Superior Court HOA Case
A Maricopa County judge granted Val Vista Classic Community Association summary judgment in an unpaid-assessment foreclosure case.
Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Val Vista Classic Community Association v. Levi Rosenbaum, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2024-003271.
Scope note: This page covers Val Vista Classic Community Association v. Levi Rosenbaum (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2024-003271) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s own filed minute entries, especially the May 11, 2026 under-advisement summary-judgment ruling; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: the last collected minute entry, dated May 15, 2026, denies reconsideration, a motion to quash, and a stay request after summary judgment; the collected entries do not show a signed final judgment amount. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The takeaway
The court granted the association summary judgment in a routine unpaid-assessment foreclosure case. It held the CC&Rs were a contract, the record showed nonpayment and collection charges, Rosenbaum did not produce evidence that the association misapplied a payment or fraudulently placed the lien, and foreclosure on the HOA lien was permissible.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Val Vista Classic Community Association (Plaintiff)
Homeowners association seeking breach-of-contract relief and foreclosure based on unpaid assessments and related charges. - Nikita Verma Patel (Counsel)
Counsel of record for the association in the case-party records and minute entries. - Ember Ann Van Vranken (Counsel)
Counsel appearing for the association in later status, discovery, and summary-judgment proceedings.
Respondent Side
- Levi Rosenbaum (Defendant)
Self-represented homeowner who disputed the association’s collection position and raised payment, discovery, and joinder arguments.
Neutral Parties
- Susanna C. Pineda (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court judge who handled the case and issued the May 11, 2026 summary-judgment ruling.
What happened
Val Vista Classic Community Association filed suit in February 2024 alleging breach of contract and foreclosure based on unpaid HOA assessments. The association claimed it had placed a lien on the homeowner’s residence and sought foreclosure on that lien. Early in the case, the court denied default because Rosenbaum had filed a motion to dismiss, then treated his response as an answer and denied dismissal.
The litigation moved through scheduling, ADR, arbitration, and discovery disputes. At one point the case was sent to compulsory arbitration, but the court later vacated that order because the association sought foreclosure on unpaid HOA fees and fines. The court also denied several discovery, joinder, and reconsideration motions, and denied an interim fee application without prejudice as untimely.
The central merits dispute concerned whether Rosenbaum owed assessments and related charges. The May 11, 2026 ruling states that monthly HOA fees were normally $195.00, that earlier payments had been returned for insufficient funds, that Rosenbaum’s last actual payment was in March 2022, and that a third-party assistance payment had been credited to a separate account rather than the account at issue in this case.
Judge Susanna Pineda granted the association summary judgment. Viewing the record under Rule 56, the court found evidence of a contract, breach, contractual assessment and collection obligations, and a lien remedy. The court found Rosenbaum did not produce evidence showing the association misapplied the assistance payment, was required to accept his later settlement proposal, or engaged in fraudulent lien activity.
The court denied Rosenbaum’s request for summary judgment, ordered the association to lodge a proposed form of judgment, vacated the future trial-management conference and jury trial, and deemed remaining motions moot. On May 15, 2026, the court denied Rosenbaum’s motion for reconsideration of the summary-judgment ruling, motion to quash, and request for stay.
Video overview of the ruling
An AI-generated video overview of Val Vista Classic Community Association v. Levi Rosenbaum (CV2024-003271 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). Routine HOA assessment foreclosure: unpaid assessments supported summary judgment for the association. This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own ruling controls.
Listen: audio deep dive on the ruling
An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the court’s reasoning and disposition in Val Vista Classic Community Association v. Levi Rosenbaum. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.
Procedural timeline
Complete uploaded source-document index
This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/val-vista-classic-community-association-v-levi-rosenbaum/raw/: 28 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.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Minute entry extending the dismissal-calendar deadline after service and before completion of the default process.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Minute entry again extending the dismissal-calendar deadline unless the association completed the default process.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying the association’s application for default because Rosenbaum had filed a motion to dismiss as a responsive pleading.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling treating Rosenbaum’s response as an answer and denying his motion to dismiss based on payment-portal access and service arguments.
Oral Argument Set
Type: Court/source PDF
Minute entry setting a Rule 16 scheduling conference.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Minute entry referring the parties to a mandatory settlement conference process.
Status Conference
Type: Court/source PDF
Rule 16 status-conference minute entry finding the case subject to compulsory arbitration and transferring it to the arbitration desk.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Minute entry vacating the trial-setting conference after the arbitration transfer.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Minute entry ordering Rosenbaum to respond to the association’s reconsideration motion on compulsory arbitration.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Minute entry vacating the ADR referral after the parties did not submit the required readiness certification.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling granting reconsideration of the arbitration transfer and holding the case was not subject to compulsory arbitration because the association sought foreclosure on unpaid HOA fees and fines.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Minute entry again referring the parties to a mandatory settlement conference process.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling rejecting a unilateral settlement-conference readiness certificate and vacating the ADR referral.
Oral Argument Set
Type: Court/source PDF
Minute entry setting an order-to-show-cause hearing on the association’s discovery-dispute filing seeking to compel discovery and obtain sanctions.
Status Conference
Type: Court/source PDF
Status-conference minute entry giving Rosenbaum thirty additional days to respond to written discovery and discussing payments, the payment portal, ADR, and scheduling.
Oral Argument Set
Type: Court/source PDF
Minute entry resetting the trial-setting conference.
Status Conference
Type: Court/source PDF
Trial-setting conference minute entry giving Rosenbaum until January 22, 2026 to respond to the association’s summary-judgment motion and setting future trial dates while the motion remained pending.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying without prejudice the association’s fee application for defending dismissed counterclaims as untimely, subject to the outcome of the association’s claim.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying Rosenbaum’s discovery motion, Rule 60 motion, and additional fee-response filing.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Nunc pro tunc ruling correcting the January 20 order to refer to Rosenbaum’s motion rather than the association’s motion.
Oral Argument Set
Type: Court/source PDF
Minute entry setting oral argument on the association’s summary-judgment motion.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling giving the association time to respond to Rosenbaum’s motion to compel discovery and motion to join an indispensable party, and denying his request to submit those motions for decision as premature.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying Rosenbaum’s motion to compel discovery, denying his motion to join an indispensable party, and denying the association’s related fee request.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying as moot Rosenbaum’s renewed request to submit pending motions for decision after the court had ruled on the discovery and joinder motions.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying Rosenbaum’s motion for reconsideration of the April 16, 2026 minute entry.
Oral Argument
Type: Court/source PDF
Oral-argument minute entry taking the association’s summary-judgment motion under advisement.
Under Advisement Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Under-advisement ruling granting the association summary judgment on its unpaid-assessment contract and foreclosure claims, denying Rosenbaum summary judgment, vacating trial settings, and requiring the association to lodge a proposed judgment.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying Rosenbaum’s motion for reconsideration, motion to quash, and request for stay after the summary-judgment ruling.
FAQ
Was this a must-read HOA ruling?
No. The case is HOA-relevant, but it is a routine assessment-collection and foreclosure ruling. The court did not identify or analyze a novel HOA statute or CC&R interpretation issue.
Why did the court grant summary judgment for the association?
The court found evidence of the CC&Rs as a contract, unpaid assessments and returned payments, collection charges, attorneys’ fees tied to nonpayment, and an HOA lien remedy. Rosenbaum did not produce evidence creating a genuine dispute on those points.
What happened to the payment-portal argument?
The court treated lack of payment-portal access as a defense that could be addressed in the case, but at summary judgment found Rosenbaum had not shown the association was required to accept his proposed settlement or reopen ordinary payment handling after the account entered collections.
Did the court say a third-party payment was misapplied?
No. The May 11, 2026 ruling states that the third-party payment was credited to a separate account and that Rosenbaum did not provide evidence showing the association misapplied that payment to the wrong account.
Was final judgment already entered in the collected entries?
The collected entries show summary judgment and denial of reconsideration, but they do not show the signed final judgment amount. The May 11 ruling ordered the association to submit a proposed form of judgment.
What privacy information was omitted from this page?
The minute entries include the homeowner’s residential address and other contact details. Those details are intentionally omitted here because this page is an educational case summary, not a republication of private contact information.
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 | CV2024-003271 (Maricopa County Superior Court) |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Superior Court |
| Decision / key date | May 11, 2026 |
| Judge / panel | Hon. Susanna C. Pineda |
| Parties | Val Vista Classic Community Association (Plaintiff, homeowners association) v. Levi Rosenbaum (Defendant, homeowner) |
| Topics | assessmentsforeclosureliensattorneys-feesprocedure |
| Outcome / holding | The superior court granted Val Vista Classic Community Association summary judgment on unpaid-assessment breach-of-contract and lien-foreclosure claims, denied Rosenbaum summary judgment, and rejected his reconsideration, quash, and stay request. |
| Primary public source | View source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Uploaded source package | 28 PDFs |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 10 roadmap entries |
| Video overview | Val Vista Classic Community Association v. Levi Rosenbaum |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 6 questions |
| Curated download aliases | 1 download link |
Key Issues & Findings
Val Vista Classic Community Association sued homeowner Levi Rosenbaum for breach of contract and foreclosure based on unpaid HOA assessments, collection charges, and related fees. The case included early default, dismissal, arbitration, discovery, ADR, and counterclaim-fee disputes. The court ultimately granted the association summary judgment on May 11, 2026, finding that the CC&Rs formed a contract between homeowner and association, that Rosenbaum had not disputed returned payments and nonpayment, that he had not produced evidence showing the association misapplied a third-party assistance payment or fraudulently placed a lien, and that foreclosure on the HOA lien was statutorily permissible. The court denied Rosenbaum’s summary-judgment request, vacated the future trial settings, deemed remaining motions moot, and denied reconsideration on May 15, 2026.
The court framed the CC&Rs as a contractual agreement between homeowner and association. The association’s evidence showed unpaid monthly assessments, returned payments, collection charges, and attorneys’ fees tied to nonpayment. Rosenbaum acknowledged that payments had been returned for insufficient funds, that a third-party assistance payment was credited to a different account, and that he had been unable to make the assessment payments.
The court found Rosenbaum had not produced evidence that the association misapplied the assistance payment, was required to accept his later settlement offer for past-due assessments only, or acted fraudulently in placing a lien on the property. Because the evidence showed a contract, breach, contractual assessment and collection obligations, and a lien remedy, the court held summary judgment was warranted for the association and that foreclosure on the HOA lien was permissible by statute.
The ruling is routine rather than precedentially notable: it does not identify or construe a specific HOA statute, and it applies ordinary summary-judgment standards to an assessment-collection record. The court separately denied an untimely interim fee application without prejudice, denied discovery and joinder motions, and required the association to submit a proposed form of judgment after summary judgment.
This is a standard superior-court HOA assessment-collection example. It shows that payment-portal disputes, disagreement with collection handling, and assertions about a misapplied assistance payment did not defeat summary judgment where the homeowner did not produce evidence creating a genuine dispute over unpaid assessments or the lien.
For homeowners and boards, the practical lesson is procedural as much as substantive: once an account is in collections and litigation, the court will require evidence, proper motion practice, and compliance with discovery rules. As a superior-court ruling it binds only the parties and is not precedent.