY
OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
GUY W BLUFF
v.
SUZANNE SALLUS (001)
DEPARTMENT OF FIRE BUILDING AND LIFE
SAFETY (001)
JOHN DUKE HARRIS
MARY D WILLIAMS
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS
REMAND DESK-LCA-CCC
MINUTE ENTRY
Plaintiff-Appellant Sunrise Desert Vista Property Owners Association, Inc. (Plaintiff), as the
prevailing party on Appeal of this matter, submitted its Statement of Taxable Costs. Defendant-Ap-
pellee Suzanne Sallus (Defendant) objected to a portion of these costs and alleged Plaintiff was
“double dipping” because Defendant paid some of these costs on or about July 12, 2016. This
Court has carefully reviewed the requested costs. Counsel for Plaintiff included costs for the prepa-
ration of (1) the OAH Hearing Transcript for September 12, 2012, re $637.00; and (2) the cost for
the November 18, 2013, LC Appeal Oral Argument re $84.00 when its counsel requested taxable
costs from the Arizona Court of Appeals. Defendant also claimed to have paid an appearance fee
of $92.00 when she paid taxable costs assessed by the Arizona Court of Appeals and claimed this
filing fee was similar to the $88.00 filing fee Plaintiff requested in the Statement of Taxable Costs
presented to this Court on July 8, 2016.
IT IS ORDERED, awarding Plaintiff Judgment for its taxable costs as follows:
For costs in the amount of $582.40 with interest accruing from August 11, 2016, at the
statutory rate of 4.50% per year (prime rate of 3.50 % plus 1% pursuant to A.R.S. § 44–1201(B))
until paid in full.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2013-000042-001 DT
08/11/2016
Docket Code 023
Form L512
Page 2
The Court, having found no just reason for delay, and, pursuant to Rules 54(b), 54(f) and
54(g) A.R.C.P., directs that this Judgment be entered as a final Judgment of this Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED signing this minute entry as a formal Order of the Court.
/s/ Myra Harris
THE HON. MYRA HARRIS
Judicial Officer of the Superior Court
081020161444
NOTICE: LC cases are not under the e-file system. As a result, when a party files a document,
the system does not generate a courtesy copy for the Judge. Therefore, you will have to deliver to
the Judge a conformed courtesy copy of any filings.
10/02/2014 — LC2013000042 VISTAS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC, SUNRISE DESERT 10/02/2014 THE HON. CRANE MCCLENNEN View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
10/03/2014 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2013-000042-001 DT
10/02/2014
Docket Code 049
Form L000
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
THE HON. CRANE MCCLENNEN
J. Eaton
Deputy
SUNRISE DESERT VISTAS PROPERTY
OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
GUY W BLUFF
v.
SUZANNE SALLUS (001)
DEPARTMENT OF FIRE BUILDING AND LIFE
SAFETY (001)
JOHN DUKE HARRIS
MARY D WILLIAMS
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS
REMAND DESK-LCA-CCC
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court is in receipt of Appellant’s Application [for] Entry of Judgment with Certifi-
cate of Finality, filed September 30, 2014.
IT IS ORDERED granting the Judgment in Favor of Defendant Suzanne Sallus, all in
accordance with the formal written Judgment signed by the Court on October 2, 2014, and filed
(entered) by the Clerk on October 2, 2014.
NOTICE: LC cases are not under the e-file system. As a result, when a party files a docu-
ment, the system does not generate a courtesy copy for the Judge. Therefore, you will have to
deliver to the Judge a conformed courtesy copy of any filings.
10/09/2014 — LC2013000042 VISTAS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC, SUNRISE DESERT 10/09/2014 THE HON. CRANE MCCLENNEN View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
10/10/2014 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2013-000042-001 DT
10/09/2014
Docket Code 905
Form L000
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
THE HON. CRANE MCCLENNEN
J. Eaton
Deputy
SUNRISE DESERT VISTAS PROPERTY
OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
GUY W BLUFF
v.
SUZANNE SALLUS (001)
DEPARTMENT OF FIRE BUILDING AND LIFE
SAFETY (001)
JOHN DUKE HARRIS
MARY D WILLIAMS
COURT OF APPEALS
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS
REMAND DESK-LCA-CCC
MINUTE ENTRY
Court of Appeals No. 1 CA–CV 14–0452.
On May 5, 2014, this Court signed a Judgment that had been prepared by Eckley & Asso-
ciates, attorneys for Defendant-Appellee Suzanne Sallus (Sallus). On September 24, 2014, the
Court of Appeals entered its order staying the appeal because the Judgment prepared by Defen-
dant-Appellee Sallus’ attorneys and signed by this Court did not contain the appropriate Rule
54(c) language. The Court of Appeals, therefore, remanded the matter so this Court could sign a
Judgment containing the appropriate Rule 54(c) language.
Guy Bluff, attorney for Plaintiff-Appellant Sunrise Desert Vista Property Owners Associ-
ation, Inc. (SDVPOA) then prepared a Judgment that contained the proper Rule 54(c) language,
which this Court signed on October 2, 2014. On October 8, 2014, the attorneys for Defendant-
Appellee Sallus filed an objection to the form of order this Court filed. The objection noted that
the Judgment prepared by Plaintiff-Appellant SDVPOA contained several typos, but the main
objection was that paragraph 4 on page 5 did not contain the complete language defining the
term “preponderance of the evidence.”
This Court is confident that the judges on the Arizona Court of Appeals are sufficiently fa-
miliar with the meaning of “preponderance of the evidence” that they need neither Black’s Law
Dictionary nor this Judgment to define that concept. This Court is further confident that the
judges on the Arizona Court of Appeals will be able to address the substantive issues of this ap-
peal even though there may be language inadvertently omitted from the definition of “preponder-
ance of the evidence” in paragraph 4. And finally, this Court is confident that the judges on the
Arizona Court of Appeals will be able to give meaning to the Judgment signed on October 2, 2014,
in spite of the typographical errors that may be included in that Judgment. This Court therefore
will not take any further action to make changes in the Judgment it signed on October 2, 2014.
11/18/2013 — LC2013000042 VISTAS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC, SUNRISE DESERT 11/18/2013 THE HON. CRANE MCCLENNEN View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
11/19/2013 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2013-000042-001 DT
11/18/2013
Docket Code 020
Form L000
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
THE HON. CRANE MCCLENNEN
J. Eaton
Deputy
SUNRISE DESERT VISTAS PROPERTY
OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
GUY W BLUFF
v.
SUZANNE SALLUS (001)
DEPARTMENT OF FIRE BUILDING AND LIFE
SAFETY (001)
SUZANNE SALLUS
14214 E LONE MOUNTAIN RD
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85262
MARY D WILLIAMS
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS
REMAND DESK-LCA-CCC
ORAL ARGUMENT
Courtroom: CCB 504
9:59 a.m. This is the time set for Oral Argument regarding Administrative Review.
Plaintiff-Appellant, Sunrise Desert Vistas Property Owners Association, Inc, is represented by
counsel, Guy W. Bluff and Bruce A. Smidt. Defendant-Appellee, Suzanne Sallus, is present on
her own behalf.
A record of the proceedings is made by audiotape in lieu of a court reporter.
Arguments are presented to the Court.
IT IS ORDERED taking the matter under advisement.
10:48 a.m. Hearing concludes.
NOTICE: LC cases are not under the e-file system. As a result, when a party files a doc-
ument, the system does not generate a courtesy copy for the Judge. Therefore, you will have to
deliver to the Judge a conformed courtesy copy of any filings.
