Architectural Enforcement & Fines | CC&Rs | CV2021-019511
In this Maricopa County Superior Court construction-defect case, the HOA dispute centered on whether Talus Homeowners’ Association could keep demanding grading and drainage repairs and imposing fines while the homeowners’ builder claims continued. The court ultimately treated the homeowners’ requested injunction as granted, dismissed the HOA from the case, and denied fees to both sides.
Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Jennifer Duncan v. LaBlonde Development Corporation and Talus Homeowners’ Association, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2021-019511.
Scope note: This page covers the HOA-related portion of Jennifer Duncan and Raymond Duncan v. LaBlonde Development Corporation, Thomas J. LaBlonde, Jr., Talus Homeowners’ Association, and others (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2021-019511) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s filed minute entries, especially the October 10, 2022 HOA dismissal ruling, the June 22, 2023 reconsideration ruling, and the August 30, 2023 ruling resolving the HOA portion; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: later entries continue the non-HOA judgment-enforcement docket through June 2026. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The takeaway
The court’s final HOA ruling did not decide the validity of earlier fines. It affirmed a preliminary injunction prohibiting additional Talus HOA fines as of May 4, 2023, dismissed the HOA count because that injunction granted the homeowners’ requested relief, dismissed the HOA from the lawsuit, and denied both sides’ attorneys’ fee requests.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Jennifer Duncan (Plaintiff)
Homeowner plaintiff in the construction-defect case and the injunction claim against Talus Homeowners’ Association. - Raymond Duncan (Plaintiff)
Homeowner plaintiff in the construction-defect case and the injunction claim against Talus Homeowners’ Association. - Rodney Galarza (Counsel)
Counsel shown for the homeowners in the 2022 and 2023 HOA-related minute entries.
Respondent Side
- Talus Homeowners’ Association (Defendant)
HOA defendant on Count 5 of the first amended complaint, which sought injunctive relief against HOA enforcement activity and fines. - LaBlonde Development Corporation (Defendant)
Builder defendant in the broader construction-defect dispute; later obtained summary judgment on the non-HOA claims. - Thomas J. LaBlonde, Jr. (Defendant)
Individual LaBlonde defendant in the broader construction-defect dispute. - Haidyn DiLorenzo (Counsel)
Counsel shown for Talus Homeowners’ Association in the HOA-related minute entries. - Beth Mulcahy (Counsel)
Counsel shown for Talus Homeowners’ Association at the May 4, 2023 hearing.
Neutral Parties
- Troon North Master HOA (Non-party association)
The court noted this association was not a party and that claims between it and the homeowners had settled before the June 2023 reconsideration ruling. - Joan M. Sinclair (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court judge who issued the HOA rulings and the later LaBlonde summary-judgment ruling.
What happened
Jennifer and Raymond Duncan sued LaBlonde Development Corporation, Thomas J. LaBlonde, Jr., and other construction participants over a home-construction dispute. Count 5 of their first amended complaint sought injunctive relief against Talus Homeowners’ Association, asking the court to stop the HOA from taking action against them regarding construction of their home.
The HOA portion centered on grading, drainage, and fines. The court’s October 10, 2022 ruling says Talus HOA was assessing fines and demanding repairs to grading and drainage while the homeowners’ construction-defect claims against the builder were still pending. The HOA argued it was seeking temporary repairs to address possible damage to common areas or other properties.
Judge Joan M. Sinclair initially granted Talus HOA’s motion to dismiss Count 5. The ruling treated the HOA CC&Rs as a contract and cited Section 6.05 and Article 11, Section 11.01, under which the board could require corrective action and the association had the right and duty to enforce restrictions. The court concluded that enjoining the HOA from all enforcement while the construction case proceeded was not justified and dismissed the HOA from the case.
That was not the final result. In June 2023, after argument and status notices, the court granted the homeowners’ reconsideration motion. It vacated the October 2022 dismissal ruling, noted it had issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting additional fines by Talus HOA as of May 4, 2023, and explained that it had not known about the Troon North Master HOA or analyzed the relationship between the two associations’ CC&Rs when it issued the first ruling.
On August 30, 2023, the court clarified the final HOA disposition. It affirmed the preliminary injunction against additional Talus HOA fines, dismissed Count 5 because the requested relief had been granted, and dismissed Talus HOA from the case because no other claims involved it. The court expressly did not decide the validity of fines issued before May 4, 2023 because no specific action to enforce those fines was before it.
The court then denied both sides’ fee requests. Talus HOA was not the successful party because the homeowners received the preliminary injunction. Under A.R.S. § 12-349, the court found both sides acted unreasonably and without substantial justification: the homeowners by bringing Talus HOA into the lawsuit before the HOA filed an action to enforce its fines, and Talus HOA by seeking to enforce its CC&Rs under the circumstances described in the ruling.
Procedural timeline
Complete uploaded source-document index
This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/duncan-v-lablonde-development-talus-hoa/raw/: 38 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
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
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
Ruling granting Talus Homeowners’ Association’s motion to dismiss the injunction count after finding the HOA was acting within its CC&R enforcement authority.
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.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
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.
Oral Argument Set
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Oral Argument Set
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Oral Argument
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
Ruling granting the homeowners’ reconsideration motion, vacating the October 2022 HOA dismissal ruling, and holding the HOA fee request in abeyance.
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
Ruling affirming the preliminary injunction against additional Talus HOA fines, dismissing the HOA from the lawsuit, and denying both sides’ fee requests.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
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.
Oral Argument
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
Ruling granting summary judgment to the LaBlonde defendants on all remaining claims against them based on preclusion from the Registrar of Contractors proceedings.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying the homeowners’ motion for summary judgment on tort-based defenses to contract-based claims.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling granting the stipulation to dismiss ProCap Roofing Services, LLC without prejudice from the third-party complaint.
Minute Entry
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 the homeowners’ motion for reconsideration of the LaBlonde summary-judgment ruling as raising untimely new arguments and evidence.
Minute Entry
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 the homeowners’ stay request and denying their Rule 59 motion to vacate judgment or obtain a new trial.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
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.
FAQ
Was Talus HOA allowed to enforce its CC&Rs?
The court’s first ruling said the HOA had CC&R authority and a duty to enforce restrictions affecting adjacent lots, common areas, or open spaces. But that ruling was later vacated, and the final HOA ruling focused on the preliminary injunction against additional fines rather than a final decision validating every HOA enforcement step.
What did the preliminary injunction do?
The August 2023 ruling says the court had issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting additional fines by Talus HOA as of May 4, 2023. The court treated that injunction as the relief requested in Count 5 and dismissed the count because the relief had been granted.
Did the court decide whether earlier fines were valid?
No. The August 2023 ruling says the court did not address the validity of fines issued before May 4, 2023 because no specific action seeking enforcement of those fines was before the court.
Why was the October 2022 HOA dismissal ruling vacated?
The court granted reconsideration after learning that the Troon North Master HOA existed and that claims between the homeowners and that non-party association had settled. The court said it had not analyzed the relationship between the Talus CC&Rs and the Troon North Master CC&Rs when the first ruling was issued.
Who received attorneys’ fees in the HOA dispute?
Neither side. The court found Talus HOA was not the successful party because the homeowners received the preliminary injunction, and it also found both the homeowners and the HOA acted unreasonably and without substantial justification under A.R.S. § 12-349.
Is this a precedent for other Arizona HOA construction disputes?
No. This is a superior-court case and binds only the parties. It is useful as a practical example of CC&R enforcement, construction-defect overlap, fines, and fee risk, but it is not a published appellate 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 | CV2021-019511 (Maricopa County Superior Court) |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Superior Court |
| Decision / key date | August 30, 2023 |
| Judge / panel | Hon. Joan M. Sinclair, Hon. Richard Albrecht, Hon. John L. Blanchard, Hon. Randall H. Warner |
| Parties | Jennifer Duncan and Raymond Duncan (Plaintiffs/homeowners) v. LaBlonde Development Corporation, Thomas J. LaBlonde, Jr., Talus Homeowners’ Association, and other defendants |
| Governing law | |
| Topics | cc-and-rsarchitectural-reviewfinesattorneys-feesprocedure |
| Outcome / holding | The superior court ultimately resolved the HOA portion by affirming a preliminary injunction prohibiting Talus HOA from imposing additional fines as of May 4, 2023, dismissing the homeowners’ injunction count because the requested relief had been granted, dismissing Talus HOA from the lawsuit, and denying both Talus HOA’s and the homeowners’ fee requests under A.R.S. § 12-349. |
| Primary public source | View source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Uploaded source package | 38 PDFs |
|---|---|
| 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
Jennifer and Raymond Duncan sued LaBlonde Development Corporation and related defendants over a home-construction dispute, and also sought injunctive relief against Talus Homeowners’ Association to stop the HOA from taking enforcement action about construction, grading, drainage, and fines. In October 2022, the superior court granted the HOA’s motion to dismiss, reasoning that the HOA was acting within its CC&R authority and duty to protect other lots and common areas. In June 2023, after learning of the Troon North Master HOA and related settlement context, the court granted the homeowners’ reconsideration motion, vacated the October 2022 ruling, and noted that it had issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting additional fines by Talus HOA. In an August 30, 2023 ruling, the court clarified that the injunction resolved Count 5, dismissed the HOA from the case because no other claims involved it, and denied both sides’ fee requests after finding both had acted unreasonably and without substantial justification.
The first HOA ruling treated the CC&Rs as a contract between the homeowners, other homeowners, and the HOA. Looking to Section 6.05 and Article 11, Section 11.01, the court reasoned that Talus HOA had authority and a duty to enforce restrictions when grading and drainage from the homeowners’ lot allegedly affected adjacent lots, common areas, or open spaces. The court concluded the homeowners had not shown a strong likelihood of success in stopping all enforcement during the construction-defect lawsuit, and dismissed the injunction count against the HOA.
That ruling did not remain the final HOA disposition. In June 2023, the court granted reconsideration, vacated the October 2022 dismissal ruling, and explained that it had not known about the Troon North Master HOA when the original ruling was issued and had not analyzed the relationship between the Talus and Troon North Master CC&Rs. The court also noted that it had issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting additional fines by Talus HOA as of May 4, 2023.
In August 2023, the court clarified the result. Count 5 was effectively resolved because the preliminary injunction gave the homeowners the relief they requested against Talus HOA. The court dismissed Count 5 and Talus HOA from the case, but did not decide whether any fines before May 4, 2023 were valid because no specific enforcement action over those fines was before the court. On fees, the court denied both sides’ requests: Talus HOA was not the successful party because the homeowners obtained the injunction, and both sides had acted unreasonably and without substantial justification.
This draft is useful for HOA readers because it shows how quickly an architectural or construction-enforcement dispute can become entangled with builder litigation, master-association issues, and fee exposure. The court’s first ruling recognized an HOA’s CC&R authority and duty to protect other lots and common areas from alleged grading and drainage impacts, but the later rulings show that enforcement context matters: the court reversed course after learning more about the related master-association setting and entered a preliminary injunction against additional fines.
The case is not a clean precedential rule and it is not a published appellate decision. Its practical value is narrower: an HOA may have CC&R enforcement authority, but pushing fines while related construction and master-association disputes are unresolved can still lead to injunction practice and mutual fee denial. The court’s final HOA ruling left pre-May 2023 fine validity undecided because no specific fine-enforcement action was before it.