Assessment Collection | Water Shutoff | CV2012-018443
The court refused to decide on summary judgment whether water shutoff was a reasonable collection rule, but dismissed the FDCPA claim against the management company.
Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Andrew Kuhn v. Southern Village Estates Condominium Association, et al., Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2012-018443.
Scope note: This page covers Andrew Kuhn v. Southern Village Estates Condominium Association, et al. (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2012-018443) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s own filed minute entries, especially the July 2, 2014 ruling on water shutoff and the November 25, 2014 summary-judgment ruling on the FDCPA claim; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: the last collected minute entry is the March 19, 2015 order dismissing the entire action with prejudice after the parties filed a stipulation to dismiss. The water-shutoff issue was not finally decided on summary judgment; it was left for the factfinder before the later settlement and stipulated dismissal. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The takeaway
A condominium association may have authority under A.R.S. § 33-1242 to adopt reasonable rules, but this court would not decide as a matter of law that a water-shutoff assessment-collection rule was valid or invalid when the Declaration and Bylaws were silent. Separately, the manager was not an FDCPA debt collector where it had responsibility for regular assessment collection before the owner’s account became delinquent.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Andrew Kuhn (Plaintiff)
Southern Village Estates condominium owner who challenged water shutoff or restriction and brought an FDCPA claim against Pride. - Jonathan A. Dessaules (Counsel)
Counsel for Kuhn in the minute entries.
Respondent Side
- Southern Village Estates Condominium Association (Defendant)
Condominium association that obtained a judgment for unpaid and accruing assessments and used water shutoff or restriction as part of collection efforts. - Pride Asset Management, Inc. (Defendant)
Property-management company retained by the association to manage the development and collect maintenance assessments and related charges from members. - Nikita V. Patel (Counsel)
Counsel for Southern Village Estates Condominium Association and Pride in many of the minute entries. - Diana J. Elston (Counsel)
Counsel appearing for Pride at the November 13, 2014 pretrial/status conference.
Neutral Parties
- Hon. J. Richard Gama (Judge)
Judge who issued the water-shutoff, discovery-sanctions, fee, and FDCPA rulings.
What happened
Andrew Kuhn owned a condominium unit at Southern Village Estates and was a member of the condominium association. The July 2, 2014 ruling states that he failed to pay past assessments, and the association obtained a judgment against him for all past-due and accruing assessments. The association retained Pride Asset Management for collection efforts.
The association paid a utility for water delivered to each condominium unit from monthly assessments. When Kuhn did not pay, defendants either shut off or significantly restricted water flow to his unit. Kuhn said the action made his home uninhabitable and argued that the association had no express statutory or governing-document authority to use water shutoff as a collection remedy.
Defendants relied on A.R.S. § 33-1242 and a rule adopted by the association’s board. The court noted defendants conceded that the Declaration did not expressly authorize water shutoff and that no statute expressly authorized it. The rule itself stated that the association had the right to turn off water to a unit for nonpayment of monthly assessment.
The court denied both sides summary judgment. It agreed that the association had authority to adopt rules if the rules were reasonable, but it held that reasonableness was a fact question on this record. The key issue was whether the rule bore a relationship to the health, happiness, and enjoyment of life of the unit owners, or instead was arbitrary or capricious.
The case also included a separate FDCPA claim against Pride. The November 25, 2014 ruling states that Pride became the HOA’s managing agent on July 1, 2008, that Kuhn did not become delinquent until 2010, and that the challenged collection activity occurred in 2012. Because Pride was responsible for collecting assessments before the debt went into default, the court held Pride fell within the statutory exception to the FDCPA definition of debt collector and granted Pride summary judgment.
Earlier discovery rulings also mattered procedurally. The court sanctioned Pride for failing to provide a knowledgeable Rule 30(b)(6) witness, compelled a new deposition, and awarded Kuhn $4,500 in fees and $12 in costs. The case later settled, Pride withdrew a proposed form of judgment, and the court dismissed the action with prejudice on March 19, 2015.
Procedural timeline
Complete uploaded source-document index
This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/kuhn-v-southern-village-estates-condominium-association/raw/: 21 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
Preliminary-restraint minute entry ordering Southern Village Estates not to turn off Kuhn’s water and ordering the water turned back on pending the evidentiary hearing after counsel avowed that fees had been paid.
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.
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
Discovery-sanctions ruling granting Kuhn relief in part, compelling Pride to provide an adequate Rule 30(b)(6) witness, and awarding costs and reasonable attorney fees for the motion.
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 defendants’ motion for reconsideration of the July 29, 2013 Rule 30(b)(6) discovery-sanctions order.
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.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Fee ruling awarding Kuhn $4,500 in attorney fees and $12 in costs as Rule 37 sanctions while reducing the requested fees as duplicative and excessive.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying both Kuhn’s and defendants’ summary-judgment motions on whether the association’s water-shutoff rule was lawful and reasonable under A.R.S. § 33-1242 and the governing documents.
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.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling granting Pride Asset Management summary judgment and dismissing Kuhn’s FDCPA claim because Pride collected assessments before Kuhn’s assessments became overdue.
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.
Judgment Entered
Type: Decision or judgment
Dismissal order dismissing the entire action with prejudice after the parties filed a stipulation to dismiss following settlement.
FAQ
Did the court decide the association could shut off water for unpaid assessments?
No. The court denied both sides summary judgment. It held that whether the water-shutoff rule was reasonable under the circumstances was a factual issue for the factfinder.
What role did A.R.S. § 33-1242 play?
Defendants relied on A.R.S. § 33-1242 as authority for the association to adopt rules. The court agreed an association may adopt reasonable rules, but said the reasonableness of this water-shutoff rule could not be decided as a matter of law on summary judgment.
Why did Pride win summary judgment on the FDCPA claim?
The court found that Pride was responsible for collecting monthly assessments before Kuhn’s assessments became overdue. Under the FDCPA exception discussed in the ruling, Pride was not a debt collector for that debt because the debt was not in default when Pride obtained collection responsibility.
Did the governing documents expressly authorize water shutoff?
The court stated that the parties agreed the Declaration and Bylaws did not expressly provide a right to shut off water as a way to collect unpaid assessments.
What discovery sanction did the court impose?
The court found Pride failed to provide a knowledgeable Rule 30(b)(6) corporate witness, ordered a new deposition, and later awarded Kuhn $4,500 in attorney fees and $12 in costs as Rule 37 sanctions.
Is this ruling precedential?
No. It is a Maricopa County Superior Court ruling, so it binds only the parties. It is still useful as an example of one trial court’s analysis of condominium water shutoff, assessment collection, and FDCPA manager liability.
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 | CV2012-018443 (Maricopa County Superior Court) |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Superior Court |
| Decision / key date | November 25, 2014 |
| Judge / panel | Hon. J. Richard Gama |
| Parties | Andrew Kuhn (Plaintiff) v. Southern Village Estates Condominium Association and Pride Asset Management, Inc. (Defendants) |
| Governing law |
|
| Topics | assessmentsfdcpacc-and-rsprocedure |
| Outcome / holding | The court held that neither side was entitled to summary judgment on the water-shutoff issue because the association could adopt reasonable rules under A.R.S. § 33-1242, but whether this rule reasonably related to the health, happiness, and enjoyment of the unit owners presented a fact question. The court later held that Pride was not an FDCPA debt collector because it obtained responsibility for collecting the assessments before Kuhn’s assessments became overdue. |
| Primary public source | View source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Uploaded source package | 21 PDFs |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 7 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
A condominium owner challenged Southern Village Estates’ use of water shutoff or restriction to collect unpaid assessments and asserted an FDCPA claim against Pride Asset Management. The court denied both sides summary judgment on whether the association’s water-restriction rule was reasonable under A.R.S. § 33-1242 and the governing documents, but later granted Pride summary judgment on the FDCPA claim because Pride was responsible for collecting assessments before the owner’s account went into default.
On the water-shutoff motions, the court began with undisputed facts: Kuhn owned a condominium unit, was a member of the association, failed to pay past assessments, and the association obtained a judgment for unpaid and accruing assessments. The association and Pride then used water shutoff or water restriction as a collection method, and Kuhn argued that neither Arizona statute nor the governing documents expressly authorized that remedy.
The court agreed with the association that A.R.S. § 33-1242 gave the association authority to promulgate reasonable rules, but it did not treat that authority as unlimited. Because the Declaration and Bylaws did not expressly provide a water-shutoff remedy, and because the rule’s reasonableness depended on whether it related to the general welfare of condominium residents, the court found a factual dispute and denied summary judgment to both sides.
On the FDCPA claim, the court focused on Pride’s timing and role. Pride was the association’s property manager and was responsible for collecting monthly assessments beginning July 1, 2008; Kuhn did not become delinquent until 2010; and the challenged collection activity occurred in 2012. Because the FDCPA excludes collectors whose collection activity concerns debt that was not in default when obtained, the court granted Pride summary judgment and dismissed the FDCPA claim.
The case is useful for Arizona condominium readers because it shows one trial court refusing to decide on summary judgment whether an association may restrict water service as an assessment-collection rule when the declaration and bylaws are silent. It also shows how a management company may defeat an FDCPA claim when it was already responsible for assessment collection before the owner’s account went into default.