Assessments | A.R.S. §§ 22-201, 12-341.01 | 1 CA-CV 24-0377
A homeowner argued a prior settlement order permanently excused him from HOA assessments. Division One explained why the order was a nullity and why the association’s contract-based fee award stood while the third-party defendants’ fees did not.
Last updated June 30, 2026. Case: Lakewood Estates Homeowners Association, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Michael A. Urbano, Defendant/Appellant, 1 CA-CV 24-0377.
Scope note: This page covers Lakewood Estates Homeowners Association, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Michael A. Urbano, Defendant/Appellant (1 CA-CV 24-0377) as a public Arizona Court of Appeals HOA case guide. The source decision came from Division One. The downloadable source-document index below is generated from local raw source files when a PDF opinion is available. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The takeaway
A justice court’s 2014 order purporting to void all of a homeowner’s future HOA assessments was void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, so the HOA was entitled to summary judgment and contract-based attorney fees on the unpaid assessments; however, the third-party defendants’ attorney-fee award was reversed because the tort claims against them did not arise out of the contract.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Michael A. Urbano (Appellant)
Homeowner and defendant below who appealed the summary judgment and the attorney-fee awards. - Ernest Collins, Jr. (Counsel)
The Collins Law Firm, PLLC
Counsel for Defendant/Appellant Michael A. Urbano.
Respondent Side
- Lakewood Estates Homeowners Association (Appellee)
HOA and plaintiff below; sued Urbano for unpaid assessments and prevailed on its contract claims at trial and on appeal. - Susan Smith (Defendant)
HOA’s property manager; third-party defendant sued by Urbano on tort claims. - AAM (Defendant)
Property management company; third-party defendant sued by Urbano on tort claims (collectively, with Susan Smith, the Third-Party Defendants). - Quinten T. Cupps (Counsel)
Vial Fotheringham, LLP
Co-counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee Lakewood Estates HOA. - Christina N. Morgan (Counsel)
Vial Fotheringham, LLP
Co-counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee Lakewood Estates HOA. - Deeann M. Barnes (Counsel)
Vial Fotheringham, LLP
Co-counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee Lakewood Estates HOA. - Andrew Apodaca (Counsel)
Goering Roberts Rubin Brogna Enos & Treadwell-Ruben, PC
Co-counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee Lakewood Estates HOA.
Neutral Parties
- David D. Weinzweig (Judge)
Court of Appeals judge who authored the memorandum decision. - Michael S. Catlett (Judge)
Presiding Judge of the Court of Appeals panel; joined the decision. - Daniel J. Kiley (Judge)
Court of Appeals judge; joined the decision. - Timothy J. Ryan (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court judge whose orders were reviewed on appeal.
What happened
Michael Urbano purchased a house in the Lakewood Estates community in 2005. In doing so, he agreed to the recorded covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) running with the property and promised to pay assessments used to maintain the community’s common areas.
In 2014, the Lakewood Estates Homeowners Association sued Urbano in justice court, alleging he had failed to pay assessments. The parties settled, and the justice court entered an order dismissing the case with prejudice. That 2014 order stated that any and all future liens, encumbrances, and assessments against Urbano would be deemed void and invalid.
Six years later, the HOA again sued Urbano in justice court for unpaid assessments. Urbano contended that the 2014 order and a confidential settlement agreement relieved him of any obligation to pay, and he counterclaimed for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, abuse of process, and punitive damages. The matter was transferred to the superior court.
While the lawsuit was pending, Urbano had an altercation with the HOA’s property manager over tree trimmings; police were called and a report was filed, but nothing further came of it. Urbano then asserted tort claims (harassment, defamation, and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress) against the HOA and two third-party defendants — property manager Susan Smith and management company AAM — and added them to his abuse-of-process and punitive-damages claims.
The HOA and the third-party defendants moved for summary judgment, which the superior court granted. The court found the 2014 order void because the justice court had lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to relieve Urbano of all future assessments. After an evidentiary hearing, the court awarded attorney fees of $31,830 to the HOA and $83,413 to the third-party defendants.
Urbano appealed. The Court of Appeals, Division One, affirmed the rulings voiding the 2014 order, granting the HOA summary judgment, and awarding the HOA’s fees, and it granted the HOA’s appellate fees under the CC&Rs. It reversed the award of attorney fees to the third-party defendants because Urbano’s tort claims against them did not arise out of the contract.
Procedural timeline
Complete uploaded source-document index
This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/lakewood-estates-homeowners-association-v-urbano/raw/: 1 PDF. 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.
Memorandum Decision
Type: Decision or judgment
Memorandum decision holding that a justice court’s 2014 order purporting to void all of a homeowner’s future HOA assessments was void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, so the HOA was entitled to summary judgment and contract-based attorney fees on the unpaid assessments; however, the third-party defendants’ attorney-fee award was reversed because the tort claims against them did not arise out of the contract.
FAQ
Did a prior settlement or court order excuse Urbano from paying HOA assessments?
No. The 2014 justice-court order purported to void all of Urbano’s future liens, encumbrances, and assessments, but the Court of Appeals held that order was void because the justice court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to grant that relief. A void order is treated as a nullity, so it could not excuse him from paying assessments.
Why did the justice court lack jurisdiction to void future assessments?
Under A.R.S. § 22-201, justice courts can hear civil matters only when the amount involved is under $10,000 or when the dispute concerns the right to possess (not title to) real property. Declaring all of an owner’s future assessments void fit neither category, so the 2014 order exceeded the justice court’s authority and was void.
How did the CC&Rs affect the outcome?
The court treated the CC&Rs as a contract between the association and the lot owners. Because it was undisputed that Urbano agreed to the CC&Rs, failed to pay assessments, and had an outstanding balance, the HOA was entitled to summary judgment. Urbano’s claimed oral agreement could not override the CC&Rs, which required any amendment to the declaration to be signed by the president or vice president and recorded — which never happened.
Why was the HOA awarded attorney fees but the third-party defendants’ fee award reversed?
Under A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A), a court may award fees to the successful party in an action arising out of contract, and the HOA’s assessment dispute arose from the CC&Rs. The third-party defendants (the property manager and management company) were sued on tort claims stemming from an altercation over tree trimmings, which did not arise out of the contract, so their $83,413 fee award was reversed.
What was the final outcome of the appeal?
The Court of Appeals affirmed the rulings voiding the 2014 order, granting the HOA summary judgment, and awarding the HOA $31,830 in fees, and it granted the HOA’s appellate fees under the CC&Rs. It reversed only the award of attorney fees to the third-party defendants.
Is this decision binding precedent?
No. It is an unpublished memorandum decision of the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One. Under Arizona Supreme Court Rule 111(c), it is not precedential and may be cited only as authorized by the rule.
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 | 1 CA-CV 24-0377 |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Court of Appeals |
| Decision / key date | March 6, 2025 |
| Judge / panel | David D. Weinzweig, Michael S. Catlett, Daniel J. Kiley |
| Parties | Lakewood Estates Homeowners Association (Plaintiff/Appellee) v. Michael A. Urbano (Defendant/Appellant) |
| Governing law | |
| Topics | assessmentsattorneys-feescc-and-rsprocedure |
| Outcome / holding | A justice court’s 2014 order purporting to void all of a homeowner’s future HOA assessments was void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, so the HOA was entitled to summary judgment and contract-based attorney fees on the unpaid assessments; however, the third-party defendants’ attorney-fee award was reversed because the tort claims against them did not arise out of the contract. |
| Primary public source | View source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Uploaded source package | 1 PDF |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 5 roadmap entries |
| Video overview | No video embed currently configured |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 6 questions |
| Curated download aliases | 1 download link |
Key Issues & Findings
Michael Urbano bought a home in Lakewood Estates in 2005 and agreed to the community’s CC&Rs, which obligated owners to pay HOA assessments. After the HOA sued him for unpaid assessments in justice court in 2014, the parties settled and the justice court entered a 2014 order stating that any and all future liens, encumbrances, and assessments against Urbano would be void. Six years later the HOA again sued for unpaid assessments; Urbano invoked the 2014 order and a confidential settlement agreement, counterclaimed, and added tort claims against the HOA’s property manager and management company. The superior court found the 2014 order void for lack of jurisdiction, granted the HOA summary judgment, and awarded attorney fees to the HOA and the third-party defendants. On appeal, Division One affirmed the void ruling, the summary judgment, and the HOA’s fee award, but reversed the fee award to the third-party defendants.
Justice courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and possess only the authority statutes affirmatively confer. Under A.R.S. § 22-201, they may hear civil actions when the amount involved is under $10,000 or when the dispute concerns the right to possess (but not title to) real property. The 2014 order declared all of Urbano’s future liens, encumbrances, and assessments void — relief that is neither a monetary remedy under $10,000 nor a matter of possession — so the justice court exceeded its subject-matter jurisdiction and the order was void. A void order is a nullity, and the parties may proceed as though it had never been entered. Urbano’s new promissory-estoppel theory was waived because he never raised it below.
On the merits, to prove breach of contract the HOA had to establish a contract, a breach, and resulting damages. CC&Rs constitute a contract between the association and the individual lot owners, and it was undisputed that Urbano agreed to the CC&Rs, failed to pay assessments, and carried an outstanding balance. Urbano’s affirmative defense rested on the void 2014 order (a nullity, ineffective for any purpose) and an alleged oral agreement, but the CC&Rs required any amendment to the declaration to be signed by the HOA’s president or vice president and recorded, which never occurred. The alleged oral agreement therefore could not create a material factual dispute, and summary judgment was proper.
As to fees, A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A) permits a court to award reasonable fees to the successful party in a contested action arising out of contract, and fees on tort claims only when the tort is so interwoven with the contract that it could not exist but for the breach. The HOA’s $31,830 fee award was within the court’s discretion, supported by consideration of relevant factors such as Urbano’s counterclaims and discovery, and no on-the-record findings were required. The third-party defendants’ fee award, however, had to be reversed: Urbano’s tort claims arose from his altercation with the property manager over tree trimmings, which was unrelated to the assessment/contract dispute. The court also granted the HOA its appellate fees under the CC&Rs but declined the third-party defendants’ appellate fee request for lack of a contractual or other basis.
This decision illustrates that a settlement or court order does not necessarily eliminate an owner’s ongoing obligation to pay HOA assessments — especially where the order was entered by a court that lacked authority to grant that relief. Homeowners sometimes assume that one settlement, dismissal, or order permanently resolves future HOA charges, but here the 2014 justice-court order was treated as a nullity, and assessments continued to accrue and remain enforceable under the CC&Rs.
The case also highlights attorney-fee exposure. Because CC&Rs operate as a contract, an owner who unsuccessfully litigates an assessment dispute can be ordered to pay the association’s fees (here $31,830 plus appellate fees), while unrelated tort claims may not support a fee award against the party who brought them. For anyone relying on a prior agreement to avoid future assessments, the decision underscores the importance of ensuring that any change to assessment obligations is made through a valid, properly recorded amendment to the governing documents.