Superior Court HOA Case
The court applied absolute litigation privilege to association counsel’s member communications and limited fee sanctions to one claim.
Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Goldman v. Sahl / Villas at Copperwynd Association, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2017-011347.
Scope note: This page covers Goldman v. Sahl / Villas at Copperwynd Association (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2017-011347) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s filed minute entries, especially the May 30, June 12, July 2, and September 17, 2018 rulings. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The takeaway
Association counsel’s letters to members about threatened litigation were protected by the absolute litigation privilege. The court treated the members’ financial stake in association litigation as a reason they had a direct interest in the communications.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Mark D. Goldman (Plaintiff)
Attorney plaintiff whose tort claims arose from communications during the resort-association dispute.
Respondent Side
- Mark Kristopher Sahl and Carpenter Hazlewood (Defendants)
Association-side attorney defendants who obtained privilege-based rulings and limited fee sanctions. - The Villas at Copperwynd Association (Defendant)
Condominium association involved in the underlying noise, resort-access, and threatened-litigation dispute. - Brown Community Management Inc., Ken Flynn, and Linda Flynn (Defendants)
Remaining HOA-side defendants who obtained summary judgment based on the same privilege analysis.
Neutral Parties
- Daniel J. Kiley (Judge)
Superior Court judge who issued the privilege, reconsideration, and fee rulings.
What happened
The underlying conflict involved CopperWynd Resort, The Villas at Copperwynd Association, noise issues, resort access, and threatened litigation. Association-side counsel sent communications to association members before a town-hall meeting, enclosing correspondence between the resort side and association side.
Goldman sued over those communications, including claims tied to statements about ethical conduct and a bar complaint. The attorney defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, summary judgment, and sanctions.
On May 30, 2018, the court dismissed the abuse-of-process claim based on Rule 48(l), then held the remaining claims barred by the absolute litigation privilege. The court reasoned that litigation had been threatened, association members had a direct financial stake because association fees, costs, or judgments could affect them, and candid attorney-member communications helped members evaluate the dispute.
The same ruling awarded fees and costs for defending the abuse-of-process count under A.R.S. § 12-349, but denied broader Rule 11 sanctions. The court later granted summary judgment to Brown Community Management, the association, and related defendants on the same privilege theory, denied reconsideration, and limited the final fee award to $10,862.60.
Video overview of the ruling
An AI-generated video overview of Goldman v. Sahl / Villas at Copperwynd Association (CV2017-011347 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). HOA counsel’s letters to members about threatened litigation were privileged; sanctions were limited. 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 Goldman v. Sahl / Villas at Copperwynd Association. 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/goldman-v-sahl-villas-at-copperwynd-association/raw/: 14 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.
Reassignment
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Reassignment
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Reassignment
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Discovery ruling denying without prejudice a motion to compel deposition testimony until counsel conferred in good faith by direct communication.
Status Conference
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Status Conference
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying without prejudice the plaintiff’s motion to compel depositions of Carpenter and another law-firm attorney after requiring further meet-and-confer efforts.
Under Advisement Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Under-advisement ruling dismissing the abuse-of-process claim under Rule 48(l), applying absolute litigation privilege to association counsel’s member communications, granting summary judgment for attorney defendants, awarding fees on Count 10, and denying Rule 11 sanctions.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Clarification ruling denying Sahl and Carpenter Hazlewood’s request for fees under A.R.S. § 12-341.01.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling granting summary judgment to Brown Community Management, The Villas at Copperwynd Association, Ken Flynn, and Linda Flynn on the same absolute-litigation-privilege theory.
Under Advisement Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Under-advisement ruling denying reconsideration of the May 30 privilege, abuse-of-process, and fee-entitlement rulings.
Order
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Fee ruling awarding the attorney defendants $10,862.60 under A.R.S. § 12-349 for the abuse-of-process defense while rejecting broader fees, a multiplier, double damages, and the lodged judgment.
FAQ
Were the association counsel letters to members privileged?
Yes. The court held the letters were protected by the absolute litigation privilege because they related to threatened litigation and were sent to members with a direct stake in the dispute.
Did the privilege apply even though no association-resort lawsuit had been filed?
Yes. The court found litigation was seriously contemplated because both sides had made unmistakable litigation threats before the member communications.
Did the court impose Rule 11 sanctions?
No. The court denied Rule 11 sanctions, finding the plaintiff’s privilege-scope argument was wrong but not frivolous.
What fee award was entered?
The court awarded the attorney defendants $10,862.60 under A.R.S. § 12-349 for the abuse-of-process defense and rejected broader fee categories, double damages, and a multiplier.
Why is this case marked standard?
The case is important for HOA communications, but it does not interpret Title 10, Title 33, or CC&Rs; it applies litigation privilege, Rule 48(l), and fee-sanction law.
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 | CV2017-011347 (Maricopa County Superior Court) |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Superior Court |
| Decision / key date | September 17, 2018 |
| Judge / panel | Hon. Daniel J. Kiley, Hon. Randall H. Warner, Hon. Kerstin LeMaire |
| Parties | Mark D. Goldman (Plaintiff) v. Mark Kristopher Sahl, Kayla L. Sahl, Carpenter Hazlewood, Brown Community Management Inc., The Villas at Copperwynd Association, Ken Flynn, Linda Flynn, and others |
| Governing law |
|
| Topics | free-speechboard-governanceattorneys-feesprocedure |
| Outcome / holding | The superior court held that letters sent by association counsel to association members about threatened litigation were protected by the absolute litigation privilege, barring the plaintiff’s tort claims, and separately awarded limited A.R.S. § 12-349 fees for the groundless abuse-of-process claim. |
| Primary public source | View source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Uploaded source package | 14 PDFs |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 5 roadmap entries |
| Video overview | Goldman v. Sahl / Villas at Copperwynd Association |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 5 questions |
| Curated download aliases | 1 download link |
Key Issues & Findings
This dispute arose from letters exchanged during a conflict between CopperWynd Resort and The Villas at Copperwynd Association over noise, resort access, threatened litigation, and communications to association members. The court held that the association-side attorney communications to association members were protected by the absolute litigation privilege because litigation had been threatened, members had a direct financial interest in the dispute, and the communications helped members decide how to respond. The court dismissed the abuse-of-process claim tied to a bar complaint under Rule 48(l), granted summary judgment on the remaining claims based on litigation privilege, denied Rule 11 sanctions, denied reconsideration, and later awarded the attorney defendants $10,862.60 in A.R.S. § 12-349 fees and costs limited to the abuse-of-process defense.
The May 30, 2018 under-advisement ruling treated the January 2017 letters as communications tied to threatened litigation between the association and the resort. The court reasoned that association members had a direct interest because legal fees, costs, or a judgment against the association would ultimately affect them through assessments or fees, and because candid communications between association counsel and members would help members evaluate settlement conditions and litigation risk.
The court applied the absolute litigation privilege broadly. It relied on Arizona litigation-privilege law and cases involving homeowners or condominium associations, concluding that the letters had at least some reference to the subject matter of threatened litigation. The court therefore granted the attorney defendants’ summary-judgment motion on the remaining claims and later granted summary judgment for Brown Community Management, The Villas at Copperwynd Association, and related defendants on the same privilege theory.
The court separately held that the abuse-of-process claim based on a bar complaint was barred by Rule 48(l). It found the claim groundless and not pursued in good faith after controlling authority had been raised, so A.R.S. § 12-349 fees and costs were appropriate for that count. But the court denied broader Rule 11 sanctions, finding the plaintiff’s argument about redaction and privilege scope was wrong but not frivolous. In September 2018, the court limited the fee award to amounts caused by the abuse-of-process count and awarded $10,862.60 rather than the larger request.
This case is useful for HOA and condominium boards because it explains why communications from association counsel to members about threatened litigation can be privileged when members have a financial and governance stake in the dispute. It also shows the line between losing a privilege argument and being sanctioned under Rule 11.
The case is marked standard, not must-read, because the ruling is about litigation privilege, bar-complaint immunity, and A.R.S. § 12-349 sanctions rather than Title 10, Title 33, or CC&R interpretation. It is still a high-value trial-court example for association communications during threatened litigation.