Assessments | Rule 56 Response | CV2024-090662
A routine assessment-collection case became a useful procedural example: the court gave homeowners additional time to retain counsel and file a proper summary-judgment response, then granted Val Vista Lakes Community Association summary judgment when no compliant response followed.
Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Val Vista Lakes Community Association, The v. Ben J. Rodriguez, et al., Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2024-090662.
Scope note: This page covers Val Vista Lakes Community Association, The v. Ben J. Rodriguez, et al. (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2024-090662) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s own filed minute entries, including the January 21, 2025 extension order and the April 14, 2025 summary-judgment ruling; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: the collected entries end with the court granting summary judgment and inviting a proposed judgment, fee application, and cost statement; this draft does not include a later signed judgment. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The takeaway
In an assessment-collection case, disputing a statement of facts in general terms is not enough to defeat summary judgment. After the court gave the homeowners extra time to retain counsel and file a Rule 56-compliant response, no additional response was filed. The court held the association met its initial burden and the homeowners did not meet their responsive burden, so it granted summary judgment.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Val Vista Lakes Community Association, The (Plaintiff)
Homeowners association seeking judgment for past-due assessments, service fees, late charges, and other fees. - Charles B. Sellers (Counsel)
Counsel listed for Val Vista Lakes Community Association.
Respondent Side
- Ben J. Rodriguez (Defendant)
Homeowner defendant listed as self-represented in the minute entries. - Stephanie L. Cox (Defendant)
Homeowner defendant listed as self-represented in the minute entries.
Neutral Parties
- Adam D. Driggs (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court judge who issued the extension order and the summary-judgment ruling. - Meggan Elizabeth Medina (Arbitrator)
Arbitrator listed in later minute entries after an earlier appointed arbitrator was excused.
What happened
Val Vista Lakes Community Association sued Ben J. Rodriguez and Stephanie L. Cox. The available minute entries do not include the complaint, but the summary-judgment ruling says the association sought judgment for past-due assessments, service fees, late charges, and other fees.
The early entries were procedural. In April 2024, the court granted the homeowners additional time to answer. In August 2024, the court excused an appointed arbitrator for good cause and sent the case back to Civil Court Administration for appointment of a new arbitrator.
The association filed a motion for summary judgment on October 2, 2024. The homeowners filed a response titled as a motion to deny summary judgment or, alternatively, to extend time. The court found in January 2025 that the homeowners raised questions about whether the association’s counsel adequately communicated during efforts to resolve the dispute and whether sufficient information had been provided, but that their response did not conform to Rule 56.
Rather than immediately grant the motion, Judge Driggs allowed the homeowners 30 more days to retain counsel, file a proper Rule 56 response, and/or attempt to resolve the dispute without further increasing attorneys’ fees. The court specifically told them that, if they remained self-represented, they still needed to identify the numbered paragraphs in the association’s statement of facts they disputed and the facts creating a genuine dispute or otherwise precluding summary judgment.
No additional response was filed by the February 21, 2025 deadline. In the April 14, 2025 ruling, the court recited Arizona summary-judgment standards and found that the association met its burden to demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and explain why summary judgment was warranted. Because the homeowners did not meet their burden under Rule 56 despite the extra time, the court granted the association’s motion and allowed it to submit a proposed judgment, fee application, and cost statement.
Video overview of the ruling
An AI-generated video overview of Val Vista Lakes Community Association, The v. Ben J. Rodriguez, et al. (CV2024-090662 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). HOA won assessment-collection summary judgment after homeowners missed Rule 56 response requirements. 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 Val Vista Lakes Community Association, The v. Ben J. Rodriguez, 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/val-vista-lakes-community-association-v-rodriguez/raw/: 4 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.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling granting Val Vista Lakes Community Association summary judgment for claimed past-due assessments, service fees, late charges, and other fees after the homeowners did not file a Rule 56-compliant response despite extra time.
FAQ
What was the association seeking?
The summary-judgment ruling says Val Vista Lakes Community Association sought judgment for $1,003.64, representing past-due assessments, service fees, late charges, and/or other fees.
Why did the court give the homeowners more time?
The court found it reasonable to allow 30 additional days for the homeowners to retain counsel, file a proper Rule 56 response, and/or try to resolve the dispute without further increasing attorneys’ fees.
What was wrong with the homeowners’ first response?
The court said the response did not conform to Rule 56. It reminded the homeowners that a proper response must specify which numbered facts are disputed and identify facts showing a genuine dispute or otherwise precluding summary judgment.
Why did the association win summary judgment?
After the court granted extra time, the homeowners did not file an additional response. The court found that the association met its burden to show no genuine issue of material fact and that the homeowners did not meet their responsive burden under Rule 56.
Did the court enter a final money judgment in the collected entries?
Not in the collected entries for this draft. The April 14, 2025 ruling granted summary judgment and allowed the association to submit a proposed judgment with a fee application and statement of costs.
Is this ruling precedent for other Arizona HOA assessment cases?
No. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. The case is mainly useful as a procedural example of how Rule 56 applies in a routine assessment-collection dispute.
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 | CV2024-090662 (Maricopa County Superior Court) |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Superior Court |
| Decision / key date | April 14, 2025 |
| Judge / panel | Hon. Adam D. Driggs |
| Parties | Val Vista Lakes Community Association, The (Plaintiff, homeowners association) v. Ben J. Rodriguez and Stephanie L. Cox (Defendants) |
| Topics | assessmentsprocedureattorneys-feescc-and-rs |
| Outcome / holding | The superior court granted Val Vista Lakes Community Association summary judgment in an assessment-related collection case after finding the association met its Rule 56 burden and the homeowners did not file a compliant response showing a genuine dispute of material fact despite being given extra time. |
| Primary public source | View source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Uploaded source package | 4 PDFs |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 5 roadmap entries |
| Video overview | Val Vista Lakes Community Association, The v. Ben J. Rodriguez, et al. |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 6 questions |
| Curated download aliases | 1 download link |
Key Issues & Findings
Val Vista Lakes Community Association sued Ben J. Rodriguez and Stephanie L. Cox for a claimed $1,003.64 balance made up of past-due assessments, service fees, late charges, and other fees. The homeowners disputed breach and factual issues, including questions about communications and information provided during settlement efforts, but their response did not comply with Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Judge Adam D. Driggs gave them additional time to retain counsel and file a proper response. When no additional response was filed, the court granted the association summary judgment and permitted the association to submit a proposed judgment, fee application, and cost statement.
The court first gave the homeowners a procedural opportunity to fix their response. Their filing disputed breach of contract and raised questions about communication and information provided during settlement efforts, but the court found it did not conform to Rule 56. Judge Driggs extended the response deadline and explained that any response needed to identify the specific numbered facts disputed and the facts creating a genuine issue or otherwise defeating summary judgment.
When no additional response was filed, the court applied the ordinary summary-judgment burden framework. The moving party must produce evidence showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and explain why judgment is warranted; if that burden is met, the nonmoving party must point to competent evidence justifying trial. The court found the association met its burden and the homeowners did not meet theirs. On that basis, it granted summary judgment and allowed the association to pursue a form of judgment, fees, and costs.
For homeowners, the case is a practical Rule 56 warning: even in a small assessment dispute, a response must do more than generally dispute the association’s claim. The homeowner must identify evidence and specific factual disputes in the form required by the rule.
For associations, the ruling shows a routine path to judgment where the ledger claim is supported and the owner does not make a competent evidentiary response after a fair opportunity to do so. It is not must-read authority because it does not interpret Title 33 or any CC&R provision; as a superior-court ruling, it binds only the parties and is not precedent.