Superior Court HOA Case
A Maricopa County judge denied a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against construction approved through Grayhawk’s architectural-review process.
Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Kokoskov v. Harapko and Grayhawk Community Association, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2026-004481.
Scope note: This page covers Kokoskov v. Harapko and Grayhawk Community Association (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2026-004481) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the five collected minute entries, especially the March 26, 2026 evidentiary-hearing entry and the March 30, 2026 under-advisement ruling. Currency caveat: the last collected minute entry denies only preliminary relief and states that it does not adjudicate the merits. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The takeaway
The court denied emergency relief against construction approved through Grayhawk’s architectural-review process. The moving neighbors raised design-guideline objections, but the court found they had not met the Arizona preliminary-injunction standard and refused to stop the project before a final merits decision.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Igor Kokoskov and Patricia Kokoskov (Plaintiffs)
Neighboring owners who sought temporary and preliminary injunctive relief to stop construction they said violated Grayhawk Design Guidelines. - Elizabeth Fine (Counsel)
Counsel for the Kokoskov plaintiffs in the minute entries.
Respondent Side
- Sean Harapko and Alicia Harapko (Defendants)
Neighboring owners whose construction project was challenged by the plaintiffs. - Grayhawk Community Association (Defendant)
Community association whose architectural-review process and design-guideline approval were central to the injunction dispute. - Mark Bainbridge (Counsel)
Counsel for Sean and Alicia Harapko in the minute entries. - Tico Glavas (Counsel)
Counsel for Grayhawk Community Association in the later minute entries.
Neutral Parties
- Quintin Cushner (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court judge who heard the evidentiary hearing and denied preliminary injunctive relief.
What happened
The Kokoskovs and the Harapkos own neighboring homes in Grayhawk. The Kokoskovs asked the superior court for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to stop further construction of a structure on the Harapko property. They argued the structure did not comply with Grayhawk Design Guidelines and caused ongoing harm to privacy, use, and enjoyment.
At the February 19, 2026 return hearing, the court set an in-person evidentiary hearing and declined to grant a stop-work order before evidence was heard. The court ordered expedited briefing, discovery, and exhibit deadlines.
At the March 26, 2026 evidentiary hearing, the court received testimony and exhibits. The plaintiffs presented testimony on design-guideline provisions, including setback and parapet issues, and on privacy, enjoyment, and claimed value impact. The defendants argued the project had association approval, had a City of Scottsdale permit, and was already under construction.
On March 30, 2026, the court denied the preliminary injunction and any remaining TRO request. It found the Kokoskovs had not shown either probable success on the merits plus possible irreparable harm, or serious questions with the balance of hardships tipping sharply in their favor. The court also found public policy mixed and noted the Design Guidelines’ discretionary-review language.
The ruling expressly did not adjudicate the merits. That means the court did not finally decide whether the project complied with Grayhawk’s governing documents; it decided only that the plaintiffs had not justified extraordinary preliminary relief on the record presented.
Procedural timeline
Complete uploaded source-document index
This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/kokoskov-v-harapko-grayhawk-community-association/raw/: 5 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 giving notice that the court signed an order setting an order-to-show-cause return hearing on the requested temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
Oral Argument Set
Type: Court/source PDF
Return-hearing minute entry setting a March 26, 2026 in-person evidentiary hearing, denying a stop-work order before that hearing, and setting expedited discovery and exhibit deadlines.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Minute entry granting the plaintiffs’ unopposed request for witnesses to appear virtually at the evidentiary hearing.
Oral Argument
Type: Court/source PDF
Evidentiary-hearing minute entry receiving testimony and exhibits on the requested temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, then taking the matter under advisement.
Under Advisement Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Under-advisement ruling denying preliminary injunctive relief and any remaining TRO request, while expressly leaving the merits of the Grayhawk design-guideline dispute undecided.
FAQ
Did the court decide whether the construction violated Grayhawk Design Guidelines?
No. The ruling expressly states that it did not adjudicate the merits. The court denied preliminary relief based on the injunction standard and the record presented.
Why was preliminary relief denied?
The court found the plaintiffs had not shown probable success plus possible irreparable harm, or serious questions with hardships tipping sharply in their favor.
How did association approval matter?
The defendants argued the structure was being built consistent with association approval and a city permit. The court considered reliance on the association review process and city permitting as part of the hardship and public-policy analysis.
What harm did the plaintiffs claim?
The plaintiffs claimed harm to privacy, property use and enjoyment, and asserted property value impact. The court found that showing insufficient to establish irreparable injury before final judgment on this record.
Why is this a standard-significance case?
It involves HOA architectural review and design guidelines, but the ruling is preliminary and expressly leaves the merits undecided. Borderline or non-final superior-court rulings are classified as standard.
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 | CV2026-004481 (Maricopa County Superior Court) |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Superior Court |
| Decision / key date | March 30, 2026 |
| Judge / panel | Hon. Quintin Cushner |
| Parties | Igor Kokoskov and Patricia Kokoskov (Plaintiffs, neighboring owners) v. Sean Harapko, Alicia Harapko, and Grayhawk Community Association (Defendants) |
| Topics | architectural-reviewcc-and-rscovenantsprocedure |
| Outcome / holding | The superior court denied the requested preliminary injunction and any remaining temporary-restraining-order request. It held that the moving owners had not met the Arizona preliminary-injunction standard and expressly stated that the ruling did not adjudicate the merits. |
| Primary public source | View source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Uploaded source package | 5 PDFs |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 5 roadmap entries |
| Video overview | No video embed currently configured |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 5 questions |
| Curated download aliases | 1 download link |
Key Issues & Findings
Neighboring owners in Grayhawk sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to stop construction of a structure they said violated Grayhawk Design Guidelines and harmed privacy, property use, and enjoyment. After an evidentiary hearing, the superior court denied preliminary injunctive relief. The court found the moving owners had not shown probable success plus possible irreparable harm, or serious questions with hardships tipping sharply in their favor. The ruling emphasized that the association had approved the project, a city permit existed, construction was underway, and the court was not finally resolving the competing interpretations of the governing documents.
The court applied the Arizona preliminary-injunction standard from Shoen, Smith, and related cases. The moving owners focused on setback and parapet provisions in Grayhawk Design Guidelines and presented structural-engineer testimony that the structure would not comply if a minimum parapet were added while staying within height or setback limits. The defendants countered that the structure was being built consistent with association approval and a City of Scottsdale permit.
On likelihood of success, the court did not finally resolve the parties’ competing interpretations of the governing documents. It held only that the moving owners had not made the showing required for preliminary relief on the record presented. On irreparable harm, the court found testimony about privacy, enjoyment, and asserted value impact insufficient to show harm that could not be addressed through final judgment, particularly because the dispute turned on contested design-guideline interpretations and the project was already underway.
On hardship and public policy, the court found the balance did not tip sharply toward the moving owners because defendants showed substantial cost and disruption from halting construction. It also found public policy mixed: enforcement of community standards and neighbor privacy weighed one way, while reliance on the association’s architectural process, city permitting, and the Design Guidelines’ discretionary-review language weighed against extraordinary preliminary relief.
This ruling is useful as a caution about timing and proof in HOA architectural-review disputes. Even where neighbors raise design-guideline objections, a court may deny emergency relief if the project has association approval, construction is underway, harm can potentially be addressed later, and the moving party cannot satisfy the preliminary-injunction standard.
The case is standard rather than must-read because the ruling is procedural and preliminary. The court expressly did not decide the final merits of the design-guideline dispute. It still belongs in the HOA library because it involves association architectural approval, design guidelines, neighbor objections, and reliance on an association review process.