Procedure | CC&Rs | Vexatious-litigant findings | CV2017-003266
A Lakewood CC&R wall dispute produced years of follow-on litigation. The superior court dismissed Stephen Edwards’s counterclaims against the association, later recommended prefiling restrictions under A.R.S. § 12-3201, and left Lakewood’s fee and lien enforcement largely intact.
Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: The Lakewood Community Association v. Stephen S. Edwards et al., Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2017-003266.
Scope note: This page covers The Lakewood Community Association v. Stephen S. Edwards et al. (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2017-003266) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s own filed minute entries, especially the January 4, 2018 under-advisement ruling dismissing counterclaims, the December 12, 2018 vexatious-litigant recommendation, and the later fee, lien, motion-to-quash, and dismissal rulings; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: the last collected minute entry is the October 4, 2019 order dismissing any unadjudicated claims and parties without prejudice for lack of prosecution. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The takeaway
Once an HOA dispute has already produced a judgment, repeated collateral attacks and unsupported filings can become the main legal issue. Here the superior court dismissed Edwards’s counterclaims against Lakewood and others, denied his summary-judgment request, later recommended vexatious-litigant restrictions under A.R.S. § 12-3201, awarded Lakewood additional fees and costs, rejected a motion to extinguish the lien, and denied a motion to quash because Edwards had not made timely objections or sought a stay.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- The Lakewood Community Association (Plaintiff / Counterdefendant)
Homeowners association that brought the enforcement action, obtained dismissal of Edwards’s counterclaims, moved for vexatious-litigant relief, and later received additional attorneys’ fees and costs. - Quinten T. Cupps (Counsel / Third-party defendant)
Listed in the case-party data as counsel for Lakewood and later as a counterclaim or third-party target; his September 2018 summary-judgment motion was granted. - David Lunn (Counterdefendant)
Lakewood-related counterdefendant who joined Lakewood in the vexatious-litigant motion and related discovery-limit requests. - Michael R. Perry (Counsel)
Counsel listed in minute entries for David Lunn and present for Lakewood/Lunn at the September 28, 2018 evidentiary hearing. - John L. Condrey (Counsel)
Counsel listed for Quinten Cupps in the minute entries.
Respondent Side
- Stephen S. Edwards (Defendant / Counterclaimant)
Self-represented litigant whose counterclaims and repeated motions were mostly denied or dismissed; the December 2018 ruling recommended that he and entities he solely owned or controlled be subject to prior-leave filing restrictions. - Property-holding LLC (Defendant)
LLC described in the December 2018 findings as owning Edwards’s residence; exact residential-address naming is omitted here for privacy.
Neutral Parties
- Hon. Hugh Hegyi (Judge)
Judge who issued the January 2018 under-advisement ruling and the December 2018 vexatious-litigant recommendation. - Hon. Colleen L. French (Judge)
Judge who entered later rulings on fees, reconsideration, new trial, and the motion to extinguish lien. - Hon. Danielle J. Viola (Judge)
Judge who denied the 2019 motion to quash and dismissed remaining unadjudicated claims and parties for lack of prosecution.
What happened
Lakewood Community Association filed this Maricopa County Superior Court case in 2017. The December 12, 2018 findings explain the background: in a 2014 Lakewood case, the association had brought an action to require removal of a wall that the court found violated the community’s conditions, covenants, and restrictions. A permanent injunction ordered removal and awarded the association its fees and costs. The current case was described in the same findings as an action to enforce orders entered in that earlier case.
Stephen Edwards responded with counterclaims and cross-claims against Lakewood, attorney Quinten Cupps, association members, neighbors, and others. The January 4, 2018 under-advisement ruling resolved many of those claims. The court granted Lakewood’s motion to dismiss Edwards’s counter-complaint, relying on Lakewood’s res judicata and immunity arguments and on a prior 2016 order in another Edwards v. Lakewood case. It also denied Edwards’s own motion for summary judgment, finding it unsupported by evidence and legally insufficient.
The court then turned to the litigation conduct itself. Lakewood and David Lunn were granted permission to file a vexatious-litigant motion, and the court set an evidentiary hearing. The May 24, 2018 status-conference ruling limited discovery to that issue and denied requests for Lakewood billing records, board-member depositions, and videotaped interviews. At the September 28, 2018 evidentiary hearing, the court received Lakewood and Lunn’s exhibits and evidence, noted that Edwards had not appeared despite notice, and took proposed findings under advisement.
Judge Hegyi’s December 12, 2018 minute entry applied A.R.S. § 12-3201. The court found that Edwards had been a party to forty-one civil cases in Maricopa County Superior Court, that the court’s record did not show a single successful claim among the adjudicated matters, and that the Lakewood-related filings arose from the earlier CC&R-wall dispute. The court concluded that Edwards had consistently filed or defended actions for harassment, repeatedly sought relief already denied, advanced claims without substantial justification, and expanded or delayed proceedings.
The court recommended that Edwards, plus entities he solely owned or controlled, be declared vexatious litigants and be prohibited from filing new pleadings, motions, or other documents without prior leave. Later rulings denied reconsideration and new-trial requests, granted Lakewood $12,406.00 in additional attorneys’ fees and $71.64 in costs, denied Edwards’s motion to extinguish the lien, and denied his July 2019 motion to quash after finding he had not objected to the proposed judgment form or sought a stay. On October 4, 2019, Judge Viola dismissed any remaining unadjudicated claims and parties without prejudice for lack of prosecution.
Video overview of the ruling
An AI-generated video overview of The Lakewood Community Association v. Stephen S. Edwards et al. (CV2017-003266 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). Court recommended vexatious-litigant limits after repeated filings from a CC&R wall dispute. 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 The Lakewood Community Association v. Stephen S. Edwards et al.. 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/lakewood-community-association-v-property-holding-llc/raw/: 63 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.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Default Judgment
Type: Decision or judgment
Shows the filer trying to move the case forward because the opposing party had not timely appeared.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying Lakewood’s motion for alternative service because it did not provide evidence that service on Edwards would constitute proper service on the property-holding LLC.
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.
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
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
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 prohibiting any party from filing a new motion without leave of court after the docket accumulated multiple pending motions.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying Edwards’s emergency motion to vacate oral argument because he raised merits arguments rather than valid cause to vacate the hearing.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
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 denying Edwards’s motion seeking prosecution of attorney Quinten Cupps for alleged misconduct because good cause did not appear.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling striking several combined pleadings without prejudice and ordering parties not to combine multiple pleadings in one document.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying Edwards’s emergency telephonic-conference request because good cause did not appear.
Oral Argument
Type: Court/source PDF
Status-conference minute entry granting dismissal of the FedEx third-party complaint, allowing refiling of previously stricken motions, and directing any vexatious-litigant motion to the applicable administrative orders.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying Edwards’s renewed Rule 12(f) motion and warning again that the court would not consider multiple motions combined in a single document.
Under Advisement Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Under-advisement ruling granting Lakewood’s motion to dismiss Edwards’s counter-complaint, denying Edwards’s summary-judgment motion, denying consolidation with the closed 2014 case, and resolving multiple related dismissal and discovery motions.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying Edwards’s motions for expedited judgment, to strike Lakewood’s pleadings, and to pursue alleged misconduct by attorney Quinten Cupps.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying Edwards’s motion to vacate the January 4, 2018 under-advisement ruling.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying Edwards’s amended motion to strike Lakewood’s pleadings and his request for judgment against Lakewood, association members, and Quinten Cupps.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying Edwards’s motion to dismiss Lakewood’s complaint after Lakewood responded and no reply was received.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying Lakewood and David Lunn’s page-limit request but allowing a simple list of actions and motions to be attached to a vexatious-litigant motion.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling granting Lakewood and David Lunn permission to file a motion to declare Edwards a vexatious litigant while denying permission to file an overlength motion.
Default Judgment
Type: Decision or judgment
Shows the filer trying to move the case forward because the opposing party had not timely appeared.
Default Judgment
Type: Decision or judgment
Shows the filer trying to move the case forward because the opposing party had not timely appeared.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying Edwards’s notice of change of judge as a matter of right.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling striking two filings that improperly combined multiple motions and allowing Edwards to file a new response to Lakewood’s fee application.
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
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Oral Argument
Type: Court/source PDF
Oral-argument minute entry setting a one-day evidentiary hearing on Lakewood and David Lunn’s motion to declare Edwards a vexatious litigant.
Status Conference
Type: Court/source PDF
Status-conference ruling limiting discovery for the vexatious-litigant evidentiary hearing and denying Edwards’s requests for billing records, board-member depositions, and videotaped interviews.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Judgment Entered
Type: Decision or judgment
Ruling denying the property-holding LLC’s motion to vacate because Edwards had no standing, no judgment had been entered against him or the LLC by that court, and Edwards could not represent the LLC as a nonlawyer.
Status Conference
Type: Court/source PDF
Status-conference ruling denying Edwards’s telephonic-appearance and continuance requests while allowing reasonable disability accommodations other than telephonic appearance.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying Edwards’s request for expedited consideration of a special-action motion to compel testimony and continue the vexatious-litigant hearing.
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 Edwards’s motion for sanctions because good cause did not appear.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying Edwards’s motion to compel Cupps’s testimony and continue the vexatious-litigant hearing for failure to comply with Rule 7.1(a) and the discovery prerequisites.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying Edwards’s sanctions request for lack of good cause and failure to comply with Rule 7.1(a).
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying Edwards’s motion to reconsider without prejudice because the court did not understand the requested relief or reasons for it.
Judgment Entered
Type: Decision or judgment
Ruling granting Quinten Cupps’s motion for summary judgment and request for judicial notice after no discernible response was filed.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying Quinten Cupps’s motion for summary disposition of his summary-judgment motion.
Default Judgment
Type: Decision or judgment
Civil presiding-judge ruling denying Edwards’s request for a change of judge and taking no further action on his special-action pleading.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Evidentiary-hearing minute entry receiving Lakewood and David Lunn’s evidence on the vexatious-litigant motion, denying Edwards’s same-day telephonic request, and taking findings under advisement.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying as unnecessary Lakewood, David Lunn, and Quinten Cupps’s motions to strike Edwards’s notice of appeal because the evidentiary hearing had already occurred.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying without prejudice Edwards’s special-action motion to strike responses, vacate the vexatious-litigant hearing, seek sanctions, and quash the Lakewood judgment because the court did not understand the requested relief or reasons.
Under Advisement Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Judgment Entered
Type: Decision or judgment
Decision document; read it to understand the controlling result before moving to later filings.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Civil presiding-judge ruling denying Edwards’s Rule 42.2 change-of-judge request and returning the case to Judge Hegyi.
Judgment Entered
Type: Decision or judgment
Ruling denying Edwards’s motion to strike for failure to state legal authority for the requested relief under Rule 7.1(a).
Under Advisement Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Under-advisement ruling recommending that Edwards and entities he solely owned or controlled be declared vexatious litigants and be required to obtain prior leave before filing new papers.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying Edwards’s request to change venue to Pima County on the merits and for failure to properly serve the motion.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying Edwards’s special-action motion for change of venue or reassignment because good cause did not appear.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying Edwards’s motion to strike because good cause did not appear.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling granting Lakewood’s fee application and awarding $12,406.00 in attorneys’ fees and $71.64 in costs in addition to amounts previously awarded.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying Edwards’s request to reconsider the December 12, 2018 vexatious-litigant recommendation.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying Edwards’s Rule 59 motion for new trial.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying Edwards’s motion to extinguish lien after considering Lakewood’s response and treating Edwards’s sanctions motion as his reply.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Minute entry identifying motions filed during the appeal stay and explaining that no action was taken because the appeal had been filed and no further relief was requested during the revested-jurisdiction period.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling granting counsel’s application for leave to file pleadings and motions for Edwards without altering existing vexatious-litigant administrative-order requirements.
Judgment Entered
Type: Decision or judgment
Ruling denying Edwards’s motion to quash because he had not objected to the proposed judgment form, had not sought a stay, and waived his objection to the judgment resulting in the sheriff’s sale.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling dismissing any unadjudicated claims and parties without prejudice for lack of prosecution after no required action was taken by the dismissal-calendar deadline.
FAQ
Did this case decide a new HOA covenant rule?
No. The December 2018 ruling describes the earlier Lakewood case as involving a wall built in violation of the community’s CC&Rs, but this 2017 case mainly resolved counterclaims, repeated motions, vexatious-litigant findings, fee issues, and lien-related enforcement. It is therefore marked standard, not must-read.
What happened to Edwards’s counterclaims against Lakewood?
The January 4, 2018 under-advisement ruling granted Lakewood’s motion to dismiss the counter-complaint. The court relied on the reasons in Lakewood’s motion and reply, including res judicata and immunity arguments, and also treated Edwards’s failure to respond directly to those arguments as consent to granting the motion.
Why did the court recommend a vexatious-litigant designation?
The court applied A.R.S. § 12-3201 and found a pattern of filings made for harassment, repeated requests for relief already denied, claims and defenses without substantial justification, and conduct that expanded or delayed proceedings. The recommendation applied to Edwards and entities he solely owned or controlled.
Did Lakewood receive attorneys’ fees?
Yes. On January 2, 2019, the court granted Lakewood’s fee application and awarded $12,406.00 in attorneys’ fees plus $71.64 in costs, in addition to amounts previously awarded in the matter.
What happened to the lien and sheriff-sale challenge?
The court denied the motion to extinguish lien on February 12, 2019. On August 9, 2019, it denied Edwards’s motion to quash, finding he did not object to the proposed judgment form, did not seek a stay, and waived the relevant objection to the validity of the judgment resulting in the sheriff’s sale.
How did the case end in the collected record?
The last collected minute entry is dated October 4, 2019. It states that, under the court’s earlier dismissal-calendar order, any remaining unadjudicated claims and parties were dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution.
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 | CV2017-003266 (Maricopa County Superior Court) |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Superior Court |
| Decision / key date | December 12, 2018 |
| Judge / panel | Hon. Hugh Hegyi, Hon. Colleen L. French, Hon. Danielle J. Viola |
| Parties | The Lakewood Community Association (Plaintiff / Cross-defendant) v. Stephen S. Edwards, a property-holding LLC, and other defendants and counterclaim parties |
| Governing law | |
| Topics | procedurecc-and-rscovenantsliensattorneys-fees |
| Outcome / holding | The superior court dismissed Edwards’s counterclaims against Lakewood and others, denied his summary-judgment and repeated procedural motions, recommended a vexatious-litigant designation under A.R.S. § 12-3201 after finding a pattern of harassment, repetitive filings, meritless claims, and delay, and later left Lakewood’s fee award and lien-related enforcement in place. |
| Primary public source | View source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Uploaded source package | 63 PDFs |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 13 roadmap entries |
| Video overview | The Lakewood Community Association v. Stephen S. Edwards et al. |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 6 questions |
| Curated download aliases | 1 download link |
Key Issues & Findings
Lakewood Community Association sued to enforce orders from an earlier community-association case involving a wall that the court said violated the community’s covenants, conditions, and restrictions. Stephen S. Edwards responded with counterclaims and cross-claims against the association, its attorney Quinten Cupps, a board member, neighbors, and others. In January 2018, Judge Hugh Hegyi granted the association’s motion to dismiss Edwards’s counter-complaint, denied Edwards’s summary-judgment request, and dismissed multiple claims or parties while allowing a fraud claim against Cupps to continue at that stage. After a later evidentiary hearing, the court entered detailed findings under A.R.S. § 12-3201 and recommended that Edwards and entities he owned or controlled be treated as vexatious litigants who could not file new papers without prior leave. The court later awarded Lakewood additional attorneys’ fees and costs, denied Edwards’s motion to extinguish the lien, denied his motion to quash after finding he waived objections tied to the sheriff’s sale, and dismissed remaining unadjudicated claims for lack of prosecution.
In the January 4, 2018 under-advisement ruling, the court held that Lakewood’s motion to dismiss Edwards’s counter-complaint should be granted for the reasons stated in Lakewood’s motion and reply, including res judicata, absolute-immunity arguments, and the prior 2016 order in an Edwards v. Lakewood case directing him to stop filing repetitious complaints. The court also treated Edwards’s failure to respond specifically to Lakewood’s arguments as consent to granting the motion. The same ruling denied Edwards’s motion for summary judgment because it was unsupported by evidence and failed as a matter of law, while dismissing or narrowing claims against several other counterclaim defendants.
The December 12, 2018 minute entry applied A.R.S. § 12-3201. Judge Hegyi found that Lakewood’s 2014 case had sought removal of a wall built in violation of the community’s CC&Rs, that the resulting injunction and fee award led to repeated later filings, and that the present case included claims against Lakewood, Cupps, association members, and others related to that original litigation. The court found a history of unsuccessful and repetitive litigation, a pattern of using filings to harass and increase opponents’ costs, and conduct meeting the statute’s categories for vexatious conduct.
The court therefore recommended that the civil presiding judge declare Edwards a vexatious litigant and require prior leave before he or entities he solely owned or controlled could file new papers. Follow-on rulings awarded Lakewood $12,406.00 in attorneys’ fees and $71.64 in costs in addition to amounts previously awarded, denied a motion to extinguish the lien, and denied a motion to quash after concluding Edwards had not objected to the proposed judgment form or sought a stay and had waived the relevant objection.
This case is useful for homeowners and associations because it shows how an HOA dispute can become mostly procedural after the merits are already decided. The court’s December 2018 findings did not create new CC&R law; instead, they used a prior CC&R-wall injunction, repeated related litigation, and ongoing filings as the factual setting for a vexatious-litigant recommendation under A.R.S. § 12-3201.
For associations, the ruling illustrates the kind of record a court may examine when an association seeks filing restrictions against a self-represented litigant: prior related cases, repeated requests for the same relief, litigation conduct that expands proceedings, and evidence offered at a noticed hearing. For homeowners, it is a warning that collateral attacks and unsupported motions can create fee, lien, and prefiling-order consequences even when the underlying HOA dispute began as a covenant-enforcement fight. As a superior-court ruling, it binds only the parties and is not precedent.