Turtle Rock III HOA v. Fisher: HOA Daily Fines Deemed Per Se Unreasonable Without Written Schedule

Posted on by

HOA Daily Fines & CC&Rs | A.R.S. § 33-1803(B) | 1 CA-CV 16-0455

An Arizona case illustrating the strict evidentiary standards homeowners associations must meet to legally impose fines. While homeowners must raise objections at trial to preserve them, HOAs must present their written fee policies to enforce monetary penalties.

Last updated June 30, 2026. Case: Turtle Rock III, Court of Appeals No. 1 CA-CV 16-0455; affirmed in part and reversed in part — opinion depublished by the Arizona Supreme Court (No. CV-17-0327-PR), so it is non-precedential.

Download the appellate opinion Download the appellate mandate Download the record index Source-file index FAQ

Scope note: This page covers the litigation between Turtle Rock III HOA and homeowner Lynne Fisher regarding property maintenance, daily fines, and subsequent appeal proceedings. While the opinion remains highly persuasive, it was depublished by the Arizona Supreme Court and therefore lacks precedential value. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The trial court’s injunction ordering property repairs is affirmed because the homeowner waived her interior maintenance objections by failing to raise them below, but the award of monetary penalties and attorneys’ fees is reversed because the association failed to present competent evidence of a pre-existing, promulgated fee schedule.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association (Plaintiff)
    Arizona non-profit corporation and planned community association
  • Clint G. Goodman (Counsel)
    Goodman Law Group, LLP
    Attorney representing Plaintiff/Appellee Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association
  • Scott L. Potter (Counsel)
    Goodman Law Offices, P.C.
    Attorney representing Plaintiff/Appellee Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association
  • Maura A. Abernethy (Counsel)
    Goodman Law Group, LLP
    Attorney representing Plaintiff/Appellee Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association
  • Ashley N. Moscarello (Counsel)
    Goodman Law Group, LLP
    Attorney representing Plaintiff/Appellee Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association
  • Gregory J. Wahl (Board Member)
    Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association
    HOA Board Member who verified the initial Complaint
  • Verl Curtiss (Witness)
    Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association
    HOA representative who testified at the evidentiary hearing
  • Annette Milauskas (Witness)
    Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association
    HOA member listed as witness and present at the evidentiary hearing

Respondent Side

  • Lynne A. Fisher (Defendant)
    Homeowner and record owner of property located at 901 E. Michigan Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona
  • James Roger Wood (Counsel)
    The Law Offices of J. Roger Wood, PLLC
    Lead attorney representing Defendant/Appellant Lynne A. Fisher; later disbarred
  • Erin S. Iungerich (Counsel)
    The Law Offices of J. Roger Wood, PLLC
    Attorney representing Defendant/Appellant Lynne A. Fisher
  • James B. Sweeney (Counsel)
    The Law Offices of J. Roger Wood, PLLC
    Attorney representing Defendant/Appellant Lynne A. Fisher

Neutral Parties

  • Hon. David M. Talamante (Judge)
    Maricopa County Superior Court
    Trial court judge who presided over the consolidated trial and evidentiary hearing
  • Hon. David K. Udall (Judge)
    Maricopa County Superior Court
    Original trial court judge before reassignment
  • Hon. Randall H. Warner (Judge)
    Maricopa County Superior Court
    Presiding Civil Judge who reassigned the case to Judge Talamante
  • Hon. Margaret Benny (Judge)
    Maricopa County Superior Court
    Superior Court Commissioner assigned to handle default judgment proceedings
  • Hon. Jon W. Thompson (Judge)
    Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
    Appellate judge who delivered the opinion of the court
  • Hon. Kent E. Cattani (Judge)
    Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
    Appellate judge who participated in the decision
  • Hon. Paul J. McMurdie (Judge)
    Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
    Appellate judge who participated in the decision
  • Hon. Scott Bales (Judge)
    Arizona Supreme Court
    Chief Justice who signed the order denying review and depublishing the appellate opinion
  • Hon. Melina Brill (Judge)
    Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
    Judge Pro Tempore who signed procedural scheduling orders
  • Hon. Barbara Vidal Vaught (Judge)
    Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
    Judge Pro Tempore who signed the order extending time for the answering brief
  • Amy M. Wood (Other)
    Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
    Clerk of the Court of Appeals, Division One
  • Ruth Willingham (Other)
    Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
    Former Clerk of the Court of Appeals, Division One
  • Janet Johnson (Other)
    Arizona Supreme Court
    Clerk of the Arizona Supreme Court
  • Michael K. Jeanes (Other)
    Maricopa County Superior Court
    Clerk of the Superior Court of Maricopa County
  • Chris DeRose (Other)
    Maricopa County Superior Court
    Clerk of the Superior Court of Maricopa County

What happened

Beginning in January 2014, the Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association sent numerous notices of violation to Lynne Fisher regarding maintenance issues at her property, including weedy landscaping, damaged gates, and a wood-rotted garage door. The HOA also cited interior conditions, such as dilapidated blinds and excessive storage items visible from the street. When Fisher failed to cure these issues, the HOA began assessing a daily fine of $25 and eventually filed a lawsuit in November 2015 for breach of contract and injunctive relief.

At the April 2016 evidentiary hearing, which was consolidated with a trial on the merits, Fisher’s counsel appeared but Fisher did not, and her counsel presented no evidence or witnesses. The trial court subsequently entered an injunction ordering Fisher to replace her backyard door, keep her yard free of weeds, replace her front window blinds, and move interior items that prevented the blinds from closing properly. The court also entered judgment against Fisher for $3,850 in penalties, $10,839.70 in attorneys’ fees, and $474 in costs.

Fisher appealed the judgment to the Arizona Court of Appeals, which affirmed the injunction but reversed the fines and fee awards. The HOA petitioned the Arizona Supreme Court, which initially granted review on the issue of ad hoc penalties but later vacated its order as improvidently granted, denying the petition and depublishing the Court of Appeals’ opinion.

Video overview: Enforcing HOA Fines

This video explains how an Arizona homeowners association lost its award of daily fines and attorneys’ fees because it failed to present its written fine schedule in court.

Procedural timeline

Step 2015-11-04 Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association files a Complaint for breach of contract and injunctive relief against record owner Lynne A. Fisher in Maricopa County Superior Court.
Step 2015-11-20 Superior Court issues an Order to Show Cause setting a preliminary return hearing.
Step 2015-11-30 Defendant Lynne Fisher is personally served with the summons, complaint, and application for injunction.
Step 2015-12-11 Counsel enters a Notice of Appearance for Fisher and files a Notice of Change of Judge as a Matter of Right.
Step 2015-12-16 The case is reassigned from Judge David Udall to Judge David Talamante.
Step 2015-12-30 Plaintiff files an Affidavit and Application for Entry of Default after Fisher fails to file a timely response.
Step 2016-01-04 Court enters a minute entry noting default paperwork issues regarding a default coversheet.
Step 2016-01-05 Court sets a return hearing on the application for preliminary injunction.
Step 2016-01-08 Fisher files her Answer admitting residency but denying CC&R violation allegations, alongside a Demand for Jury Trial.
Step 2016-01-12 HOA files an Objection to Defendant’s Demand for Jury Trial, arguing no jury right exists in equitable enforcement actions.
Step 2016-01-20 Court holds a status conference where it sets an evidentiary hearing.
Step 2016-02-26 Court issues an order scheduling an evidentiary hearing for April 15, 2016.
Step 2016-03-01 HOA files a Request for Clarification regarding whether the evidentiary hearing will be consolidated with a trial on the merits.
Step 2016-03-11 Court clarifies that the evidentiary hearing will address both injunctive relief and monetary penalties.
Step 2016-03-23 Court issues a 100-day notice directing the parties to submit a Joint Report and Scheduling Order.
Step 2016-04-02 Court issues a 150-day order providing scheduling directives.
Step 2016-04-08 HOA files its trial exhibits, including the CC&Rs, deed, account ledger, photographs, and warning letters.
Step 2016-04-12 The parties submit a Joint Pretrial Statement outlining uncontested facts and issues for trial.
Step 2016-04-15 Evidentiary hearing is held before Judge David Talamante; Fisher’s counsel is present, but Fisher fails to appear.
Step 2016-04-21 HOA files its Application for Monetary Penalties seeking $9,165.25 and Application for Attorney Fees and Costs seeking $10,839.70.
Step 2016-05-11 Fisher files her Objection to the Application for Monetary Penalties, arguing lack of proper notice under A.R.S. § 33-1803(B).
Step 2016-05-12 Fisher files a Response and Objection to the HOA’s Application for Attorney Fees and Costs.
Step 2016-05-25 HOA files replies defending its applications for fees and monetary penalties.
Step 2016-06-07 Judge David Talamante signs the final Order and Judgment, awarding the HOA injunctive relief, $3,850 in penalties, $10,839.70 in attorney fees, and $474 in costs.
Step 2016-06-23 HOA files a Petition and Declaration for Supplemental Proceedings to discover Fisher’s assets.
Step 2016-07-03 Fisher files her Notice of Appeal to the Arizona Court of Appeals.
Step 2016-07-26 The parties file a Stipulation to Post Supersedeas Bond of $15,163.70 to stay execution of judgment during the appeal.
Step 2016-08-09 Court signs the order approving the supersedeas bond stay.
Step 2016-08-30 Fisher deposits a cashier’s check of $15,163.00 with the court as a supersedeas bond.
Step 2016-11-21 Fisher files her Appellant’s Opening Brief in the Court of Appeals (1 CA-CV 16-0455).
Step 2017-02-08 HOA files its Appellee’s Answering Brief.
Step 2017-03-06 Fisher’s counsel J. Roger Wood files a Notice of Disbarment attaching his Judgment of Disbarment in case PDJ-2016-9132.
Step 2017-10-26 The Arizona Court of Appeals issues its Opinion affirming the injunction but reversing the monetary penalties and attorney fees.
Step 2017-11-01 HOA files a Motion for Reconsideration challenging the Court of Appeals’ opinion on fines and damages.
Step 2017-11-02 Court of Appeals denies the HOA’s Motion for Reconsideration.
Step 2017-11-27 HOA files a Petition for Review with the Arizona Supreme Court.
Step 2018-05-08 The Arizona Supreme Court grants the Petition for Review on reframed issues regarding ad hoc penalties (No. CV-17-0327-PR).
Step 2018-07-03 The Arizona Supreme Court vacates its order granting review as improvident, denies the Petition for Review, and depublishes the Court of Appeals’ Opinion (No. CV-17-0327-PR).
Step 2018-07-25 The Court of Appeals issues its Civil Mandate returning jurisdiction to the Superior Court to proceed in accordance with its opinion.

Complete uploaded source-document index

This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/turtle-rock-iii-homeowners-association-v-lynne-fisher/raw/: 97 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.

Source 1 2016-08-01

0000 Index Of Record

Type: Court/source PDF

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file
2016-08-01_001_0000-index-of-record.pdf
Source 2 2016-08-01

0001 Complaint

Type: Opening pleading

Starts or reframes the case and identifies the claims or relief requested.

Download source file
2016-08-01_002_0001-complaint.pdf
Source 4 2016-08-01

0003 Civil Cover Sheet

Type: Court/source PDF

Court intake document classifying the case for filing and assignment purposes.

Download source file
2016-08-01_004_0003-civil-coversheet.pdf
Source 7 2016-08-01

0006 Order To Show Cause

Type: Court order/minute entry

Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.

Download source file
2016-08-01_007_0006-order-to-show-cause.pdf
Source 8 2016-08-01

0007 Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2016-08-01_008_0007-certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 9 2016-08-01

0008 Notice Of Appearance

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2016-08-01_009_0008-notice-of-appearance.pdf
Source 11 2016-08-01

0010 Credit Memo

Type: Court/source PDF

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file
2016-08-01_011_0010-credit-memo.pdf
Source 12 2016-08-01

0011 Minute Entry Case Reassigned 12162015

Type: Court/source PDF

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file
2016-08-01_012_0011-me-case-reassigned-12162015.pdf
Source 15 2016-08-01

0014 Minute Entry Hearing Set 01052016

Type: Court/source PDF

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file
2016-08-01_015_0014-me-hearing-set-01052016.pdf
Source 19 2016-08-01

0018 Minute Entry Status Conference Set 01202016

Type: Court/source PDF

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file
2016-08-01_019_0018-me-status-conference-set-01202016.pdf
Source 21 2016-08-01

0020 Request For Clarification

Type: Motion/application

A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.

Download source file
2016-08-01_021_0020-request-for-clarification.pdf
Source 30 2016-08-01

0029 Joint Pretrial Statement

Type: Court/source PDF

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file
2016-08-01_030_0029-joint-pretrial-statement.pdf
Source 31 2016-08-01

0030 Minute Entry Ruling 04152016

Type: Court order/minute entry

Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.

Download source file
2016-08-01_031_0030-me-ruling-04152016.pdf
Source 35 2016-08-01

0034 Exhibit Worksheet Hd 04152016

Type: Court/source PDF

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file
2016-08-01_035_0034-exhibit-worksheet-hd-04152016.pdf
Source 40 2016-08-01

0039 Order And Judgment

Type: Decision or judgment

Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.

Download source file
2016-08-01_040_0039-order-and-judgment.pdf
Source 46 2016-08-16

0000 Case Management Statement

Type: Court/source PDF

Case-management filing; it tells the court how the parties propose to schedule and manage the case.

Download source file
2016-08-16_046_0000-case-management-statement.pdf
Source 54 2016-11-01

0001 Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2016-11-01_055_0001-certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 57 2016-11-14

0001 Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2016-11-14_058_0001-certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 60 2016-11-21

0001 Certificate Of Compliance

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2016-11-21_061_0001-certificate-of-compliance.pdf
Source 63 2016-12-28

0001 Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2016-12-28_064_0001-certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 66 2017-02-08

0001 Certificate Of Compliance

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2017-02-08_067_0001-certificate-of-compliance.pdf
Source 67 2017-02-08

0002 Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2017-02-08_068_0002-certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 72 2017-04-17

0044 Court Of Appeals Receipt

Type: Court/source PDF

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file
2017-04-17_073_0044-court-of-appeals-receipt.pdf
Source 73 2017-04-17

0045 Electronic Index Of Record

Type: Court/source PDF

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file
2017-04-17_074_0045-electronic-index-of-record.pdf
Source 75 2017-04-17

0047 Court Of Appeals Receipt

Type: Court/source PDF

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file
2017-04-17_076_0047-court-of-appeals-receipt.pdf
Source 79 2017-10-26

0000 Opinion

Type: Decision or judgment

Opinion holding that the trial court’s injunction ordering property repairs is affirmed because the homeowner waived her interior maintenance objections by failing to raise them below, but the award of monetary penalties and attorneys’ fees is reversed because the association failed to present competent evidence of a pre-existing, promulgated fee schedule.

Download source file
2017-10-26_080_0000-opinion.pdf
Source 81 2017-11-01

0000 Motion For Reconsideration

Type: Motion/application

A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.

Download source file
2017-11-01_082_0000-motion-for-reconsideration.pdf
Source 82 2017-11-01

0001 Certificate Of Compliance

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2017-11-01_083_0001-certificate-of-compliance.pdf
Source 83 2017-11-01

0002 Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file
2017-11-01_084_0002-certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 95 2018-07-25

0000 Civil Mandate

Type: Decision or judgment

Decision document; read it to understand the controlling result before moving to later filings.

Download source file
2018-07-25_096_0000-civil-mandate.pdf

FAQ

Can an Arizona HOA impose daily fines on a homeowner without a written fine schedule?

No. Under A.R.S. § 33-1803(B), an HOA must establish and timely distribute a written schedule of penalties before imposing fines. In this case, the court ruled that failing to introduce the written fine schedule into evidence makes any assessed daily penalties ad hoc and per se unreasonable.

Does this Court of Appeals decision set a binding legal precedent for other Arizona HOAs?

No. Although the Court of Appeals issued a published opinion in 2017, the Arizona Supreme Court subsequently vacated its review and ordered the opinion depublished in July 2018. Therefore, this decision is non-precedential and cannot be cited as binding authority, though it remains highly persuasive regarding how courts evaluate ad hoc HOA penalties.

Can an HOA regulate or issue an injunction regarding the interior of a home?

Yes, but only under limited circumstances. Here, the court affirmed an injunction requiring the homeowner to replace dilapidated front-window blinds and move interior storage items back so the blinds could close. The court noted that because these conditions were ‘visible from neighboring property,’ they fell under the HOA’s authority to maintain community aesthetics under the CC&Rs.

What happens if a homeowner fails to participate in the trial court proceedings but appeals the decision?

The homeowner will likely lose on appeal. In this case, because the homeowner failed to attend the trial and her attorney did not object to the property maintenance allegations, the Court of Appeals held she waived her right to contest the injunction. Unpreserved arguments cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.

Can an HOA recover its attorneys’ fees if its daily fines are overturned on appeal?

If an HOA’s fine award is completely reversed on appeal, it may lose its status as the ‘successful party’ regarding those monetary claims. Here, because the Court of Appeals reversed the monetary penalties, it also reversed the trial court’s award of $10,839.70 in attorneys’ fees to the HOA, and denied appellate fee requests for both parties as neither was wholly successful.

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 / citation1 CA-CV 16-0455
Court / tribunalCourt of Appeals
Decision / key dateOctober 26, 2017
Judge / panelHon. Jon W. Thompson, Hon. Kent E. Cattani, Hon. Paul J. McMurdie
PartiesTurtle Rock III Homeowners Association (Plaintiff/Appellee) v. Lynne A. Fisher (Defendant/Appellant)
Governing law
Topics
cc-and-rsfinesattorneys-feesprocedure
Outcome / holding

The trial court’s injunction ordering property repairs is affirmed because the homeowner waived her interior maintenance objections by failing to raise them below, but the award of monetary penalties and attorneys’ fees is reversed because the association failed to present competent evidence of a pre-existing, promulgated fee schedule.

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package97 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap39 roadmap entries
Video overviewTurtle Rock III: Enforcing HOA Fines
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Curated download aliases3 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Turtle Rock III Homeowners Association filed a lawsuit against homeowner Lynne Fisher in Maricopa County Superior Court, alleging multiple ongoing violations of the community’s CC&Rs regarding her property’s maintenance. The violations included missing and damaged gates, weeds, and a wood-rotted garage door, alongside interior conditions and dilapidated blinds visible from the street. Following an evidentiary hearing where Fisher failed to appear but was represented by counsel, the trial court granted a permanent injunction ordering repairs and awarded the HOA $3,850 in monetary penalties, $10,839.70 in attorneys’ fees, and $474 in costs. On appeal, the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the injunction, holding that Fisher waived her objections to both the exterior and interior repairs by failing to raise them below. However, the court reversed the monetary penalties and attorneys’ fees because the HOA failed to introduce its written fine schedule into evidence, making the fines per se unreasonable.

Key Issues & Findings

The Court of Appeals affirmed the injunction because Fisher failed to object to the required maintenance items at the trial court level, thereby waiving her arguments on appeal. Additionally, because the hearing transcript was missing, the court presumed the record supported the trial court’s injunctive order regarding both the exterior repairs and the interior adjustments to her window blinds and personal property.

On the issue of monetary penalties, the court held that under state statute (A.R.S. § 33-1803(B)) and established precedent (Villas at Hidden Lakes), community associations must timely promulgate and prove a written schedule of fines before imposing monetary penalties. Because the Association failed to introduce its fine schedule into evidence during the trial, the daily penalties were deemed ad hoc and per se unreasonable.

Finally, because the monetary penalties were reversed, the associated award of trial-level attorneys’ fees was also reversed, and neither party was awarded attorneys’ fees on appeal because neither was wholly successful.

Why It Matters

This case establishes a critical limit on the enforcement and regulatory powers of Arizona homeowners associations, declaring that ad hoc fines are per se unreasonable. To lawfully impose monetary penalties, an HOA must adopt and document a written fine schedule before any violations occur and must be prepared to introduce the actual written policy into evidence in court rather than relying on oral testimony.

For homeowners, the case underscores the severe procedural consequences of failing to participate in trial court proceedings or raise timely objections, as unpreserved arguments are deemed waived on appeal. For legal practitioners, it serves as a reminder under the Best Evidence Rule that proving contractual damages or fine authority requires entering the original written policies directly into the record.

← Back to Court of Appeals cases

Facebook Comments Box