03/03/2015 — CV2014050603 CRANE, MICHAEL R 03/03/2015 HONORABLE MICHAEL D. GORDON View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
03/04/2015 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2014-050603
03/03/2015
Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MICHAEL D. GORDON
T. McMillian
Deputy
TRILOGY AT VISTANCIA COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
EDITH I RUDDER
v.
MICHAEL R CRANE, et al.
MICHAEL R CRANE
28566 N 124TH DR
PEORIA AZ 85383
VIRGINIA K CRANE
28566 N 124TH DR
PEORIA AZ 85383
TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE SET
On the Court’s own motion,
IT IS ORDERED setting a telephonic Status Conference on March 12, 2015 at 3:00
p.m. before Judge Michael D. Gordon.
NOTE: Plaintiff shall be responsible for initiating the conference call by calling the
Court at 602-372-0762, with all participating parties and counsel on the line at the date and time
specified above.
PLEASE NOTE: Effective June 22, 2015, all cases assigned to Judge Michael D. Gordon
will be re-assigned to Judge Craig Blakey due to judicial calendar rotations.
03/12/2015 — CV2014050603 CRANE, MICHAEL R 03/12/2015 HONORABLE MICHAEL D. GORDON View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
03/17/2015 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2014-050603
03/12/2015
Docket Code 022
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MICHAEL D. GORDON
T. McMillian
Deputy
TRILOGY AT VISTANCIA COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
EDITH I RUDDER
v.
MICHAEL R CRANE, et al.
MICHAEL R CRANE
VIRGINIA CRANE
28566 N 124TH DR
PEORIA AZ 85383
MINUTE ENTRY
TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE VACATED
3:02 p.m. Courtroom 108 NE. This is the time set for telephonic Status Conference at
the request of the Court. Appearing on behalf of Plaintiffs is Edith Rudder. Appearing on their
own behalf are Defendants Michael Crane and Virginia Crane.
A record of the proceedings is made by audio and/or videotape in lieu of a court reporter.
Matters discussed.
IT IS ORDERED approving and settling formal written amended Stipulated Judgment
and Decree of Foreclosure and Order for Sale signed by the Court on March 12, 2015 and filed
(entered) by the Clerk on March 12, 2015.
Please note: The Court has signed a hard-copy version of the order. After the order has
been scanned and docketed by the Clerk of Court, copies of this order may be available through
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2014-050603
03/12/2015
Docket Code 022
Form V000A
Page 2
ECR Online at clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov or through AZTurboCourt.gov and from the Public
Access Terminals at the Clerk of Court’s offices located throughout Maricopa County.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating the telephonic Status Conference set for April 3,
2015.
3:05 p.m. Matters conclude.
PLEASE NOTE: Effective June 22, 2015, all cases assigned to Judge Michael D. Gordon
will be re-assigned to Judge Craig Blakey due to judicial calendar rotations.
04/10/2014 — CV2014050603 CRANE, MICHAEL R 04/10/2014 HONORABLE MICHAEL D. GORDON View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
04/11/2014 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2014-050603
04/10/2014
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MICHAEL D. GORDON
M. MINKOW
Deputy
TRILOGY AT VISTANCIA COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
EDITH I RUDDER
v.
MICHAEL R CRANE, et al.
MICHAEL R CRANE
28566 N 124TH DR
PEORIA AZ 85383
AMERICAN EXPRESS CENTURION
BANK
C/O CT CORPORATION SYSTEM
1108 E SOUTH UNION AVE
MIDVALE UT 84047
BENEFICIAL MORTGAGE CO OF
ARIZONA
C/O THE CORPORATION TRUST CO
1209 ORANGE ST
WILMINGTON DE 19801
VIRGINIA K CRANE
28566 N 124TH DR
PEORIA AZ 85383
CHASE BANK U S A, N A
C/O THE CORPORATION TRUST CO
1209 ORANGE ST
WILMINGTON DE 19801
COMM. DOODY
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2014-050603
04/10/2014
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
ORDER ENTERED BY COURT
This division has received Plaintiff’s e-filed Application and/or Motion and/or Request
for Default Judgment against Defendant(s) BENEFICIAL MORTGAGE CO OF ARIZONA,
AMERICAN EXPRESS CENTURION BANK, AND CHASE BANK USA, NA pursuant to
Rule 55 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure in the above-captioned case.
IT IS ORDERED that no action will be taken by this division on the above-referenced
document(s).
The parties are advised that commissioners handle Rule 55(b) Default Judgment
proceedings and that the default proceedings in this matter are to be heard by Commissioner
Doody.
IT IS ORDERED that all documents necessary to support the entry of a default judgment
must be e-filed.
Pursuant to Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 2010-117, default judgment
packets are not permitted to be e-filed. Accordingly, parties are directed to hand-deliver a
default coversheet and copies of the necessary filed documents to the commissioner’s division
for the entry of a default judgment.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, no further action will be taken by the assigned
commissioner until the necessary filed documents and coversheet are delivered to the division.
The parties/counsel can find the default judgment coversheet on the Court’s website at:
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/SuperiorCourt/CivilDepartment/forms.asp
The parties/counsel can find additional information in the form of frequently asked questions at:
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/SuperiorCourt/CivilDepartment/howDoI.asp
Effective April 15, 2014 new civil rules and forms are in effect for managing cases
moving to trial. Be sure to review the new Civil Rules 16, 26, 37, 38, 72 through 74 and 77.
09/17/2014 — CV2014050603 CRANE, MICHAEL R 09/17/2014 HONORABLE MICHAEL D. GORDON View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
09/19/2014 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2014-050603
09/17/2014
Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MICHAEL D. GORDON
M. MINKOW
Deputy
TRILOGY AT VISTANCIA COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
EDITH I RUDDER
v.
MICHAEL R CRANE, et al.
MICHAEL R CRANE
28566 N 124TH DR
PEORIA AZ 85383
VIRGINIA K CRANE
28566 N 124TH DR
PEORIA AZ 85383
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION - CCC
TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE SET
REFERRAL TO ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
JOINT STATUS REPORT DUE
Having received Joint Pretrial Scheduling Memorandum, filed by Plaintiff on September
10, 2014,
IT IS ORDERED adopting the discovery and disclosure deadlines set forth therein as
orders of this Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall participate in a mandatory Settlement
Conference. This case is referred to the court’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Office for the
appointment of a judge pro tempore to conduct a settlement conference. Counsel and/or
parties will receive a minute entry from ADR appointing the judge pro tempore. Counsel
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2014-050603
09/17/2014
Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 2
and any self-represented litigants shall contact the appointed judge pro tempore to arrange the
date, time and location for the settlement conference. The judge pro tempore is requested to
conduct a settlement conference not later than March 13, 2015. The Office of Alternative
Dispute Resolution will not do the scheduling of the settlement conference so please do not
contact that office.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall jointly certify in writing with the
mediator that they have done the following in preparation for the settlement conference:
1. Conferred with each other regarding what additional factual information is
required in order to fully evaluate their respective positions;
2. Made a good faith effort to supply the additional information required by
opposing counsel;
3. Made a good faith effort to identify the issues to be discussed at the settlement
conference; and
4. Made a good faith effort to resolve the issues before the settlement conference.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED:
1. No expert witnesses, expert opinions, lay witnesses, or exhibits shall be allowed
at trial other than those disclosed in a timely manner, except for good cause
shown or by written agreement of the parties.
2. A telephonic status conference is set for April 3, 2015, at 8:30 a.m. for 15
minutes before Judge Michael D. Gordon for the purpose of setting a trial
date, a Final Pretrial Management Conference and a Motions In Limine
deadline if the case has not settled.
NOTE: Plaintiff shall be responsible for initiating the conference call by
calling the Court at 602-372-0762, with all participating parties and counsel on
the line at the date and time specified above.
3. Should any discovery disputes arise, any party seeking a discovery order shall,
prior to filing discovery motions, meet and confer pursuant to Rule 37(a)(2)(C)
of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. Counsel are advised that, as the Court
interprets Rule 37(a)(2)(C), an exchange of correspondence between counsel is
not sufficient to satisfy the “personal consultation” requirement of the Rule,
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2014-050603
09/17/2014
Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 3
except in extraordinary circumstances. At a minimum, counsel must speak to
each other by telephone to attempt to resolve the dispute in good faith before
involving the Court. After personal consultation, the parties are encouraged to
call the Court, by joint telephone call, to address discovery disputes in order to
resolve issues in a just, speedy and inexpensive manner. See Ariz. R. Civ.
Proc., R.1 (2013).
4. If the parties agree to extensions for time to respond or reply to motions, they
are to advise the Court in writing in order to avoid premature rulings. See, e.g.,
Ariz. R. Civ. Proc., R.7.1 (2013). Further, the parties are encouraged to call the
Court if a motion has been fully briefed—that is, the time has expired for a
response or reply—and a ruling has not been made within 21 days.
5. The dates set forth in the Scheduling Order are FIRM dates and will not be
extended or modified by this Court absent good cause. Lack of preparation will
not ordinarily be considered good cause.
6. This case is removed from the Inactive Calendar and all requirements of Rule
38.1, Ariz.R.Civ.P., are waived until otherwise ordered by the Court.
7. In no less than five days prior to the Status Conference set herein, the parties
shall submit a Joint Status Report to the Court containing a brief history of the
case, the status of discovery, any outstanding discovery disputes, and the status
of the parties’ settlement efforts.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if counsel representing a corporate entity seeks to
withdraw from representation, he/she must advise the Court that he/she has informed the
principals of that corporation that a corporation cannot represent itself in any court proceeding.
09/18/2014 — CV2014050603 CRANE, MICHAEL R 09/18/2014 HONORABLE MICHAEL D. GORDON View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
09/22/2014 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2014-050603
09/18/2014
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MICHAEL D. GORDON
M. MINKOW
Deputy
TRILOGY AT VISTANCIA COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
EDITH I RUDDER
v.
MICHAEL R CRANE, et al.
MICHAEL R CRANE
28566 N 124TH DR
PEORIA AZ 85383
VIRGINIA K CRANE
28566 N 124TH DR
PEORIA AZ 85383
MINUTE ENTRY GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOP SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PART
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (filed July 25,
2014). Defendants Michael Crane and Virginia Crane (“Defendants Crane”) filed their Response
to the Motion on August 26, 2014. The Plaintiff filed its optional Reply on September 15, 2014.
The Court has reviewed the Motion, the Response, and the entire file. The Court applies
the standards under Orme School v. Reeves, 802 P.2d 1000 (Ariz. Sup. Ct. 1990) (summary
judgment standards) and National Bank of Arizona v. Thruston, 180 P.3d 977 (Ariz. Ct. App.
2008) (requiring movant to meet its burden of production with respect to affirmative defenses).1
1 Defendants Beneficial Mortgage Co. of Arizona, American Express Centurian Bank, and Chase Bank USA, N.A.
did not file a response. While a party must generally file a response to a written motion, the Court will not grant
summary judgment unless it independently reviews the entire file and deems that it is warranted. See Schwab v.
Ames Constr., 83 P.3d 56 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). In that review, the Court will examine the file to ensure that the
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2014-050603
09/18/2014
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
Plaintiff is a homeowner’s association. Defendants Crane own the property which is
subject to the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Trilogy at Vistancia
(Declaration). The Declaration is recorded in the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office.
The Declaration requires payment of quarterly assessments which has ranged between
$597.00 and $720.00 per month. The underlying dispute began when Defendants Crane failed to
pay the second 2011 quarterly assessment which was followed by their filing of bankruptcy.
Subsequent to the bankruptcy, the parties entered into a letter agreement to provide for
the payment of past-due quarterly assessments at the rate of $100.00 per month. The letter
agreement, entered into on May 3, 2013, appears to be retroactive to at least January 2013.
Notwithstanding the discharge in bankruptcy, the letter agreement provided for payment of pre-
petition assessments, late charges and attorney’s fees---- presumably to stave off the threat of
foreclosure. Further, the letter agreement provided for the application of all payments to be
applied: (1) first, to the quarterly assessment that comes due; (2) second, to the attorney’s fees
that the Plaintiff “incurred or will incur” in collecting the past due assessment and enforcing the
letter agreement; (3) third, to late fees due and owing as of the date of the parties’ entering into
the letter agreement; and (4) fourth, to past assessments.
In Count I of the Complaint, Plaintiff seeks to foreclose on the lien through February
2014. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 33-1807(A) (2014). Plaintiff seeks $7299.60 plus attorney’s
fees. The amount of that lien that Plaintiff seeks foreclosure upon is set forth in Exhibit “C” to
Count 1 and is also set forth as Exhibit 1 to Jeffrey Dixon’s Affidavit (filed as Exhibit B in
Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment).
While the Court will grant summary judgment with respect to Count I and the “right to
foreclose,” it will not permit the foreclosure to proceed until the precise amount of lien is
determined.2 Plaintiff’s ledger, for example, reflects a claim for attorney’s fees which is
permissible under Arizona law. Notwithstanding that fact, the statutory lien extends only to
“reasonable attorney’s fees,” and the Court has no way of determining whether the fees
demanded as part of its lien were reasonable. In fact, the Court cannot determine whether they
were, in fact, incurred. Id; see also Ariz. Rev. Stat. 341.01 (B) (2014).3
moving party has also met its burden of production with respect to affirmative defenses, but none were raised in this
case. Thruston. Nonetheless, the Court finds an absence of material question of fact with respect to these
defendants and will grant summary judgment on Count I with respect to them.
2 Regardless of the amount owed, it has been owed for more than one year. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 33-1807(A)
(2014).
3 The amount of lien impacts the ability of Defendants Crane to redeem the property.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2014-050603
09/18/2014
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 3
Further complicating the issue is the fact that Defendants Crane agreed and apparently
have in fact paid monies toward past assessments under the letter agreement which the Plaintiff
now asserts is unenforceable or alternatively breached. Whether those payments were properly
credited against the past due assessments is not addressed, especially given the Plaintiff’s
position that the Letter Agreement may not be enforceable.4
In Count II, Plaintiff seeks a personal judgment for damages against the Defendants
Crane. Whether Plaintiff is seeking damages as measured by the letter agreement is unclear.
Thus, the nature of the breach and the damages that may arise therefrom create questions of fact
that preclude summary judgment on Count II.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED GRANTING Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment in part, as set
forth herein.
4 Plaintiff was responding to the argument of Defendants Crane that the Letter Agreement permits them to skip
payments when they could not afford it.
10/28/2014 — CV2014050603 CRANE, MICHAEL R 10/28/2014 HONORABLE MICHAEL D. GORDON View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
10/30/2014 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2014-050603
10/28/2014
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MICHAEL D. GORDON
M. MINKOW
Deputy
TRILOGY AT VISTANCIA COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
EDITH I RUDDER
v.
MICHAEL R CRANE, et al.
MICHAEL R CRANE
28566 N 124TH DR
PEORIA AZ 85383
VIRGINIA K CRANE
28566 N 124TH DR
PEORIA AZ 85383
MINUTE ENTRY RULING
DENYING MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
DENYING APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES
DENYING REQUEST FOR HEARING
SUA SPONTE RECONSIDERING AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Pending before the Court are: (1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Judgment – and Request for
Hearing; and (2) Plaintiff’s Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Litigation Expenses. The
Motion, Request and Application were filed October 10, 2014.
The filing of the Motion and Application caused the Court to sua sponte review and reconsider
its minute entry order granting, in part, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. See Minute
Entry (filed September 22, 2104). The Court finds that its ruling was clear legal error, and the
minute entry will be vacated in its entirety.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2014-050603
10/28/2014
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
The outcome of the summary-judgment request is governed by Arizona’s HOA Foreclosure
Statute. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 1807 (2014) (“HOA Foreclosure Statute”). The
interpretation of the HOA Foreclosure Statute is a question of law. Cypress v. Sunland
Homeowners Association v. Orlandini, 227 Ariz. 288, 298, 357 P.3d 1168, 1178 (Ariz. Ct. App.
2011). The Court’s primary goal is to effectuate legislative intent. Id. The Court will, of course,
avoid interpretations that lead to absurd results. Id.
Toward that end, the Court has determined that there are material questions of fact as to whether
Plaintiff may exercise the foreclosure rights under the HOA Foreclosure Statute as pled in the
Complaint. The Court applies the standards under Orme School v. Reeves, 802 P.2d 1000 (Ariz.
Sup. Ct. 1990) (summary judgment standards) and National Bank of Arizona v. Thruston, 180
P.3d 977 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008) (requiring movant to meet its burden of production with respect
to affirmative defenses).
A. The Motion for Summary Judgment: Background.
The facts are largely as the Court recited in its September 22, 2014 minute entry. Plaintiff is a
homeowners association. The Crane Defendants own the property which is subject to the
Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Trilogy at Vistancia (Declaration).
The Declaration is recorded in the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office.
The Declaration requires payment of quarterly assessments which have ranged between $597.00
and $720.00 per month. The underlying dispute began when the Crane Defendants failed to pay
the second 2011 quarterly assessment which was followed by their filing of bankruptcy.
Subsequent to the bankruptcy, the parties entered into a letter agreement to provide for the
payment of past-due quarterly assessments at the rate of $100.00 (“Letter Agreement”). The
Letter Agreement, entered into on May 3, 2013 appears to be retroactive to at least January 2013.
It provided for payment of pre-petition assessments, late charges and attorney’s fees----
presumably to stave off the threat of foreclosure.
Further, the Letter Agreement provided a priority for the application of all payments. It provided
that they be applied: (1) first, to the quarterly assessment that comes due; (2) second, to the
attorney’s fees that the Plaintiff “incurred or will incur” in collecting the past due assessment and
enforcing the Letter Agreement; (3) third, to late fees due and owing as of the date of the parties’
entering into the Letter Agreement; and (4) fourth, to past assessments. Exhibit 4 to Jeffrey
Dixon’s Affidavit in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (filed as Exhibit C).
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2014-050603
10/28/2014
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 3
Plaintiff has filed a two-count complaint seeking: (1) foreclosure of the liens created by the
Foreclosure Statute; and (2) a personal judgment against the Crane Defendants for amounts not
discharged in bankruptcy.
B. Material Questions of Fact Preclude the Entry of Summary Judgment.
The Court finds that there is a material fact question as to whether there is a sufficient
delinquency in assessments to permit foreclosure. The Letter Agreement disregards the HOA
Foreclosure Statute which expressly requires that:
[A]ll payments received on a member's account shall be applied
first to any unpaid assessments, for unpaid charges for late
payment of those assessments, for reasonable collection fees and
for unpaid attorney fees and costs incurred with respect to those
assessments, in that order. . .
See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 33-1807 (K)(2014) (emphasis added).
Thus, the Association must properly credit the Crane Defendants’ back payments. Until that is
completed, there remains the material question of whether:
the owner has been delinquent in the payment of monies secured
by the lien, excluding reasonable collection fees, reasonable
attorney fees and charges for late payment of and costs incurred
with respect to those assessments, for a period of one year or in the
amount of one thousand two hundred dollars or more, whichever
occurs first.
See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 33-1807(A) (2014).
The Court finds that an additional question of fact exists as to whether the Association
improperly seeks foreclosure on charges which may not legally be the basis for foreclosure. The
record reflects that the Association seeks to foreclose on charges, some of which appear to fall
outside the rubric of charges upon which it can seek foreclosure. See, e.g., Exhibit “C” to Count
1; Exhibit 1 to Jeffrey Dixon’s Affidavit (filed as Exhibit C in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment). For example, the Association seeks foreclosure on the Crane Defendants’
obligations to pay lock-box payments, demand fees, and document preparation fees. Id.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2014-050603
10/28/2014
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 4
While these charges may be the proper subject of a lien that runs with the property (paid upon
the property’s transfer), those liens do not subject the property to foreclosure. Whether the lien
may be the basis to foreclose turns on whether it arises from an obligation under Title 33, Section
1803 (other than an obligation to pay late fees on assessments). Thus, unlike unpaid monthly
assessments or late fees, these liens ripen upon the entry of judgment and the recording of the
judgment.
Specifically, the relevant portion of Section 1807(A) provides:
The association has a lien for fees, charges, late charges, other than
charges for late payment of assessments, monetary penalties or
interest charged pursuant to section 33-1803 after the entry of a
judgment in a civil suit for those fees, charges, late charges,
monetary penalties or interest from a court of competent
jurisdiction and the recording of that judgment in the office of the
county recorder as otherwise provided by law. The association's
lien for monies other than for assessments, for charges for late
payment of those assessments, for reasonable collection fees
and for reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred with
respect to those assessments may not be foreclosed and is
effective only on conveyance of any interest in the real
property.
See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 33-1807(A) (2014) (emphasis added).
The charges for lock-box payments, demand fees, and document preparation fees are made
pursuant to Section 33-1803. As such, they may not be foreclosed and are effective only on
conveyance of the property.
C. Conclusion.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby:
1. VACATES the Minute Entry filed September 22, 2014;
2. DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment filed July 25,
2014.
3. DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Judgment and Request for
Hearing filed October 10, 2014.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2014-050603
10/28/2014
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 5
4. DENIES Plaintiff’s Application for Attorney’s Fees and Litigation
Expenses filed October 10, 2014.
5. AFFIRMING deadlines set forth at the status conference held on
September 17, 2014.
