Arizona HOA vs. Critic | Maricopa County Superior Court CV2025-036771
Trilogy at Power Ranch v. Berman: When an Arizona HOA Sues a Critic and Loses
A self-managed 2,035-home HOA sued a vocal resident over critical mass emails. The Superior Court dismissed the claims, and the case settled with each side paying its own fees.
Last updated June 22, 2026. Case: Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association v. Steve Berman, et al., Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2025-036771 (Hon. Greg S. Como).
Scope note: This page covers a Maricopa County Superior Court trial-court matter (CV2025-036771) that was dismissed and then settled. The association’s complaint contained allegations against the defendants; those allegations were never proven, and the case ended without any finding that the defendants did anything unlawful. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The rule in one sentence
An Arizona HOA cannot turn a member’s critical emails about board spending, salaries, and governance into a lawsuit by labeling them ‘tortious interference with business operations’ — a tort Arizona does not recognize — or ‘hostile housing harassment’; criticism of how an association is run is generally protected, not actionable.
Case snapshot
Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association v. Steve Berman, et al. (originally filed against John Doe defendants).
Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2025-036771 (Hon. Greg S. Como).
Motion to dismiss granted on June 1, 2026; the parties then stipulated to dismiss with prejudice, each side bearing its own fees, on June 18, 2026.
The association sought declaratory and injunctive relief to stop a resident’s mass ‘Trilogy News’ emails criticizing the board, staff, and committees.
Case Dossier
This generated dossier mirrors the structured data surfaced on the OAH/ADRE case pages. It is added from the curated court-case record and the custom page source package, while the hand-authored analysis below remains intact.
Case Summary
| Case ID / citation | CV2025-036771 |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Superior Court |
| Decision / key date | June 1, 2026 |
| Judge / panel | Hon. Greg S. Como |
| Parties | A self-managed 2,035-home Gilbert HOA sued a vocal resident (former Gilbert mayor Steve Berman) and Marc Herbener over a campaign of anonymous, critical ‘Trilogy News’ mass emails, seeking to declare the emails unlawful and to enjoin them. |
| Governing law |
|
| Topics | board-governancefree-speechprocedure |
| Outcome / holding | An Arizona HOA cannot convert member criticism — even repeated, anonymous, and harsh mass emails about board spending, salaries, and governance — into a civil claim by labeling it ‘tortious interference with business operations’ (a tort Arizona does not recognize) or ‘hostile housing harassment’; on the association’s pleadings the court found no viable legal theory and dismissed. |
| Primary public source | View source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Uploaded source package | 15 PDFs |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 15 roadmap entries |
| Video overview | Trilogy at Power Ranch v. Berman: An Arizona HOA Sues a Critic and Loses |
| Study / briefing material | 0 sections |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 0 questions |
| Curated download aliases | 4 download links |
Key Issues & Findings
Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association — a self-managed, 2,035-home active-adult HOA in Gilbert — sued resident Steve Berman (a former Gilbert mayor) and Marc Herbener over a series of anonymous ‘Trilogy News’ mass emails criticizing the board’s spending, executive and manager salaries, water management, contractor bidding, and committee appointments. The association sought declaratory relief and an injunction, pleading ‘tortious interference with business operations,’ injurious falsehood, and ‘hostile housing harassment’ under the Fair Housing Act, and amended its complaint three times. On June 1, 2026, Judge Greg Como granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, and on June 18, 2026 the parties stipulated to dismiss the remaining case with prejudice, each side bearing its own attorney fees and costs. The complaint’s allegations were never proven.
The court concluded the operative complaint failed to identify a viable cause of action. Arizona does not recognize a freestanding tort of ‘interference with business operations,’ a core theory of the suit; the ‘hostile housing harassment’ framing under the Fair Housing Act did not fit what was, in substance, members criticizing how a nonprofit board governs and spends; and the gravamen of the case was protected commentary on association governance. The court therefore granted dismissal, after which the parties stipulated to a dismissal with prejudice with no fee award to either side. Because the case was resolved at the pleading stage and by stipulation, no factual findings were made about the truth of the emails.
For Arizona homeowners and critics, the case is a clear marker that an association’s displeasure with a critic is not, by itself, a cause of action: speech about how a board spends money, pays staff, and appoints volunteers is ordinary community participation, not a tort, and boards that sue over it risk a quick dismissal and the ‘SLAPP’ label that this community’s own board raised when it voted to settle. For boards and managers, it is a caution that litigation is a costly and weak response to an unflattering email campaign. It does not immunize defamation — false statements of fact about identifiable people can still carry consequences — but the association here lost on the theories it chose.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association (Plaintiff)
Association party that sued Steve Berman and other defendants. - Adrian Gordon (Association Principal)
Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association
Listed as a Trilogy principal present at oral argument. - Lisa Gurtler (Association Principal)
Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association
Listed as a Trilogy principal present at oral argument. - Scott B. Carpenter (Counsel)
Carpenter Law Firm
Counsel for Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association. - Keegan Klein (Counsel)
Carpenter Law Firm
Counsel for Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association.
Respondent Side
- Geoffrey G. Collins (Counsel)
Childers, Hanlon & Hudson, PLC
Counsel of record for Steve Berman in later minute entries and the dismissal stipulation. - Steve Berman (Defendant)
Named defendant accused of sending critical emails. - Jane Doe Berman (Defendant)
Spouse defendant named in the second amended complaint. - Marc Herbener (Defendant)
Named defendant accused of authoring or sending Trilogy News emails. - Kevin R. Harper (Counsel)
Minute entries list him at the show-cause hearing for Steve Berman.
Neutral Parties
- Greg S. Como (Judge)
Superior Court judge who granted the motion to dismiss.
Why this case matters
Trilogy at Power Ranch is a self-managed, 2,035-home active-adult community in Gilbert run by a volunteer board and its own staff. Beginning in 2025, residents received a stream of mass emails — branded as ‘Trilogy News’ and sent from a rotating set of anonymous accounts — that sharply criticized the board’s spending, executive and manager salaries, water management, contractor bidding, and committee appointments. The association attributed the campaign to former Gilbert mayor Steve Berman and resident Marc Herbener and took them to court.
Rather than answer the criticism through normal community channels, the association sued, asking a judge to declare the emails unlawful and to enjoin the defendants from sending more. It styled the claims as ‘tortious interference with business operations,’ ‘injurious falsehood,’ and even ‘hostile housing harassment’ under the Fair Housing Act. After three rounds of amended complaints, Judge Greg Como dismissed the case, and the parties settled with each side walking away and paying its own fees.
For homeowners, the case is a clean example of why an association’s displeasure with a critic is not, by itself, a lawsuit. When a board reaches for litigation to silence unflattering emails about governance, it risks a quick dismissal — and the ‘SLAPP’ label that the community itself raised when its board voted to settle.
Video overview: when an HOA sues a resident over critical emails
Watch this overview of Trilogy at Power Ranch v. Berman, where a Gilbert HOA tried to use tortious-interference and harassment theories to shut down a resident’s critical mass emails — and the Superior Court dismissed the claims.
What Judge Como decided
The court found Arizona does not recognize a freestanding tort of interference with business operations — a core theory of the association’s complaint.
The ‘hostile housing harassment’ framing did not fit a dispute that was, at bottom, members criticizing how a nonprofit board governs and spends.
After the dismissal, the parties stipulated to dismiss the remaining case with prejudice, waiving fees and costs on both sides.
For homeowners and critics
Speaking out about how an association spends money, pays staff, and picks committee members is ordinary community participation, not a tort. This case shows that even repeated, anonymous, and harsh email campaigns are difficult for an association to convert into civil liability — and that a board that sues over them may end up dismissed and labeled as bringing a SLAPP-style suit.
It is not a license to defame: false statements of fact about identifiable people can still carry consequences under defamation law. But the association here did not win on that ground; its chosen theories failed at the pleading stage.
For HOA boards and managers
Litigation is a costly and weak answer to an unflattering email campaign. Before suing a critic, a board should ask whether it has a real, recognized cause of action — and weigh the reputational cost of being seen as silencing dissent. Trilogy at Power Ranch’s board ultimately voted to settle and absorb its own fees after the dismissal, a reminder that the path through the courts can be expensive and end where it started.
Filing roadmap and PDF downloads
Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief filed against John Doe defendants.
Filed by: Association
The association opened the case before it had identified who was sending the emails.
Order denying service by alternative means.
Filed by: Superior Court
The court would not let the association serve anonymous defendants by email without first trying to identify them.
Order denying supplemental motion for alternative service.
Filed by: Superior Court
A second attempt to shortcut service was also denied.
Status conference order; motion for reconsideration denied.
Filed by: Superior Court
The court kept the case on track and addressed the service problems.
First Amended Complaint naming Steve Berman and Marc Herbener.
Filed by: Association
Once the senders were identified, the association named them as defendants.
Application for preliminary injunction.
Filed by: Association
The association asked the court to stop the emails while the case was pending.
Order setting a scheduling hearing on the injunction.
Filed by: Superior Court
The court set logistics for the injunction request.
Second Amended Complaint adding a spouse and money damages.
Filed by: Association
The association broadened the case to seek damages, not just an injunction.
Order to show cause return and evidentiary-hearing scheduling.
Filed by: Superior Court
The court set deadlines and an evidentiary hearing on the injunction.
Order setting the evidentiary hearing for the preliminary injunction.
Filed by: Superior Court
Companion order fixing the hearing and discovery schedule.
Order vacating the April 17 hearing on the court’s own motion.
Filed by: Superior Court
The court called off the scheduled hearing.
Order setting oral argument on the motion to dismiss for May 13.
Filed by: Superior Court
The focus shifted to the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Minute entry from oral argument; motion taken under advisement.
Filed by: Superior Court
The judge heard argument and took the dismissal question under advisement.
Ruling granting the motion to dismiss the operative complaint.
Filed by: Superior Court
Judge Como dismissed the case, finding no viable legal theory for the claims.
Stipulation to dismiss with prejudice, each side bearing its own fees.
Filed by: Parties
The parties agreed to end the case permanently, with no fee award to either side.
Complete uploaded source-document index
This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/trilogy-at-power-ranch-v-berman-cv2025-036771/raw/: 15 PDFs. Files are ordered by the date/sequence embedded in the normalized filename; AI-generated review materials are labeled separately and should not be treated as court filings.
Complaint
Type: Opening pleading
Starts or reframes the case and identifies the claims or relief requested.
Order Denying Alternative Service
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Order Denying Supplemental Alternative Service
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Status Conference Order
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
First Amended Complaint
Type: Opening pleading
Starts or reframes the case and identifies the claims or relief requested.
Application For Preliminary Injunction
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
Scheduling Hearing Order
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Second Amended Complaint
Type: Opening pleading
Starts or reframes the case and identifies the claims or relief requested.
Order To Show Cause Return And Evidentiary Hearing
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Order Setting Evidentiary Hearing
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Order Vacating Hearing
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Order Setting Oral Argument
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Minute Entry Motion To Dismiss Argument
Type: Court order/minute entry
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
Ruling Granting Motion To Dismiss
Type: Court order/minute entry
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
Stipulation Of Dismissal With Prejudice
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.