Case Header

Maricopa County Superior Court Case CV2007-090949: public docket details, parties, minute entries, documents, and official source links for Desert Ridge Community Association.

Case Number

CV2007-090949

County

Maricopa

Caption

Not captured

Filed

4/25/2007

Case Type

Civil

Judge

Valenzuela, Michael

Location

Southeast

Official Court Record

Official Court Record

Parties

Minute Entries

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
01/24/2008 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2007-090949
01/23/2008
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE JOSEPH KREAMER
T. Soto
Deputy
DESERT RIDGE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
CHARLES E MAXWELL
v.
DONALD J LAWRENCE JR., et al.
CLINT G GOODMAN
MARIA E LAWRENCE
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has received and considered Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the
Court’s denial of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
The Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
05/09/2007 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2007-090949
05/08/2007
Docket Code 003
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE HELENE ABRAMS
T. Soto
Deputy
DESERT RIDGE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
CHARLES E MAXWELL
v.
DONALD J LAWRENCE JR., et al.
DONALD J LAWRENCE JR.
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
MARIA E LAWRENCE
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
MINUTE ENTRY
On the Court’s own Motion,
IT IS ORDERED vacating the Order to Show Cause on June 15, 2007 and resetting
same on June 18, 2007 at 9:45 a.m. for a 15 minute Return Hearing.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
06/19/2007 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2007-090949
06/18/2007
Docket Code 056
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE HELENE ABRAMS
T. Soto
Deputy
DESERT RIDGE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
CHARLES E MAXWELL
v.
DONALD J LAWRENCE JR., et al.
CLINT G GOODMAN
MINUTE ENTRY
9:45 a.m. This is the time set for Order to Show Cause. Counsel, Charles E. Maxwell,
participates on behalf of Plaintiff, desert Ridge Community Association. Counsel, Clint
Goodman, participates on behalf of Defendant, Donald J. Lawrence.
Court reporter, Sharon Flores, is present.
Counsel advises the Court that the parties have conferred and are still not able to reach an
agreement. Counsel orally requests that an Order to Show Cause Hearing be set.
Counsel advises the Court regarding the status of the case.
IT IS ORDERED this matter is set for an Evidentiary Hearing on the Order to Show
Cause as to why the Preliminary Injunction should not be issued on August 10, 2007 at 9:30
a.m. (Time allotted: 2.5 hours) at:
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
SOUTHEAST COURTHOUSE
COURTROOM 206

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2007-090949
06/18/2007
Docket Code 056
Form V000A
Page 2
222 E. JAVELINA
MESA, AZ 85210
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED any evidence intended to be submitted as exhibits at the
time of the Evidentiary Hearing must be brought to Courtroom 206 at least two (2) business days
prior to the hearing, along with an attached cover sheet listing the description of the exhibits.
9:55 a.m. Hearing concludes

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
08/14/2007 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2007-090949
08/02/2007
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. BARBARA M. JARRETT
M. Brady
Deputy
DESERT RIDGE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
CHARLES E MAXWELL
v.
DONALD J LAWRENCE JR., et al.
CLINT G GOODMAN
MINUTE ENTRY
IT IS ORDERED granting Defendant’s Motion for Expedited Ruling and granting
Defendant’s Motion to Vacate the Order to Show Cause hearing set for August 10, 2007 at 9:30
a.m.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting oral argument on Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment
on the Pleadings and Counterdefendant’s Motion to Strike and Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment on October 5, 2007 at 9:15 a.m. (allotted time: 45 minutes) in this division.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
08/16/2007 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2007-090949
08/06/2007
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. BARBARA M. JARRETT
T. Soto
Deputy
DESERT RIDGE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
CHARLES E MAXWELL
v.
DONALD J LAWRENCE JR., et al.
CLINT G GOODMAN
MARIA E LAWRENCE
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has reviewed and considered Defendants’ Motion to Continue/Vacate Order to
Show Cause Hearing, Plaintiff’s response in opposition to that motion, and Defendants’ Motion
for Expedited Ruling.
The Court notes that there are two pending motions in this case. Plaintiff has filed a
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, and Defendants recently filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment. In the interests of judicial economy, the Court will hear argument on and decide those
motions prior to conducting an evidentiary hearing on the OSC. The rulings on those motions
could result in an evidentiary hearing becoming unnecessary. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED granting Defendants’ Motion for Expedited Ruling and granting
Defendants’ Motion to Continue/Vacate Order to Show Cause Hearing, and vacating the August
10, 2007 hearing date.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting Oral Argument on Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings, and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2007-090949
08/06/2007
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 2
Counterdefenants’ Motion to Strike on 10/05/07 at 9:15 a.m. (Time allotted: 45 minutes)
before the Honorable Judge Kreamer.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
08/14/2007 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2007-090949
08/09/2007
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. BARBARA M. JARRETT
T. Soto/T. Haaser
Deputy
DESERT RIDGE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
CHARLES E MAXWELL
v.
DONALD J LAWRENCE JR., et al.
CLINT G GOODMAN
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has reviewed and considered the Plaintiff’s/Counterdefendant’s Motion for
Reconsideration Regarding Vacating Evidentiary Hearing Scheduled for August 10, 2007 at
9:30 a.m. No good cause appearing,
IT IS ORDERED denying the Motion for Consideration.
All parties representing themselves must keep the Court updated with address changes.
A form may be downloaded at http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/sschome.html.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
08/14/2007 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2007-090949
08/09/2007
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. BARBARA M. JARRETT
T. Soto/T. Haaser
Deputy
DESERT RIDGE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
CHARLES E MAXWELL
v.
DONALD J LAWRENCE JR., et al.
CLINT G GOODMAN
MINUTE ENTRY
It has come to the Court’s attention that a Minute Entry never issued on the following:
IT IS ORDERED granting the Defendant’s Motion to Expedite Ruling
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting the Defendant’s Motion to Continue and vacate
the Order to Show Cause set for August 10, 2007 at 9:30 a.m.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting an Oral Argument on the Plaintiff’s Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings, Counderdefendant’s Motion to Strike and Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment on October 5, 2007 at 9:15 a.m. (45 minutes allotted), in this Division,
222 E. Javelina Avenue, Courtroom 206, Mesa, Arizona.
E-COURTROOM POLICIES
This is a JAVS courtroom. In the event a record is made, the Court will provide, upon
request, CDs and videotapes regardless of when the copies are made. A fee of $20.00 will apply
to all copies requested, either on the day of the hearing or for hearings recorded on an earlier
date. Forms to request a recording of the proceeding are available in the Self-Service Center and
in the JAVS courtrooms.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2007-090949
08/09/2007
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 2
A person requesting a daily copy of CD or videotape must complete the appropriate
request form and pay the applicable fee to the Self-Service Center. Upon payment of the
appropriate fees through the Self-Service Center, a receipt will be issued which shall then be
presented to Court staff for preparation of the CD or videotape in the customary manner.
A person wanting a copy of a hearing from a previous occasion must contact Ken
Crenshaw at 602-506-7100.
Should a party wish to have a court reporter present for trial, a written request must be
received by the Court ten (10) court business days prior to the scheduled hearing.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
10/09/2007 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2007-090949
10/03/2007
Docket Code 003
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE JOSEPH KREAMER
T. Soto
Deputy
DESERT RIDGE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
CHARLES E MAXWELL
v.
DONALD J LAWRENCE JR., et al.
CLINT G GOODMAN
MARIA E LAWRENCE
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
MINUTE ENTRY
Due to a scheduling conflict of counsel,
IT IS ORDERED vacating Oral Argument on 10/05/07 at 9:15 a.m. and resetting same
on 10/12/07 at 9:00 a.m.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
10/05/2007 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2007-090949
10/04/2007
Docket Code 003
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE JOSEPH KREAMER
T. Soto
Deputy
DESERT RIDGE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
CHARLES E MAXWELL
v.
DONALD J LAWRENCE JR., et al.
CLINT G GOODMAN
MARIA E LAWRENCE
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
MINUTE ENTRY
Due to further scheduling conflicts,
IT IS ORDERED vacating Oral Argument on 10/12/07 at 9:00 a.m. and resetting same
on 10/16/07 at 9:30 a.m.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
10/17/2007 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2007-090949
10/16/2007
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE JOSEPH KREAMER
T. Soto
Deputy
DESERT RIDGE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
CHARLES E MAXWELL
v.
DONALD J LAWRENCE JR., et al.
CLINT G GOODMAN
MARIA E LAWRENCE
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
MINUTE ENTRY
9:28 a.m. This is the time set for Oral Argument re: Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment and Defendant/Counterclaimant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Counsel, Charles
E. Maxwell, participates on behalf of Plaintiff Desert Ridge Community Assoc. Association
Representative Lance Jones, is also present. Counsel, Clint G. Goodman, participates on behalf
of Defendant Lawrence.
A record of the proceedings is made by CD/videotape as well as by the court reporter,
Jennifer Stadler.
Argument is heard re: Defendant/Counterclaimant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant/Counterclaimant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
for the reasons as set forth on the record.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2007-090949
10/16/2007
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 2
As to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment,
IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff’s counsel shall provide the Court with a brief, no more than
five pages, regarding the Plaintiff’s legal right and standing to enforce the design guideline on or
before November 1, 2007. Defense counsel’s five pages or less response is due no later than
November 30, 2007.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Defense counsel shall provide the Court with a brief, no
more than five pages, regarding why the reasonableness standard applies and why there is an
issue of fact on or before November 1, 2007. Plaintiff counsel’s five page or less response is due
on or before November 30, 2007.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting oral argument on December 4, 2007 at 8:30 a.m.
(Time allotted: 30 minutes) before:
THE HONORABLE JOSEPH KREAMER
SOUTHEAST ADULT FACILITY
222 EAST JAVELINA
COURTROOM 206
MESA AZ 85210
602-372-1764
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED as follows:

Any motion or stipulation for continuance must be filed with the Court no later than four
(4) court days prior to the date set for hearing. After that date, no continuances will be granted
except for extraordinary circumstances.

Counsel are advised that if the answering memorandum is not timely filed in accordance
with the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, oral argument may be vacated and the motion will be
ruled upon in accordance with Rule 7.1(b), A.R.C.P.
10:32 a.m. Hearing concludes
E-COURTROOM POLICIES
This is a JAVS courtroom. In the event a record is made, the Court will provide, upon
request, CDs and videotapes regardless of when the copies are made. A fee of $20.00 will apply
to all copies requested, either on the day of the hearing or for hearings recorded on an earlier

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2007-090949
10/16/2007
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 3
date. Forms to request a recording of the proceeding are available in the Self-Service Center and
in the JAVS courtrooms.
A person requesting a daily copy of CD or videotape must complete the appropriate
request form and pay the applicable fee to the Self-Service Center. Upon payment of the
appropriate fees through the Self-Service Center, a receipt will be issued which shall then be
presented to Court staff for preparation of the CD or videotape in the customary manner.
A person wanting a copy of a hearing from a previous occasion must contact Ken
Crenshaw at 602-506-7100.
Should a party wish to have a court reporter present for trial, a written request must be
received by the Court ten (10) court business days prior to the scheduled hearing.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
12/06/2007 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2007-090949
12/04/2007
Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE JOSEPH KREAMER
T. Soto
Deputy
DESERT RIDGE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
CHARLES E MAXWELL
v.
DONALD J LAWRENCE JR., et al.
CLINT G GOODMAN
MARIA E LAWRENCE
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
MINUTE ENTRY
9:35 a.m. This is the time set for Supplemental Oral Argument re: Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment. Counsel Charles Maxwell participates on behalf of Plaintiff Desert Ridge
Community Association. Association Representative Lance Jones is present. Counsel Clint G.
Goodman participates on behalf of Defendant Lawrence.
A record of the proceedings is made by CD/videotape in lieu of a court reporter.
Argument is heard and the matter is discussed with the Court at length on the record.
IT IS ORDERED taking Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment under advisement.
9:25 a.m. Hearing concludes
E-COURTROOM POLICIES

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2007-090949
12/04/2007
Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 2
This is a JAVS courtroom. In the event a record is made, the Court will provide, upon
request, CDs and videotapes regardless of when the copies are made. A fee of $20.00 will apply
to all copies requested, either on the day of the hearing or for hearings recorded on an earlier
date. Forms to request a recording of the proceeding are available in the Self-Service Center and
in the JAVS courtrooms.
A person requesting a daily copy of CD or videotape must complete the appropriate
request form and pay the applicable fee to the Self-Service Center. Upon payment of the
appropriate fees through the Self-Service Center, a receipt will be issued which shall then be
presented to Court staff for preparation of the CD or videotape in the customary manner.
A person wanting a copy of a hearing from a previous occasion must contact Ken
Crenshaw at 602-506-7100.
Should a party wish to have a court reporter present for trial, a written request must be
received by the Court ten (10) court business days prior to the scheduled hearing.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
12/21/2007 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2007-090949
12/17/2007
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE JOSEPH KREAMER
T. Soto
Deputy
DESERT RIDGE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
CHARLES E MAXWELL
v.
DONALD J LAWRENCE JR., et al.
CLINT G GOODMAN
MARIA E LAWRENCE
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court previously received a Motion for Summary Judgment from Defendants
Lawrence, and a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment from Plaintiff Desert Ridge Community
Association. At oral argument, the Court denied Defendants’ motion and asked for further
briefing from the parties on Plaintiff’s motion. The Court held supplemental oral argument on
December 4, 2007, and took Plaintiff’s motion under advisement. Below is the Court’s ruling.
This case involves the Association’s attempt to enforce a 15 foot minimum setback
requirement contained in the Association’s Design Guidelines. At issue here is a play set that
both parties agree does not comply with the 15 foot minimum guideline. Plaintiff contends that
it is entitled to summary judgment because there is no dispute that Defendants intentionally
violated the guideline. Defendants contend that the Association should be estopped from
enforcing the guidelines because enforcement here would be unreasonable under the
circumstances.
Although the parties disagree on exactly how to frame the issue, both parties agree that
the analysis regarding whether the Association’s motion should be granted centers on the recent
Arizona Court of Appeals decision in Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. K itchukov, 216

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2007-090949
12/17/2007
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007). In Kitchukov, the Court of Appeals adopted the
Restatement approach to review the discretionary decisions of a community association. This
approach requires the member challenging the association to establish that the Association’s
actions were unreasonable. The Kitchukov Court specifically found that there was an issue of
fact regarding whether the Association in that case had breached its duty to act reasonably,
noting that “issues of reasonableness are usually a question of fact.” The Court considered the
uniqueness of the Kitchukov’s property, the impact of the Kitchukovs’ disputed garage on other
neighbors and likeliness that the Association’s proposed requirement would accomplish the
stated goal and found that they all involved disputed issues of fact.
Here, Defendants urge that the Association’s enforcement is unreasonable “because at
least 15 neighbors testify [sic] that the play equipment in their backyards are less than 15 feet
from adjoining properties and that the Association never enforced a setback requirement against
them.” Defendants also claim that this number might actually be higher, since the 15 other
alleged violations came from only 500 of the approximately 3300 homes covered by the
Association. Further, Defendants claim that like Kitchukov, the “uniqueness” of their property
makes it unreasonable to enforce the design guideline against them (Defendants claim that the
shape of their yard can only accommodate the play structure where it now sits) and that the play
structure will not negatively impact other neighbors.
The Association counters that only 15 other violations in an Association of this size is a
minimal amount and that it has acted quickly and reasonably to address the additional violations
pointed out by Defendants. The Association relies primarily on several cases which the
Association believes control. Foremost among these cases is Swenson v. Erickson, 998 P.2d 807
(Ut. 2000). In Swenson, the Utah Supreme Court determined that a restrictive covenant
prohibiting residents from constructing certain structures was fully enforceable, despite the
homeowners’ argument that the Association had abandoned the requirement because there were
19 other violations in the 52 member association. The Association argues here that this is the
“seminal” case and that if 19 other violations out of 52 does not constitute a waiver or
abandonment of the right to enforce a restriction, then 15 out of 3300 surely does not.
However, the Court believes that Swenson is distinguishable from this case. First,
Swenson did not appear to be following the Restatement approach. In fact, the Swenson Court
required the homeowner to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the violations of the
other homeowners were so substantial as to destroy the usefulness of the covenant. Second, the
violation of the Defendant homeowner in Swenson was far more significant in comparison with
the other 19 violations – those violations involved structures far smaller than the Defendant’s
structure, making the violations less significant than the Defendant’s. The Court has reviewed
the Arizona cases cited by the Association (Whitker, Riley and Decker) and believes that they are

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2007-090949
12/17/2007
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 3
distinguishable in that none of them explicitly applied the Restatement approach and (as pointed
out by Defendants) they contain other factual differences to this case as well.
The Court believes that a fact finder might well find that the Association’s enforcement
of the design guideline against these Defendants was reasonable. The number of other violations
appears to be relatively low in comparison with the number of homeowners, the Defendants’
violation did affect other residents (Defendants’ neighbor complained to the Association) and the
Association has now pursued (after Defendants pointed them out) other homeowners who are
allegedly in violation of the guideline. However, a fact finder might also reasonably conclude
that the existence of other violators, the lack of any enforcement by the Association prior to this
case, and the uniqueness of the Defendant’s yard all make it unreasonable for the Association to
enforce the guidelines here.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

Documents