Board Governance & Arbitration | A.R.S. §§ 12-1512, 12-349 | 1 CA-CV 24-0594
How a self-represented condo owner’s fiduciary-duty and quorum claims were resolved through dismissal, arbitration, and a strict appellate deadline—and why the association recovered its fees.
Last updated June 30, 2026. Case: Paul Gounder, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Royal Riviera Condominium Association, Defendant/Appellee., 1 CA-CV 24-0594.
Scope note: This page covers Paul Gounder, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Royal Riviera Condominium Association, Defendant/Appellee. (1 CA-CV 24-0594) 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
The Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court’s confirmation of the arbitration award, holding that Gounder failed to file a notice of appeal within the 20-day window and, even if his filings were treated as a timely appeal, he made no adequate showing of any statutory ground—such as arbitrator partiality—to vacate the award.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Paul Gounder (Appellant)
Condominium owner (Plaintiff/Appellant) who sued his HOA; appeared self-represented (in propria persona).
Respondent Side
- Royal Riviera Condominium Association (Appellee)
The condominium homeowners’ association (Defendant/Appellee) sued by one of its owners; prevailing party below and on appeal. - Charles D. Onofry (Counsel)
Schneider & Onofry, P.C.
Counsel for Defendant/Appellee Royal Riviera Condominium Association. - ReNae A. Nachman (Counsel)
Schneider & Onofry, P.C.
Counsel for Defendant/Appellee Royal Riviera Condominium Association. - Dee R. Giles (Counsel)
Schneider & Onofry, P.C.
Counsel for Defendant/Appellee Royal Riviera Condominium Association.
Neutral Parties
- Randall M. Howe (Judge)
Vice Chief Judge; authored the memorandum decision for the Court of Appeals, Division One. - Brian Y. Furuya (Judge)
Presiding Judge; joined the memorandum decision. - David B. Gass (Judge)
Chief Judge; joined the memorandum decision. - Susanna C. Pineda (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court judge whose judgment confirming the arbitration award was affirmed.
What happened
In early 2023, Paul Gounder sued the Royal Riviera Condominium Association, the HOA for his community, in Maricopa County Superior Court. His complaint listed a range of grievances, including allegations that the association held meetings without a quorum, that it breached its fiduciary duty by “not enforcing the rules,” and that the HOA’s president and secretary were “in cahoots” and had “hijacked” the association.
The association moved to dismiss, arguing the complaint violated basic pleading rules and made it impossible to answer. The superior court agreed that the complaint did not comply with the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure and dismissed it, but gave Gounder leave to amend. His amended complaint raised functionally the same claims while adding requests for the maximum compensatory and punitive damages, liens against individual units, and a permanent ban on certain individuals serving on the board. The court dismissed several of these claims and the punitive-damages request.
The association then successfully moved to compel arbitration. Both sides submitted documents and attended the arbitration hearing, after which the arbitrator ruled for the association and awarded it costs and attorney’s fees. Gounder objected to the arbitrator’s notice of decision and later moved to sanction both the arbitrator and the association, but he did not file a notice of appeal from the final award within the 20-day period set by the rules. The superior court entered judgment confirming the award.
Representing himself, Gounder appealed to the Arizona Court of Appeals, arguing that the arbitrator made procedural errors and was biased and that the superior court violated his due-process rights and possibly engaged in misconduct. Division One affirmed, concluding that Gounder had not timely appealed the arbitration award and, regardless, had not made the required showing of any statutory ground to overturn it. The court awarded the association its appellate attorney’s fees and costs but declined to impose sanctions.
Procedural timeline
Complete uploaded source-document index
This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/gounder-v-royal-riviera-condominium-association/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 the Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court’s confirmation of the arbitration award, holding that Gounder failed to file a notice of appeal within the 20-day window and, even if his filings were treated as a timely appeal, he made no adequate showing of any statutory ground—such as arbitrator partiality—to vacate the award.
FAQ
Who won Gounder v. Royal Riviera Condominium Association?
The condominium association won. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court’s judgment confirming the arbitration award in the association’s favor and awarded the association its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs on appeal.
Why did the owner’s appeal fail?
Primarily because it was untimely. Under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 77(b), a party must file a notice of appeal from a compulsory arbitration award within 20 days after the award is filed. The award was filed March 18, 2024, and none of Gounder’s filings—an earlier objection and later sanction motions—qualified as a timely notice of appeal.
What claims did the owner make against the HOA?
Gounder alleged, among other things, that the association held meetings without a quorum, breached its fiduciary duty by not enforcing the rules, and that board officers had “hijacked” the association. The courts never reached the merits of these claims; the case was resolved on pleading, arbitration, and procedural grounds.
What happened with the arbitrator-bias argument?
The court explained that a party claiming arbitrator partiality bears the burden of producing evidence of bias. Gounder offered no adequate evidence, and his objections—such as the arbitrator accepting hard-copy documents or once using an incorrect name for the association—did not show prejudice, so there was no statutory ground to vacate the award under A.R.S. § 12-1512(A).
Did the owner have to pay the association’s attorney’s fees?
Yes. As the successful party on appeal, Royal Riviera was awarded its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs under A.R.S. §§ 12-341 and 12-341.01, upon compliance with the appellate rules. The court declined, however, to impose additional sanctions under A.R.S. § 12-349.
Is this decision binding precedent in Arizona?
No. It is an unpublished memorandum decision. Under Arizona Supreme Court Rule 111(c), it is not precedential and may be cited only as authorized by 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 24-0594 |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Court of Appeals |
| Decision / key date | March 13, 2025 |
| Judge / panel | Randall M. Howe, Brian Y. Furuya, David B. Gass |
| Parties | Paul Gounder (Plaintiff/Appellant) v. Royal Riviera Condominium Association (Defendant/Appellee) |
| Governing law | |
| Topics | procedureboard-governancemeetings-and-recordsattorneys-fees |
| Outcome / holding | The Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court’s confirmation of the arbitration award, holding that Gounder failed to file a notice of appeal within the 20-day window and, even if his filings were treated as a timely appeal, he made no adequate showing of any statutory ground—such as arbitrator partiality—to vacate the award. |
| Primary public source | View source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Uploaded source package | 1 PDF |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 10 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
Paul Gounder, an owner in the Royal Riviera Condominium Association, sued his HOA in Maricopa County Superior Court, alleging that the association held meetings without a quorum, breached its fiduciary duty by not enforcing the rules, and that board officers had “hijacked” the association. The superior court dismissed his original complaint for failing to comply with the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure but allowed him to amend. After the amended complaint, the court dismissed several claims and compelled arbitration. The arbitrator found for the association and awarded it costs and attorney’s fees, and the superior court confirmed the award. Representing himself, Gounder appealed, arguing procedural errors, arbitrator bias, and due-process violations. Division One of the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Gounder did not timely appeal the arbitration award and, in any event, made no adequate showing of any statutory ground to overturn it. The court awarded the association its appellate attorney’s fees.
The court reviewed the confirmation of an arbitration award for an abuse of discretion, emphasizing that judicial review of arbitration awards is severely limited. Under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 77(b), a party who participates in compulsory arbitration must file a notice of appeal within 20 days after the award is filed. The arbitrator filed the award on March 18, 2024, but none of Gounder’s filings functioned as a timely appeal: his objection was filed March 3—before the final award—and his motions to sanction the arbitrator (March 18) and the association (March 21) could not be construed as a notice of appeal. Because Gounder did not timely appeal, the superior court did not err in entering judgment on the award.
The court further explained that, even if Gounder’s motions were treated as a timely appeal, an appeal from an arbitration award requires an adequate showing of one of the narrow statutory grounds in A.R.S. § 12-1512(A). Gounder disagreed with the arbitrator’s findings and asserted bias, but the party alleging partiality bears the burden of producing evidence of it, and Gounder offered none. His complaints that the arbitrator accepted hard-copy documents and once used an incorrect name for the association did not show prejudice, because he had received the documents beforehand and both the award and the judgment used the association’s correct name.
The court also rejected Gounder’s contention that the superior court disregarded due process or engaged in misconduct, noting that he failed to support those allegations with references to the record as required by ARCAP 13(7). Affirming the judgment, the court awarded Royal Riviera its reasonable appellate attorney’s fees and costs under A.R.S. §§ 12-341 and 12-341.01, but in its discretion denied the association’s request for sanctions under A.R.S. § 12-349.
This unpublished decision is a useful cautionary example of how condominium-governance disputes can go wrong procedurally for an owner acting without a lawyer. Gounder raised the kinds of concerns owners often have about their associations—meetings allegedly held without a quorum, claims that the board breached its fiduciary duty by not enforcing the rules, and assertions that officers had improperly taken control of the association—but the merits of those grievances were never decided on appeal. Instead, the case turned on procedure: a complaint dismissed for not following the pleading rules, an order compelling arbitration, and, ultimately, the failure to file a notice of appeal from the arbitration award within the 20-day deadline.
For owners and boards alike, the opinion underscores that even legitimate-sounding governance complaints must be pleaded properly, supported with evidence, and pursued within strict deadlines—and that the losing party in HOA litigation can face liability for the association’s attorney’s fees. It is not a homeowner victory, but it illustrates the practical importance of pleading standards, arbitration procedure, appellate deadlines, and the evidentiary burden for claims like arbitrator bias.