HOA Foreclosure | Excess Proceeds | CV2013-015763
The court kept the association foreclosure judgment intact and later handled applications for excess proceeds from the judicial sale.
Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Cottonflower Goodyear Community Association, Inc. v. Malik Bey, et al., Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2013-015763.
Scope note: This page covers Cottonflower Goodyear Community Association, Inc. v. Malik Bey, et al. (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2013-015763) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s filed minute entries, especially the July 29, 2014 oral-argument entry, the October 21, 2014 emergency-motion ruling, the October 22, 2015 ruling denying a motion to vacate default judgment, and the later excess-proceeds entries. Currency caveat: the collected record ends with the July 10, 2020 minute entry stating that an order releasing excess proceeds to the United States had already been entered. Any later collection, title, bankruptcy, or appeal activity is outside these records. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The takeaway
Once the association foreclosure judgment had been entered, the superior court repeatedly declined to reopen it. Later proceedings shifted away from the merits of the HOA lien and toward who could receive excess proceeds from the judicial sale and what notice had to be given.
Case Participants
Neutral Parties
- Cottonflower Goodyear Community Association, Inc. (Plaintiff)
Homeowners association that brought the lien-foreclosure action and obtained the foreclosure judgment. - Malik Bey (Defendant)
Defendant who filed post-judgment motions seeking to set aside, stay, or vacate the foreclosure judgment and proceedings. - M. Tariq-Bey (Defendant)
Named defendant in the foreclosure action. - United States of America (Intervenor)
Intervened in later proceedings concerning release of excess proceeds from the judicial sale. - Dolores Wallace (Claimant)
Appeared in the later excess-proceeds phase. - Beth Mulcahy (Counsel)
Counsel listed for the association in the minute entries. - Anne E. Nelson (Counsel)
Counsel listed for the United States in the later excess-proceeds proceedings. - Hon. David W. Garbarino (Judge)
Judge who handled the later excess-proceeds proceedings after remand. - Commissioner James R. Morrow (Commissioner)
Superior Court Commissioner who denied the October 22, 2015 Motion to Vacate Default Judgment (the featured ruling) and decided most of the post-judgment motions. - Hon. James T. Blomo (Judge)
Judge who ruled on the defendant’s June 2015 emergency petition for a temporary restraining order. - Hon. Randall H. Warner (Judge)
Civil Presiding Judge who denied the November 6, 2015 motion for change of judge for cause, finding no showing of judicial bias.
What happened
The association filed a lien-foreclosure case and obtained a Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure. The collected minute entries begin around the post-judgment stage, when defendants sought to set aside or stop foreclosure-related proceedings.
On July 29, 2014, the court heard oral argument and denied Malik Bey’s motion to set aside the Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure. On October 21, 2014, the court denied an emergency motion seeking to stay or vacate foreclosure proceedings, stating that judgment had been entered on May 28, 2014 and that the motion to set aside had already been denied.
The post-judgment challenges continued. In October 2015, the court denied a motion to vacate default judgment. The ruling addressed the defendant’s argument that the plaintiff had failed to attach necessary documents to the complaint to foreclose a lien. The court found that the record did not support the argument because the association attached the Cottonflower-Goodyear Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions as an exhibit to its complaint.
A later phase concerned excess proceeds from the judicial sale. In 2017, the court denied an application for release of excess proceeds without prejudice if the applicant filed and served a proper application. In 2019, after remand from federal court, the court allowed the United States to pursue an excess-proceeds application and ordered service on affected defendants.
The final collected minute entry, dated July 10, 2020, states that the court had already entered an order releasing the excess proceeds to the United States and therefore took no further action on the amended application.
Video overview of the ruling
An AI-generated video overview of Cottonflower Goodyear Community Association, Inc. v. Bey (CV2013-015763 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). HOA foreclosure judgment stood after challenges, with later excess-sale proceeds handled through court process. 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 Cottonflower Goodyear Community Association, Inc. v. Bey. 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/cottonflower-goodyear-community-association-v-bey/raw/: 23 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.
Default Judgment
Type: Decision or judgment
Shows the filer trying to move the case forward because the opposing party had not timely appeared.
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
Oral-argument minute entry denying Malik Bey’s motion to set aside the Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure after argument.
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 an emergency request to stay or vacate the foreclosure proceedings because judgment had already been entered and the set-aside motion had been denied.
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 denying multiple post-judgment requests, including renewed efforts to enjoin, vacate, or otherwise disrupt the foreclosure judgment and related proceedings.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying the motion to vacate default judgment and rejecting the argument that the association failed to attach the Cottonflower-Goodyear declaration to the foreclosure complaint.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying the request for change of judge for cause after finding no showing of judicial bias or prejudice under A.R.S. § 12-409(B)(5).
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
Status-conference minute entry denying an application for release of excess proceeds without prejudice to filing a procedurally proper application.
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.
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
Status-conference minute entry granting the United States a new service-by-publication schedule for its excess-proceeds application.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Minute entry stating that the court had already entered an order releasing the judicial-sale excess proceeds to the United States and took no further action.
FAQ
Was this a published appellate decision?
No. This is a Maricopa County Superior Court case built from minute entries. It binds only the parties and is not precedent.
What was the main HOA issue?
The collected entries concern an association lien foreclosure judgment and later efforts to set aside, stay, or vacate that foreclosure judgment.
Did the court reopen the foreclosure judgment?
No. The collected rulings denied motions to set aside, stay, or vacate the judgment and default judgment.
What did the October 2015 ruling say about the declaration?
The court rejected the argument that the association failed to attach necessary foreclosure documents, finding that the Cottonflower-Goodyear declaration was attached as Exhibit B to the complaint.
Why were there later entries after the foreclosure judgment?
Later entries concerned applications for excess proceeds from the judicial sale, including notice and service issues and an application by the United States after remand from federal court.
Why is this case classified as standard?
The record is useful procedurally, but it does not include a broad merits ruling interpreting HOA statutes or CC&R provisions for general application.
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 | CV2013-015763 (Maricopa County Superior Court) |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Superior Court |
| Decision / key date | October 22, 2015 |
| Judge / panel | Commissioner James R. Morrow, Hon. James T. Blomo, Hon. Randall H. Warner, Hon. David W. Garbarino |
| Parties | Cottonflower Goodyear Community Association, Inc. (Plaintiff) v. Malik Bey, et al. (Defendants) |
| Governing law | |
| Topics | foreclosureliensassessmentsprocedure |
| Outcome / holding | The court left the HOA foreclosure judgment in place. It denied motions to set aside, stay, or vacate the judgment and later denied a motion to vacate default judgment after finding that the record did not support the argument that the association failed to attach the governing declaration to its foreclosure complaint. |
| Primary public source | View source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Uploaded source package | 23 PDFs |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 8 roadmap entries |
| Video overview | Cottonflower Goodyear Community Association, Inc. v. Bey |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 6 questions |
| Curated download aliases | 1 download link |
Key Issues & Findings
Cottonflower Goodyear Community Association obtained a foreclosure judgment and sale. The superior court later denied repeated efforts to set aside or vacate the judgment and handled competing post-sale excess-proceeds requests, including an application by the United States after remand from federal court.
The key post-judgment rulings treated the association foreclosure case as already reduced to judgment and sale. On July 29, 2014, the court denied Malik Bey’s motion to set aside the Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure. On October 21, 2014, it denied an emergency request to stay or vacate the foreclosure proceedings, noting that judgment had been entered on May 28, 2014 and that the motion to set aside had already been denied.
In the October 22, 2015 ruling, the court addressed a renewed argument that the plaintiff failed to attach necessary documents to the complaint to foreclose a lien. The court rejected that challenge because the record showed that the association attached a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Cottonflower-Goodyear as Exhibit B to the complaint. Later entries focused on excess sale proceeds, including service requirements and the United States’ application after federal-court remand.
This case is useful mainly as a procedural example of a superior-court HOA lien foreclosure that survived multiple post-judgment challenges. It also shows how excess proceeds from an association foreclosure sale can remain in court and require separate notice and application practice after the foreclosure judgment itself is no longer being revisited.