Case Header

Maricopa County Superior Court Case CV2011-014954: public docket details, parties, minute entries, documents, and official source links for Sunland Village Community Association.

Case Number

CV2011-014954

County

Maricopa

Caption

Not captured

Filed

8/17/2011

Case Type

Civil

Judge

Arbitration 01 | Herrod

Location

Downtown

Official Court Record

Official Court Record

Parties

No parties captured.

Minute Entries

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
01/20/2012 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-014954
01/17/2012
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ARTHUR T. ANDERSON
L. Nixon
Deputy
PATSY O TREJO, et al.
STEVEN W CHEIFETZ
v.
SUNLAND VILLAGE COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
JASON E SMITH
DONALD A WALL
ORAL ARGUMENT SET
IT IS ORDERED setting Oral Argument on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment
and Defendant’s Rule 56(f) Motion on February 8, 2012, at 9:15 a.m. (30 min.) before:
HON. ARTHUR T. ANDERSON
Maricopa County Superior Court
East Court Building
101 West Jefferson Street
5th Floor, Courtroom 511
Phoenix, AZ 85003
602-506-0341
The Court will not honor agreements by the parties to modify the briefing schedule set
forth in the Rules of Civil Procedure unless it is notified by stipulation in writing of the terms of
the agreement before the rule-imposed deadline expires and the motion is fully briefed at least 5
judicial days prior to the hearing.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-014954
01/17/2012
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 2
ALERT: The Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 2011-140 directs the Clerk's
Office not to accept paper filings from attorneys in civil cases. Civil cases must still be initiated
on paper; however, subsequent documents must be eFiled through AZTurboCourt unless an
exception defined in the Administrative Order applies.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
01/24/2012 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-014954
01/19/2012
Docket Code 078
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ARTHUR T. ANDERSON
L. Nixon
Deputy
PATSY O TREJO, et al.
STEVEN W CHEIFETZ
v.
SUNLAND VILLAGE COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
JASON E SMITH
DONALD A WALL
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has received notification that on January 4, 2012, a petition under the
Bankruptcy Code was filed by Plaintiff, Patsy Osborne Trejo, in case number 2:12-bk-00155-
SSC.
IT IS ORDERED placing this case on the Inactive Calendar until July 3, 2012, as to
Plaintiff, Patsy Trejo.
IT IS ORDERED as of the date of this minute entry, placing this matter on the Inactive
Calendar for dismissal on July 3, 2012, without further notice.
ALERT: The Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 2011-140 directs the Clerk's
Office not to accept paper filings from attorneys in civil cases. Civil cases must still be initiated
on paper; however, subsequent documents must be eFiled through AZTurboCourt unless an
exception defined in the Administrative Order applies.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
02/07/2012 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-014954
02/06/2012
Docket Code 095
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ARTHUR T. ANDERSON
L. Nixon
Deputy
PATSY O TREJO, et al.
STEVEN W CHEIFETZ
v.
SUNLAND VILLAGE COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
JASON E SMITH
DONALD A WALL
ORAL ARGUMENT RESET
IT IS ORDERED vacating Oral Argument on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment
set on February 8, 2012, and resetting same on April 20, 2012, at 9:45 a.m. (30 min.) before:
HON. ARTHUR T. ANDERSON
Maricopa County Superior Court
East Court Building
101 West Jefferson Street
5th Floor, Courtroom 511
Phoenix, AZ 85003
602-506-0341
The Court will not honor agreements by the parties to modify the briefing schedule set
forth in the Rules of Civil Procedure unless it is notified by stipulation in writing of the terms of
the agreement before the rule-imposed deadline expires and the motion is fully briefed at least 5
judicial days prior to the hearing.
ALERT: The Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 2011-140 directs the Clerk's
Office not to accept paper filings from attorneys in civil cases. Civil cases must still be initiated
on paper; however, subsequent documents must be eFiled through AZTurboCourt unless an
exception defined in the Administrative Order applies.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
02/21/2012 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-014954
02/15/2012
Docket Code 002
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ARTHUR T. ANDERSON
L. Nixon
Deputy
PATSY O TREJO, et al.
STEVEN W CHEIFETZ
v.
SUNLAND VILLAGE COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
JASON E SMITH
DONALD A WALL
ORDER SIGNED
The Court has considered the parties’ Stipulation to Vacate Oral Argument and Order
thereto.
Good cause appearing,
IT IS ORDERED granting the parties’ request, all in accordance with the formal written
Order Vacating Oral Argument signed by the Court on February 6, 2012, and filed by the Clerk
on February 15, 2012.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED affirming Oral Argument on Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Summary Judgment and Defendant’s Rule 56(f) Motion set on April 20, 2012, at 9:45 a.m., in
this division.
Please note: The Court has signed a hard-copy version of the order provided with an
electronically filed pleading. Therefore, copies of the order were not available for mailing to the
parties. Copies of this order may be obtained from the Customer Service Center located at 601
W. Jackson St., Phoenix, AZ 85003.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-014954
02/15/2012
Docket Code 002
Form V000A
Page 2
ALERT: The Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 2011-140 directs the Clerk's
Office not to accept paper filings from attorneys in civil cases. Civil cases must still be initiated
on paper; however, subsequent documents must be eFiled through AZTurboCourt unless an
exception defined in the Administrative Order applies.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
04/23/2012 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-014954
04/20/2012
Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ARTHUR T. ANDERSON
L. Nixon
Deputy
PATSY O TREJO, et al.
STEVEN W CHEIFETZ
v.
SUNLAND VILLAGE COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
JASON E SMITH
DONALD A WALL
MINUTE ENTRY
10:04 a.m. This is the time set for Oral Argument. Plaintiffs, Patsy O. Trejo and Patricia
A. Stein, are represented by counsel, Steven W. Cheifetz. Plaintiff, Patricia A. Stein is present.
Defendant, Sunland Village Community Association, is represented by counsel, Jason E. Smith.
Court Reporter, Mike Benitez, is present and a record of the proceedings is made by
audio and/or videotape.
Argument is heard on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment.
IT IS ORDERED taking Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment under advisement.
10:31 a.m. Hearing concludes.
ALERT: The Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 2011-140 directs the Clerk's
Office not to accept paper filings from attorneys in civil cases. Civil cases must still be initiated
on paper; however, subsequent documents must be eFiled through AZTurboCourt unless an
exception defined in the Administrative Order applies.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
07/05/2012 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-014954
07/03/2012
Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ARTHUR T. ANDERSON
L. Nixon
Deputy
PATSY O TREJO, et al.
STEVEN W CHEIFETZ
v.
SUNLAND VILLAGE COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
JASON E SMITH
DONALD A WALL
RULING
The following motions were taken under advisement following oral argument held on
April 20, 2012: Plaintiffs’ (Patsy O. Trejo and Patricia A. Stein) Motion for Summary
Judgment, Defendant, Sunland Village Community Association’s (“Sunland”) Response to
Motion for Summary Judgment, and Plaintiff, Patricia A. Stein’s (“Stein”) Reply in Support of
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Pasty O. Trejo and Patricia Stein filed their Motion
for Summary Judgment jointly, however, between that filing and Plaintiff Stein’s Reply, Plaintiff
Trejo filed for bankruptcy. Therefore, the Court considers the briefing as to Plaintiff Stein and
the Motion for Summary Judgment is stayed as to Plaintiff Trejo. Having considered the
briefing and arguments of counsel, the Court issues the following rulings.
I.
Pursuant to Ariz. R. Civ. P. 56, Stein moves the Court to grant summary judgment
against Sunland indemnifying her for the legal expenses she incurred in responding to Sunland’s
removal of Stein from the Sunland Board of Directors (“Board”).
Stein was appointed to the Board by a majority vote on April 29, 2011. Stein did not
attend the Board meeting in which she was appointed. Rather, the Board members telephoned

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-014954
07/03/2012
Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 2
Stein the night of the meeting and asked if she would accept the appointment. Stein, a former
three-time Board member, was at first reluctant but accepted the nomination provided the Board
followed Sunland’s bylaws in regard to her appointment. Several days after the election, two
Board members retained Sunland counsel to write Stein a letter challenging Stein’s appointment
procedure and demanding that she step down as a Board member. Sunland counsel threatened
legal action if Stein did not resign within one day.
Stein emailed Sunland’s counsel asking why she was being threatened with legal action
and requested that Sunland provide her with counsel to evaluate the situation. Sunland’s counsel
replied that his firm did not represent Stein and that she should get her own counsel. Sunland’s
bylaws provide that the “[a]ssociation shall defend and save each director and officer harmless
from all costs, damages, expenses and fees, including attorneys’ fees, resulting from any act,
omission, error or negligence of such officer or director, except that which results from gross
negligence or from willful misconduct.” (Motion for Summary Judgment at 5).
Sunland filed a lawsuit and petition for a temporary restraining order against Stein to
challenge her appointment, arguing that the meeting at which Stein was elected was improperly
called and noticed. Stein then had to hire her own attorney in order to, amongst other things,
send requests that Sunland provide her with counsel as per the bylaws, but Sunland denied those
requests. Stein, running out of money to pay her attorney, resigned a few days later.
Stein argues that because she was appointed as a Board member, under the bylaws,
Sunland is required to indemnify her for attorney’s fees incurred defending herself against
Sunland’s lawsuit. Stein argues that even if the election process was flawed, she was still a de
facto Board member and is entitled to invoke the provisions of the bylaws. Sunland contends
that Stein was never a Board member because the appointment process was invalid under the
bylaws and, therefore, Stein was never entitled to invoke the provision of the bylaws that states
that Sunland is required to provide her an attorney. Sunland additionally argues that even if
Stein was a de facto Board member, her actions in resisting Sunland’s demand that she resign
constituted gross negligence and willful misconduct and, therefore, her actions are not entitled to
indemnification under the bylaws.
II.
Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 56 provides for summary judgment in favor of the
movant “if the pleadings, deposition, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together
with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the
moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Ariz. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). Therefore,
“under Rule 56(c), the moving party must come forward with evidence it believes demonstrates
the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and must explain why summary judgment should

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-014954
07/03/2012
Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 3
be entered in its favor.” National Bank of Arizona v. Thurston, 218 Ariz. 112, 115, 180 P.3d
977, 980 (App. 2008). Additionally, if the opposing party cannot respond to the motion for
summary judgment by showing evidence that creates a genuine issue of fact on the element in
question, the motion for summary judgment should be granted. Orme School v. Reeves, 166
Ariz. 301, 310, 802 P.2d 1000, 1009 (1990).
When there are questions surrounding the appointment of an officer, the officer is an
“officer de facto.” Black’s Law Dictionary defines an officer de facto as, “one who is acting
under color of right and with apparent authority, but who is not legally a corporate officer.”
Black’s Law Dictionary 1118 (8th ed. 1999). Arizona law defines an officer de facto as one
whose election or appointment was void because the officer was not eligible, there was a want of
power in the electing body, or by some other defect or irregularity. New Sun Business Park, LLC
v. Yuma County, 221 Ariz. 43, 48, 209 P.3d 179, 184 (2009). The logic behind this principle is
that the public has an interest in the continuous exercise of official duty, and the necessities
thereof, and cannot wait until a resolution of the conflicting official’s appointment. Id. Under
Arizona law, there is no distinction between the acts of an officer de jure and an officer de facto.
Pass v. Stephens, 22 Ariz. 461, 469, 198 P. 712, 715 (1921).
To establish gross negligence or willful misconduct, a party must show the existence of
conduct that is a different kind of offense than ordinary negligence. Kemp v. Pinal County, 13
Ariz. App. 121, 124-25, 474 P.2d 840, 843-44 (1970). “Gross or wanton or willful misconduct is
different from ordinary negligence in quality and not degree. A person can be very negligent and
still not be guilty of gross negligence.” Id. While “[g]ross negligence is generally a question of
fact that is determined by a jury,” a trial court may resolve the issue as a matter of law if the
party with the burden of proof “fails to produce evidence that is ‘more than slight and [that does]
not border on conjecture’ such that a reasonable trier of fact could find gross negligence.”
Armenta v. City of Casa Grande, 205 Ariz. 367, 373, 71 P.3d 359, 365 (App. 2003), citing Walls
v. Arizona Dep't of Pub. Safety, 170 Ariz. 591,595, 826 P.2d 1217, 1221 (App.1991); see also
Badia v. City of Casa Grande, 195 Ariz. 349, 988 P.2d 134 (App.1999).
III.
The Court finds that Stein has stated sufficient facts to demonstrate the absence of a
genuine issue of material fact and is entitled to summary judgment. Stein, after accepting her
appointment to the Board, was protected by the indemnification provision of the Sunland bylaws,
whether or not the election was legitimate. If her appointment was invalid, Stein still operated as
a de facto Board member until she was removed by a proper action by the Board. Therefore,
Sunland was required to provide Stein with counsel when legal action was threatened and
eventually taken by Sunland’s other Board members. Stein acted in good faith, particularly

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-014954
07/03/2012
Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 4
because she accepted the appointment on the condition that the appointment process follow the
bylaws.
Sunland’s contention that Stein was never a Board member because the appointment
process violated the bylaws is misguided. The fact that Sunland felt the need to hire counsel to
demand Stein’s resignation and eventually took legal action to remove her is evidence that the
Board had indeed appointed Stein to the Board. The appointment might not have followed the
bylaws, but Stein still operated as a de facto Board member and was entitled to counsel when the
conflict arose.
Furthermore, Sunland’s argument that Stein’s actions were grossly negligent or willful
misconduct fails as a matter of law. Stein specifically requested that proper steps be taken to
appoint her following the guidelines stated in the bylaws. Her request for the assistance of
counsel to fight her removal was, therefore, not grossly negligent or willful misconduct. Stein
had every right to challenge her removal and was entitled to an attorney by the bylaws.
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds no dispute of material fact that would preclude
the entry of judgment as a matter of law for Stein. Following a China Doll submission by
Stein’s counsel, the Court shall consider an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees.
IT IS ORDERED granting Stein’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Stein is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and
costs.
ALERT: The Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 2011-140 directs the Clerk's
Office not to accept paper filings from attorneys in civil cases. Civil cases must still be initiated
on paper; however, subsequent documents must be eFiled through AZTurboCourt unless an
exception defined in the Administrative Order applies.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
07/26/2012 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-014954
07/24/2012
Docket Code 084
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ARTHUR T. ANDERSON
L. Nelson
Deputy
PATSY O TREJO, et al.
STEVEN W CHEIFETZ
v.
SUNLAND VILLAGE COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
JASON E SMITH
DONALD A WALL
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has considered the parties’ Joint Motion to Continue on Inactive Calendar and
Order thereto.
IT IS ORDERED granting the parties’ Motion all in accordance with the formal written
Order to Continue on Inactive Calendar as revised and signed by the Court on July 17, 2012, and
filed by the Clerk on July 24, 2012.
THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED as of the date of this minute entry, continuing this
matter on the Inactive Calendar for dismissal on October 31, 2012, without further notice,
unless prior to that date a judgment is entered or filed, a stipulation of dismissal is presented, or a
motion to set and certificate of readiness is filed.
ALERT: The Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 2011-140 directs the Clerk's
Office not to accept paper filings from attorneys in civil cases. Civil cases must still be initiated
on paper; however, subsequent documents must be eFiled through AZTurboCourt unless an
exception defined in the Administrative Order applies.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Filed ***
07/30/2012 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-014954
07/25/2012
Docket Code 047
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ARTHUR T. ANDERSON
L. Nelson
Deputy
PATSY O TREJO, et al.
STEVEN W CHEIFETZ
v.
SUNLAND VILLAGE COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
JASON E SMITH
DONALD A WALL
JUDGMENT OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
This case was on the Inactive Calendar for dismissal on July 3, 2012, as to Plaintiff,
Patsy Osborne Trejo, unless specified action was taken before a certain date. The date has
passed, and the action has not been taken.
IT IS ORDERED dismissing Plaintiff, Patsy Osborne Trejo, from this case without
prejudice.
/ s / HONORABLE ARTHUR T. ANDERSON
JUDICIAL OFFICER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
11/30/2012 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-014954
11/28/2012
Docket Code 049
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ARTHUR T. ANDERSON
L. Nelson
Deputy
PATSY O TREJO, et al.
STEVEN W CHEIFETZ
v.
SUNLAND VILLAGE COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
JASON E SMITH
DONALD A WALL
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff Patricia A. Stein’s Application for Attorneys’ Fees and
Costs, Defendant’s Response, Plaintiff’s Reply and Defendant’s Objection to Statement of Costs.
Good cause having been shown,
IT IS ORDERED awarding Plaintiff, Patricia A. Stein, her attorney fees and costs all in
accordance with the formal written Judgment as revised and signed by the Court on
November 28, 2012, and filed by the Clerk on November 28, 2012.
ALERT: The Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 2011-140 directs the Clerk's
Office not to accept paper filings from attorneys in civil cases. Civil cases must still be initiated
on paper; however, subsequent documents must be eFiled through AZTurboCourt unless an
exception defined in the Administrative Order applies.

Documents