Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corp. v. Gary Tibshraeny: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on July 2, 2026 by [email protected]

HOA Summary Judgment | CV2004-092611

A short minute entry records summary judgment for Tempe Gardens and a reasonable-fee finding.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corp. v. Gary Tibshraeny, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2004-092611.

Download ruling

Scope note: This page covers Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corp. v. Gary Tibshraeny (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2004-092611) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s collected minute entries through 2005-03-10; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: later filings, satisfaction history, appeals, and the formal written orders referenced by the minutes may not be included in these records. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The sourced disposition is limited: summary judgment was granted and fees were found reasonable, with no substantive analysis in the collected entries.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corp. (Plaintiff)
Association party in the HOA-related dispute. Court party records list counsel as Charles Maxwell.

Respondent Side

Carole Fischer (Defendant)
Listed in the court party records as defendant.
Florence Hanna (Defendant)
Listed in the court party records as defendant.
Gary Tibshraeny (Defendant)
Opposing homeowner or property-side party identified in the case caption. Court party records list counsel as Roger Decker.
Lisa J Tibshraeny (Defendant)
Listed in the court party records as defendant. Court party records list counsel as Roger Decker.

Neutral Parties

Hon. Barbara (Judge)
Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.

What happened

The collected record has only two minute entries. The first set oral argument on Tempe Gardens’ motion for summary judgment.

The second entry records oral argument with counsel present for the association and the Tibshraeny defendants.

The court granted the association’s motion for summary judgment and found the attorney fees incurred were reasonable.

No collected minute entry states the amount, the claim details, or the CC&R provisions at issue.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corp. v. Gary Tibshraeny (CV2004-092611 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). Tempe Gardens obtained summary judgment and a reasonable-fee finding in a thin minute-entry record. 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 Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corp. v. Gary Tibshraeny. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

Audio overview generated with Google NotebookLM from the case’s court filings.

Procedural timeline

Step 2005-01-05 IT IS ORDERED setting oral argument on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment for 02/11/2005 at 8:30 a.

Step 2005-03-10 IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

Complete uploaded source-document index

This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/tempe-gardens-townhouse-corp-v-gary-tibshraeny/raw/: 2 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.

Source 1 2005-01-05

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.

Download source file

2005-01-05_001_oral-argument-set.pdf

Source 2 2005-03-10

Oral Argument

Type: Court/source PDF

Minute entry granting Tempe Gardens’ motion for summary judgment and finding attorney fees reasonable.

Download source file

2005-03-10_002_oral-argument.pdf

FAQ

What did the superior court decide?

It granted the association’s motion for summary judgment.

Is this superior-court ruling precedent?

No. It binds the parties in this case but is useful only as a public record of how this dispute was handled.

Does the page summarize addresses or unit numbers?

No. Residential addresses and unit identifiers from the minute entries are intentionally omitted.

Who was the association party?

The association party identified in the collected court records was Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corp..

Does this replace legal advice?

No. This is an educational case guide based on public minute entries, not legal advice.

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	CV2004-092611 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunal	Superior Court
Decision / key date	March 10, 2005
Judge / panel	Hon. Barbara
Parties	Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corp. (Plaintiff) v. Gary Tibshraeny and other defendants
Topics	AssessmentsAttorney FeesProcedure
Outcome / holding	The court granted Tempe Gardens’ motion for summary judgment and found the requested attorney fees reasonable.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package	2 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	2 roadmap entries
Video overview	Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corp. v. Gary Tibshraeny
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	5 questions
Curated download aliases	1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

The collected record contains a setting order and a short oral-argument minute entry. After oral argument, the court granted Tempe Gardens’ motion for summary judgment and found the attorney fees incurred were reasonable.

Key Issues & Findings

The available minute text is brief. It shows oral argument on the association’s summary-judgment motion, appearances by counsel for both sides, and the court’s order granting the motion.

The same entry states that the court found the attorney fees incurred were reasonable, but it does not describe the claim, the amount of judgment, or the governing documents.

Why It Matters

This is a narrow record of a summary-judgment outcome for an association. Because the entry contains no legal analysis or amount, it should not be used as authority on assessment validity or fee entitlement.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Tatum Highlands Community Association v. Michael R Burns: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on July 2, 2026 by [email protected]

HOA Judgment | CV2002-002028

The court granted judgment for Tatum Highlands against the named defendants.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Tatum Highlands Community Association v. Michael R Burns, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2002-002028.

Download ruling

Scope note: This page covers Tatum Highlands Community Association v. Michael R Burns (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2002-002028) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s collected minute entries through 2002-04-03; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: later filings, satisfaction history, appeals, and the formal written orders referenced by the minutes may not be included in these records. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The court granted judgment for Tatum Highlands against the named defendants.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Tatum Highlands Community Association (Plaintiff)
Association party in the HOA-related dispute. Court party records list counsel as James Hazlewood.

Respondent Side

Michael R Burns (Defendant)
Opposing homeowner or property-side party identified in the case caption.
Midland Credit Management INC (Defendant)
Listed in the court party records as defendant.
Sheri Sprague Burns (Defendant)
Listed in the court party records as defendant.

Neutral Parties

Hon. Toby Maureen Gerst (Judge)
Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.

What happened

The court granted judgment against Michael R. Burns and related defendants for Tatum Highlands in a one-entry record.

The minute entries identify the association and opposing property-side parties, then record the court’s disposition.

The collected record does not state a detailed legal analysis or full judgment terms, so this guide does not infer them.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Tatum Highlands Community Association v. Michael R Burns (CV2002-002028 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). Tatum Highlands obtained judgment in a one-entry record with no merits analysis. 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 Tatum Highlands Community Association v. Michael R Burns. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

Audio overview generated with Google NotebookLM from the case’s court filings.

Procedural timeline

Step 2002-04-03 IT IS ORDERED granting judgment against Defendants Michael R.

Complete uploaded source-document index

This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/tatum-highlands-community-association-v-michael-r-burns/raw/: 1 PDF. 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.

Source 1 2002-04-03

Judgment Entered

Type: Decision or judgment

Judgment-entry minute entering or approving judgment for the association.

Download source file

2002-04-03_001_judgment-entered.pdf

FAQ

What did the superior court decide?

The court granted judgment for Tatum Highlands against the named defendants.

Is this superior-court ruling precedent?

No. It binds the parties in this case but is useful only as a public record of how this dispute was handled.

Does the page summarize addresses or unit numbers?

No. Residential addresses and unit identifiers from the minute entries are intentionally omitted.

Who was the association party?

The association party identified in the collected court records was Tatum Highlands Community Association.

Does this replace legal advice?

No. This is an educational case guide based on public minute entries, not legal advice.

Case Dossier

Case Summary

Case ID / citation	CV2002-002028 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunal	Superior Court
Decision / key date	April 3, 2002
Judge / panel	Hon. Toby Maureen Gerst
Parties	Tatum Highlands Community Association (Plaintiff) v. Michael R Burns (Defendant)
Topics	AssessmentsLiensProcedure
Outcome / holding	After a civil default hearing, the superior court granted judgment against Michael R. Burns, Sheri Sprague-Burns, and Midland Credit Management, Inc. in accordance with the formal written default judgment entered April 3, 2002.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package	1 PDF
Step-by-step docket roadmap	1 roadmap entry
Video overview	Tatum Highlands Community Association v. Michael R Burns
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	5 questions
Curated download aliases	1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

The court granted judgment against Michael R. Burns and related defendants for Tatum Highlands in a one-entry record.

Key Issues & Findings

The court granted judgment against Michael R. Burns and related defendants for Tatum Highlands in a one-entry record.

The collected entries do not include substantive analysis of assessment calculations, lien priority, or CC&R interpretation. The page therefore treats the ruling as a procedural judgment record only.

Why It Matters

This case is useful as a public record of an HOA judgment or foreclosure disposition, but the collected minute entries are too thin to serve as guidance on contested HOA law.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Suntrails III Homeowners Association v. John Ward: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on July 2, 2026 by [email protected]

HOA Judgment | CV2021-094264

The court approved and settled the formal written judgment for Suntrails III.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Suntrails III Homeowners Association v. John Ward, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2021-094264.

Download ruling

Scope note: This page covers Suntrails III Homeowners Association v. John Ward (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2021-094264) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s collected minute entries through 2021-12-01; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: later filings, satisfaction history, appeals, and the formal written orders referenced by the minutes may not be included in these records. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The court approved and settled the formal written judgment for Suntrails III.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Suntrails III Homeowners Association (Plaintiff)
Listed in the court party records as plaintiff. Court party records list counsel as Kristopher Amundsen.

Respondent Side

John Ward (Defendant)
Opposing homeowner or property-side party identified in the case caption.

Neutral Parties

Hon. Rodrick Coffey (Judge)
Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.

What happened

The court approved and settled a formal written judgment for Suntrails III Homeowners Association after placing the case on a dismissal calendar unless judgment or dismissal papers were filed.

The minute entries identify the association and opposing property-side parties, then record the court’s disposition.

The collected record does not state a detailed legal analysis or full judgment terms, so this guide does not infer them.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Suntrails III Homeowners Association v. John Ward (CV2021-094264 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). Suntrails III obtained a formal judgment in a thin minute-entry record. 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 Suntrails III Homeowners Association v. John Ward. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

Audio overview generated with Google NotebookLM from the case’s court filings.

Procedural timeline

Step 2021-09-22 IT IS ORDERED continuing the Telephonic Order to Show Cause Return Hearing to October 22, 2021 at 4:30 p.

Step 2021-10-22 IT IS ORDERED placing this case on the Court’s Dismissal calendar for dismissal, without further notice, on February 20, 2022.

Step 2021-12-01 IT IS ORDERED approving and settling the formal written judgment signed by the Court on November 29, 2021 and filed [entered] by the clerk on December 1, 2021.

Complete uploaded source-document index

This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/suntrails-i-i-i-homeowners-association-v-john-ward/raw/: 3 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.

Source 1 2021-09-22

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.

Download source file

2021-09-22_001_minute-entry.pdf

Source 2 2021-10-22

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.

Download source file

2021-10-22_002_minute-entry.pdf

Source 3 2021-12-01

Judgment Entered

Type: Decision or judgment

Judgment-entry minute entering or approving judgment for the association.

Download source file

2021-12-01_003_judgment-entered.pdf

FAQ

What did the superior court decide?

The court approved and settled the formal written judgment for Suntrails III.

Is this superior-court ruling precedent?

No. It binds the parties in this case but is useful only as a public record of how this dispute was handled.

Does the page summarize addresses or unit numbers?

No. Residential addresses and unit identifiers from the minute entries are intentionally omitted.

Who was the association party?

The association party identified in the collected court records was Suntrails III Homeowners Association.

Does this replace legal advice?

No. This is an educational case guide based on public minute entries, not legal advice.

Case Dossier

Case Summary

Case ID / citation	CV2021-094264 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunal	Superior Court
Decision / key date	December 1, 2021
Judge / panel	Hon. Rodrick Coffey
Parties	Suntrails III Homeowners Association (Plaintiff) v. John Ward (Defendant)
Topics	AssessmentsLiensProcedure
Outcome / holding	The superior court approved and settled the formal written judgment for Suntrails III Homeowners Association, signed November 29, 2021 and entered December 1, 2021. The minute entry contains no substantive analysis of the assessment, lien, or foreclosure merits.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package	3 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	3 roadmap entries
Video overview	Suntrails III Homeowners Association v. John Ward
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	5 questions
Curated download aliases	1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

The court approved and settled a formal written judgment for Suntrails III Homeowners Association after placing the case on a dismissal calendar unless judgment or dismissal papers were filed.

Key Issues & Findings

The court approved and settled a formal written judgment for Suntrails III Homeowners Association after placing the case on a dismissal calendar unless judgment or dismissal papers were filed.

The collected entries do not include substantive analysis of assessment calculations, lien priority, or CC&R interpretation. The page therefore treats the ruling as a procedural judgment record only.

Why It Matters

This case is useful as a public record of an HOA judgment or foreclosure disposition, but the collected minute entries are too thin to serve as guidance on contested HOA law.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Summer Place Terrace Homeowners Association v. Sundance Unlimited: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on July 2, 2026 by [email protected]

HOA Judgment | CV2005-091216

The court granted judgment for Summer Place Terrace Homeowners Association.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Summer Place Terrace Homeowners Association v. Sundance Unlimited, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2005-091216.

Download ruling

Scope note: This page covers Summer Place Terrace Homeowners Association v. Sundance Unlimited (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2005-091216) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s collected minute entries through 2005-10-25; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: later filings, satisfaction history, appeals, and the formal written orders referenced by the minutes may not be included in these records. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The court granted judgment for Summer Place Terrace Homeowners Association.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Summer Place Terrace Homeowners Association (Plaintiff)
Association party in the HOA-related dispute. Court party records list counsel as Taz Evans.

Respondent Side

Pacific Scene Incorporated (Defendant)
Listed in the court party records as defendant.
Silvergate Corporation (Defendant)
Listed in the court party records as defendant.
Sundance Unlimited (Defendant)
Opposing homeowner or property-side party identified in the case caption.

Neutral Parties

Hon. Maricopa County Superior Court (Judge)
Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.

What happened

The court granted judgment in favor of Summer Place Terrace Homeowners Association against Sundance Unlimited, Silvergate Corporation, and/or Pacific Scene Corporation.

The minute entries identify the association and opposing property-side parties, then record the court’s disposition.

The collected record does not state a detailed legal analysis or full judgment terms, so this guide does not infer them.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Summer Place Terrace Homeowners Association v. Sundance Unlimited (CV2005-091216 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). Summer Place Terrace obtained judgment against corporate defendants in a thin record. 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 Summer Place Terrace Homeowners Association v. Sundance Unlimited. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

Audio overview generated with Google NotebookLM from the case’s court filings.

Procedural timeline

Step 2005-10-25 IT IS ORDERED granting the judgment in favor of Summer Place Terrace Homeowners Association and against Sundance Unlimited, Silvergate Corporation and/or Pacific Scene Corporation.

Complete uploaded source-document index

This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/summer-place-terrace-homeowners-association-v-sundance-unlimited/raw/: 1 PDF. 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.

Source 1 2005-10-25

Default Judgment

Type: Decision or judgment

Judgment-entry minute entering or approving judgment for the association.

Download source file

2005-10-25_001_default-judgment.pdf

FAQ

What did the superior court decide?

The court granted judgment for Summer Place Terrace Homeowners Association.

Is this superior-court ruling precedent?

No. It binds the parties in this case but is useful only as a public record of how this dispute was handled.

Does the page summarize addresses or unit numbers?

No. Residential addresses and unit identifiers from the minute entries are intentionally omitted.

Who was the association party?

The association party identified in the collected court records was Summer Place Terrace Homeowners Association.

Does this replace legal advice?

No. This is an educational case guide based on public minute entries, not legal advice.

Case Dossier

Case Summary

Case ID / citation	CV2005-091216 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunal	Superior Court
Decision / key date	October 25, 2005
Judge / panel	Hon. Maricopa County Superior Court
Parties	Summer Place Terrace Homeowners Association (Plaintiff) v. Sundance Unlimited (Defendant)
Topics	Quiet TitleProcedure
Outcome / holding	The court granted a default judgment quieting title for Summer Place Terrace Homeowners Association.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package	1 PDF
Step-by-step docket roadmap	1 roadmap entry
Video overview	Summer Place Terrace Homeowners Association v. Sundance Unlimited
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	5 questions
Curated download aliases	1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

The court entered a default judgment quieting title in favor of Summer Place Terrace Homeowners Association against Sundance Unlimited, Silvergate Corporation, and/or Pacific Scene Corporation.

Key Issues & Findings

The court entered a default judgment quieting title in favor of Summer Place Terrace Homeowners Association against Sundance Unlimited, Silvergate Corporation, and/or Pacific Scene Corporation.

This was a quiet title action resolved by default, not an assessment or lien dispute; the collected entries do not include contested substantive analysis, so the page treats the ruling as a procedural quiet-title judgment record only.

Why It Matters

This case is useful as a public record of an HOA quiet-title default judgment, but the collected minute entries are too thin to serve as guidance on contested HOA law.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Russell Ranch Homeowners Association v. Gregory T Heard: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on July 2, 2026 by [email protected]

HOA Foreclosure Judgment | CV2025-010660

The court approved the formal foreclosure judgment and order of sale for Russell Ranch.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Russell Ranch Homeowners Association v. Gregory T Heard, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2025-010660.

Download ruling

Scope note: This page covers Russell Ranch Homeowners Association v. Gregory T Heard (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2025-010660) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s collected minute entries through 2025-08-19; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: later filings, satisfaction history, appeals, and the formal written orders referenced by the minutes may not be included in these records. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The court approved the formal foreclosure judgment and order of sale for Russell Ranch.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Russell Ranch Homeowners Association (Plaintiff)
Association party in the HOA-related dispute. Court party records list counsel as Charlene Cruz.

Respondent Side

Gregory T Heard (Defendant)
Opposing homeowner or property-side party identified in the case caption.

Neutral Parties

Hon. Christopher Whitten (Judge)
Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.
Hon. Jason Easterday (Judge)
Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.

What happened

The court approved and settled a formal written Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure and Order of Sale for Russell Ranch Homeowners Association.

The minute entries identify the association and opposing property-side parties, then record the court’s disposition.

The collected record does not state a detailed legal analysis or full judgment terms, so this guide does not infer them.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Russell Ranch Homeowners Association v. Gregory T Heard (CV2025-010660 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). Russell Ranch obtained a foreclosure judgment and order of sale after default proceedings. 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 Russell Ranch Homeowners Association v. Gregory T Heard. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

Audio overview generated with Google NotebookLM from the case’s court filings.

Procedural timeline

Step 2025-05-19 IT IS ORDERED that no action will be taken by this division on the above-referenced document(s).

Step 2025-08-12 IT IS ORDERED that Counsel for Plaintiff to submit a proposed form of order no later than August 15, 2025.

Step 2025-08-19 IT IS ORDERED approving and settling the formal written Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure and Order of Sale signed by the Court on August 14, 2025 and filed (entered) by the Clerk on August 19, 2025.

Complete uploaded source-document index

This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/russell-ranch-homeowners-association-v-gregory-t-heard/raw/: 3 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.

Source 1 2025-05-19

Default Judgment

Type: Decision or judgment

Shows the filer trying to move the case forward because the opposing party had not timely appeared.

Download source file

2025-05-19_001_default-judgment.pdf

Source 2 2025-08-12

Default Judgment

Type: Decision or judgment

Shows the filer trying to move the case forward because the opposing party had not timely appeared.

Download source file

2025-08-12_002_default-judgment.pdf

Source 3 2025-08-19

Judgment Entered

Type: Decision or judgment

Judgment-entry minute entering or approving the formal written Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure and Order of Sale.

Download source file

2025-08-19_003_judgment-entered.pdf

FAQ

What did the superior court decide?

The court approved the formal foreclosure judgment and order of sale for Russell Ranch.

Is this superior-court ruling precedent?

No. It binds the parties in this case but is useful only as a public record of how this dispute was handled.

Does the page summarize addresses or unit numbers?

No. Residential addresses and unit identifiers from the minute entries are intentionally omitted.

Who was the association party?

The association party identified in the collected court records was Russell Ranch Homeowners Association.

Does this replace legal advice?

No. This is an educational case guide based on public minute entries, not legal advice.

Case Dossier

Case Summary

Case ID / citation	CV2025-010660 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunal	Superior Court
Decision / key date	August 19, 2025
Judge / panel	Hon. Christopher Whitten, Hon. Jason Easterday
Parties	Russell Ranch Homeowners Association (Plaintiff) v. Gregory T Heard (Defendant)
Topics	AssessmentsLiensProcedureForeclosure
Outcome / holding	The court approved the formal foreclosure judgment and order of sale for Russell Ranch.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package	3 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	3 roadmap entries
Video overview	Russell Ranch Homeowners Association v. Gregory T Heard
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	5 questions
Curated download aliases	1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

The court approved and settled a formal written Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure and Order of Sale for Russell Ranch Homeowners Association.

Key Issues & Findings

The court approved and settled a formal written Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure and Order of Sale for Russell Ranch Homeowners Association.

The collected entries do not include substantive analysis of assessment calculations, lien priority, or CC&R interpretation. The page therefore treats the ruling as a procedural judgment record only.

Why It Matters

This case is useful as a public record of an HOA judgment or foreclosure disposition, but the collected minute entries are too thin to serve as guidance on contested HOA law.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Hilton Casitas Council Of Co-owners v. R L Whitmer: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on July 2, 2026 by [email protected]

Receivership & Post-Judgment Motions | CV2015-053091

The collected entries show dismissal of a Hilton Casitas receivership case and later denial of Rule 60 efforts to unwind judgments.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Hilton Casitas Council Of Co-owners v. R L Whitmer, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2015-053091.

Download ruling

Scope note: This page covers Hilton Casitas Council Of Co-owners v. R L Whitmer (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2015-053091) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s collected minute entries through 2026-03-30; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: later filings, satisfaction history, appeals, and the formal written orders referenced by the minutes may not be included in these records. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The sourced record is procedural: dismissal and post-judgment denial, not a detailed interpretation of HOA governing documents.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Procaccianti Az Ii, L P (Intervenor)
Listed in the court party records as intervenor. Court party records list counsel as Dina Aouad.
Colleen London (Plaintiff)
Listed in the court party records as plaintiff. Court party records list counsel as Ross Meyer.
Diana R Shaffer (Plaintiff)
Listed in the court party records as plaintiff. Court party records list counsel as Robert Porter.
R L Whitmer (Plaintiff)
Opposing homeowner or property-side party identified in the case caption. Court party records list counsel as Ross Meyer.

Respondent Side

Zadok Eli (Consolidated)
Listed in the court party records as consolidated.
Hilton Casitas Council Of Co-owners (Defendant)
Association party in the HOA-related dispute.
Hilton Casitas Council Of Homeowners (Defendant)
Listed in the court party records as defendant. Court party records list counsel as R Hill.
City Of Scottsdale (Garnishee Defendant)
Listed in the court party records as garnishee defendant.
Jpmorgan Chase Bank N A (Garnishee Defendant)
Listed in the court party records as garnishee defendant.

Neutral Parties

Hon. Susan M. Brnovich (Judge)
Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.
Hon. John R. Hannah Jr (Judge)
Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.
Hon. Theodore Campagnolo (Judge)
Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.
Hon. Melissa Iyer Julian (Judge)
Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.

What happened

The case involved a request for receivership relief against Hilton Casitas and related defendants.

After oral argument in January 2016, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, denied the request for an evidentiary hearing, and found in favor of the defendants on the receivership application.

The post-judgment docket later became part of consolidated Rule 60 proceedings. In August 2019, the court denied Rule 60(d)(3) and Rule 60(b)(6) relief, denied motions to vacate judgments, and found attorneys’ fees under A.R.S. § 12-349 appropriate.

Later entries reflect additional post-judgment requests and record-correction issues, but the collected minutes do not supply a fresh merits ruling on association governance.

Procedural timeline

Step 2015-09-09 IT IS ORDERED granting Intervenor Procaccianti AZ II, L.

Step 2015-09-28 IT IS ORDERED granting the Motion to Intervene.

Step 2015-10-05 IT IS ORDERED Procaccianti AZ II, L.

Step 2016-01-12 IT IS ORDERED setting Oral Argument on Plaintiff’s Request for Evidentiary Hearing on Receivership Application and Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on January 15, 2016 at 1:30 p.

Step 2016-01-15 IT IS ORDERED the motion for new trial is denied.

Step 2016-06-06 Minute entry filed.

Step 2016-07-25 IT IS ORDERED Plaintiffs’ Motion to Vacate Judgment is denied.

Step 2016-12-05 the Court finds that they are not entitled to such an order so long as the amount of the bond remains at issue.

Step 2019-06-10 IT IS ORDERED granting the Motion, all in accordance with the formal written Order Discharging Garnishee (Non-Earnings) signed by the court on June 7, 2019 and entered (filed) by the clerk on June 10, 2019.

Step 2019-06-13 IT IS ORDERED denying the Motion to Consolidate Cases, without prejudice to Plaintiff re-filing a motion to consolidate that contains sufficient bases for the Court to determine if consolidation is appropriate.

Type: Court/source PDF

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file

2026-03-30_026_oral-argument.pdf

FAQ

What did the superior court decide?

It dismissed the receivership case and later denied Rule 60 relief.

Is this superior-court ruling precedent?

No. It binds the parties in this case but is useful only as a public record of how this dispute was handled.

Does the page summarize addresses or unit numbers?

No. Residential addresses and unit identifiers from the minute entries are intentionally omitted.

Who was the association party?

The association party identified in the collected court records was Hilton Casitas Council Of Co-owners.

Does this replace legal advice?

No. This is an educational case guide based on public minute entries, not legal advice.

Case Dossier

Case Summary

Case ID / citation	CV2015-053091 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunal	Superior Court
Decision / key date	January 15, 2016
Judge / panel	Hon. Melissa Iyer Julian, Hon. John R. Hannah Jr, Hon. Theodore Campagnolo, Hon. Susan M. Brnovich
Parties	R.L. Whitmer and other plaintiffs v. Hilton Casitas Council of Co-Owners and other defendants
Governing law	A.R.S. § 12-349
Topics	ProcedureAttorney FeesBoard Governance
Outcome / holding	The court dismissed the receivership case, denied the receivership hearing request, denied later Rule 60 efforts to vacate judgments, and awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees rather than double damages or other sanctions.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package	26 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	12 roadmap entries
Video overview	No video embed currently configured
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	5 questions
Curated download aliases	1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, denied an evidentiary hearing on a receivership application, and found in favor of Procaccianti and Hilton Casitas on the receivership application. Later, in consolidated post-judgment proceedings, the court denied Rule 60 relief and found an award of attorneys’ fees under A.R.S. § 12-349 appropriate.

Key Issues & Findings

The January 2016 minute entry records oral argument on the defendants’ motion to dismiss and the plaintiffs’ request for an evidentiary hearing on a receivership application. The court granted dismissal, denied the hearing request, and found in favor of the defendants on the receivership application.

The later post-judgment record shows repeated attempts to vacate judgments across related cases. In August 2019, after consolidated briefing and argument, the court denied Rule 60(d)(3) and Rule 60(b)(6) relief, denied the motion to vacate judgments and request to vacate trial, and found attorneys’ fees under A.R.S. § 12-349 appropriate.

Later entries continued to reject attempts to reopen or expand post-judgment proceedings. The collected entries do not provide a full merits explanation for the original dismissal ruling.

Why It Matters

This is a standard procedural record of an HOA-adjacent receivership and post-judgment attack. It is useful for tracking litigation history, but not a must-read HOA merits ruling because the core dismissal reasoning is mostly on the oral record rather than in the minute text.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Paloma Paseo Homeowners Association v. David Falk: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on July 2, 2026 by [email protected]

HOA Fees on Appeal | A.R.S. § 33-1807(H) | LC2018-000421

The superior court vacated a later fee award to Paloma Paseo because the association did not timely include or amend those fees into the final judgment.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Paloma Paseo Homeowners Association v. David Falk, Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2018-000421.

Download ruling

Scope note: This page covers Paloma Paseo Homeowners Association v. David Falk (Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2018-000421) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s collected minute entries through 2019-01-14; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: later filings, satisfaction history, appeals, and the formal written orders referenced by the minutes may not be included in these records. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

HOA fee entitlement does not eliminate judgment-timing rules. A later fee application after final judgment can be waived or unsupported if the judgment did not reserve or include the amounts.

Case Participants

Respondent Side

David Falk (DEFT/Appellant)
Opposing homeowner or property-side party identified in the case caption. Court party records list counsel as Gary Henman.
Melody Falk (DEFT/Appellant)
Listed in the court party records as deft/appellant. Court party records list counsel as Gary Henman.
Mcdowell Mountain Justice Court (Originating Court)
Listed in the court party records as originating court.
Paloma Paseo Homeowners Association (PLF/Appellee)
Association party in the HOA-related dispute. Court party records list counsel as Rodrigo Sauaia.

Neutral Parties

Hon. Patricia Ann Starr (Judge)
Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.
Hon. Patricia Starr For (Judge)
Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.
Hon. Patricia A. Starr (Judge)
Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.

What happened

Paloma Paseo sued the Falks in justice court for assessments and related collection amounts. The parties stipulated to principal, and the trial court entered judgment for attorneys’ fees and costs in January 2018.

Months later, the association filed another fee application. The Falks responded, but the trial court treated the response as moot and awarded additional fees and costs.

On record appeal, the superior court held the association waived additional pre-judgment fees by not including them before judgment and had no basis for post-judgment fees through a later order where the judgment did not reserve them.

The superior court vacated the justice-court award and remanded for further proceedings, while declining to sanction the association.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Paloma Paseo Homeowners Association v. David Falk (LC2018-000421 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). A justice-court post-judgment fee award to an HOA was vacated as untimely after final judgment. 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 Paloma Paseo Homeowners Association v. David Falk. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

Audio overview generated with Google NotebookLM from the case’s court filings.

Procedural timeline

Step 2018-11-19 IT IS ORDERED assigning this appeal on November 19, 2018 to Hon.

Step 2019-01-14 The Court finds that by failing to include those amounts, the Association waived its ability to recover them in the judgment.

Complete uploaded source-document index

This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/paloma-paseo-homeowners-association-v-david-falk/raw/: 2 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.

Source 1 2018-11-19

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.

Download source file

2018-11-19_001_oral-argument.pdf

Source 2 2019-01-14

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

Record-appeal ruling vacating the justice-court post-judgment fee award to Paloma Paseo and remanding.

Download source file

2019-01-14_002_ruling.pdf

FAQ

What did the superior court decide?

It vacated the additional post-judgment fee-and-cost award and remanded.

Is this superior-court ruling precedent?

No. It binds the parties in this case but is useful only as a public record of how this dispute was handled.

Does the page summarize addresses or unit numbers?

No. Residential addresses and unit identifiers from the minute entries are intentionally omitted.

Who was the association party?

The association party identified in the collected court records was Paloma Paseo Homeowners Association.

Does this replace legal advice?

No. This is an educational case guide based on public minute entries, not legal advice.

Case Dossier

Case Summary

Case ID / citation	LC2018-000421 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunal	Superior Court
Decision / key date	January 14, 2019
Judge / panel	Hon. Patricia Ann Starr, Hon. Patricia Starr For, Hon. Patricia A. Starr
Parties	David Falk and Melody Falk (Appellants) v. Paloma Paseo Homeowners Association (Appellee)
Governing law	A.R.S. § 33-1807 A.R.S. § 12-124 A.R.S. § 22-261
Topics	Attorney FeesAssessmentsProcedureLiens
Outcome / holding	The superior court vacated the justice-court fee-and-cost award entered five months after final judgment and remanded, while declining sanctions against the association.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package	2 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	2 roadmap entries
Video overview	Paloma Paseo Homeowners Association v. David Falk
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	5 questions
Curated download aliases	1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

On appeal from justice court, the superior court vacated a post-judgment attorneys’ fee and cost award to Paloma Paseo. It held the association waived additional pre-judgment fees by not including them before judgment and had no basis for later post-judgment fees where the final judgment did not reserve them, despite the HOA provisions and A.R.S. § 33-1807(H).

Key Issues & Findings

The superior court applied the justice-court fee timing rule and found the association filed its second fee application months after judgment. Because the association could have included all pre-judgment fees before the January 2018 judgment but did not, it waived those amounts.

The court also found the trial court erred by treating the homeowners’ timely opposition as moot. The opposition was not moot as to the new fee application filed months later.

For post-judgment fees, the court acknowledged the association’s reliance on HOA provisions and A.R.S. § 33-1807(H), but held those provisions supported fees for the prevailing party in a judgment and the association had already received such an award in the judgment. Because the later award was by order after final judgment and the association had not timely amended the judgment, there was no basis for it.

Why It Matters

This is must-read for HOA collection fee practice because it vacates a later fee award and explains that an association must timely include fee claims in the judgment or amend the judgment, rather than seeking a new order months later.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association v. John Dickerson: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on July 2, 2026 by [email protected]

Architectural Enforcement & Fees | CV2005-012018

Mountain Vista Ranch received a small judgment, but the court denied attorney fees after the garage repair was completed before service.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association v. John Dickerson, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2005-012018.

Download ruling

Scope note: This page covers Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association v. John Dickerson (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2005-012018) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s collected minute entries through 2006-06-08; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: later filings, satisfaction history, appeals, and the formal written orders referenced by the minutes may not be included in these records. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

Winning a small enforcement balance does not guarantee attorney fees; the court treated fees as discretionary and focused on the fact that the core repair issue was already resolved.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association (Plaintiff)
Association party in the HOA-related dispute. Court party records list counsel as J Wood.

Respondent Side

Holly Dickerson (Defendant)
Listed in the court party records as defendant.
John Dickerson (Defendant)
Opposing homeowner or property-side party identified in the case caption.

Neutral Parties

Hon. Barry (Judge)
Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.

What happened

Mountain Vista Ranch sued over a garage-repair dispute and related charges. The first collected ruling said the garage had been fixed before service of the lawsuit and that the only apparent remaining issue was attorney fees.

The court declined sanctions and later considered the association’s motion for reconsideration and clarification.

On June 8, 2006, the court denied attorney fees as a discretionary matter. It explained that the main thrust of the case had been accomplished before service and that the owners admitted the late-fee, fine, and NSF obligations.

The court entered judgment for $454.00, with interest, and signed the minute entry as a formal order.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association v. John Dickerson (CV2005-012018 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). The court entered $454 for late fees, fines, and NSF charges but denied association attorney fees. 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 Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association v. John Dickerson. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

Audio overview generated with Google NotebookLM from the case’s court filings.

Procedural timeline

Step 2006-03-17 IT IS ORDERED placing this matter on the Inactive Calendar for dismissal on April 17, 2006 without further notice, unless prior thereto a stipulation to dismiss is received.

Step 2006-04-21 Minute entry filed.

Step 2006-04-24 IT IS ORDERED dismissing this cause without prejudice.

Step 2006-05-15 Minute entry filed.

Step 2006-06-08 IT IS ORDERED GRANTING Plaintiff judgment against John Dickerson and Holly Dickerson, husband and wife, in the sum of $454.

Complete uploaded source-document index

This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/mountain-vista-ranch-owners-association-v-john-dickerson/raw/: 5 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.

Source 1 2006-03-17

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

Ruling placing the case on the inactive calendar after finding the garage was fixed before service and declining sanctions.

Download source file

2006-03-17_001_ruling.pdf

Source 2 2006-04-21

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.

Download source file

2006-04-21_002_ruling.pdf

Source 3 2006-04-24

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.

Download source file

2006-04-24_003_minute-entry.pdf

Source 4 2006-05-15

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.

Download source file

2006-05-15_004_minute-entry.pdf

Source 5 2006-06-08

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

Ruling entering $454.00 judgment for Mountain Vista Ranch while denying attorney fees as discretionary.

Download source file

2006-06-08_005_ruling.pdf

FAQ

What did the superior court decide?

It entered a $454.00 judgment for charges but denied the association’s attorney-fee request.

Is this superior-court ruling precedent?

No. It binds the parties in this case but is useful only as a public record of how this dispute was handled.

Does the page summarize addresses or unit numbers?

No. Residential addresses and unit identifiers from the minute entries are intentionally omitted.

Who was the association party?

The association party identified in the collected court records was Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association.

Does this replace legal advice?

No. This is an educational case guide based on public minute entries, not legal advice.

Case Dossier

Case Summary

Case ID / citation	CV2005-012018 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunal	Superior Court
Decision / key date	June 8, 2006
Judge / panel	Hon. Barry
Parties	Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association (Plaintiff) v. John and Holly Dickerson (Defendants)
Topics	Architectural ReviewFinesAttorney FeesProcedure
Outcome / holding	The court granted Mountain Vista Ranch judgment for $454.00 but denied attorney fees because the main repair issue had been resolved before service and the owners did not dispute the late-fee, fine, and NSF obligations.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package	5 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	5 roadmap entries
Video overview	Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association v. John Dickerson
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	5 questions
Curated download aliases	1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

In a garage-repair enforcement case, the court found the garage was fixed before service and declined sanctions and attorney fees. On reconsideration, it entered judgment for $454.00 in late fees, fines, and NSF charges with interest, while explaining that fees were discretionary and not appropriate on this record.

Key Issues & Findings

The first collected ruling stated that the only remaining issue appeared to be attorney fees and that the garage had been fixed before service of the lawsuit. The court declined sanctions and placed the case on the inactive calendar.

On reconsideration and clarification, the court explained that attorney-fee awards were discretionary. It found denial appropriate because the main thrust of the lawsuit, repair of the garage, had been accomplished before service, and the owners admitted the late-fee, fine, and NSF obligations.

The court calculated $24.00 in late fees, $405.00 in fines, and $25.00 in NSF charges, totaling $454.00, and signed the minute entry as a formal order.

Why It Matters

This is a useful but nonprecedential reminder that even when an association wins a small enforcement judgment, the court may still deny attorney fees as a matter of discretion when the core violation was fixed before service.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association v. Ismael Rivas: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on July 2, 2026 by [email protected]

HOA Foreclosure Judgment | CV2024-037894

The court granted judgment and approved the formal foreclosure judgment and order of sale.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association v. Ismael Rivas, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2024-037894.

Download ruling

Scope note: This page covers Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association v. Ismael Rivas (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2024-037894) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s collected minute entries through 2025-07-08; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: later filings, satisfaction history, appeals, and the formal written orders referenced by the minutes may not be included in these records. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The court granted judgment and approved the formal foreclosure judgment and order of sale.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association (Plaintiff)
Association party in the HOA-related dispute. Court party records list counsel as Charlene Cruz.

Respondent Side

Ismael Rivas (Defendant)
Opposing homeowner or property-side party identified in the case caption.
Judy Rivas Armendariz (Defendant)
Listed in the court party records as defendant.
Robert Armendariz (Defendant)
Listed in the court party records as defendant.

Neutral Parties

Hon. Scott (Judge)
Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.
Hon. Brian (Judge)
Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.

What happened

The court granted judgment against the named defendants and entered a formal Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure and Order of Sale for Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association.

The minute entries identify the association and opposing property-side parties, then record the court’s disposition.

The collected record does not state a detailed legal analysis or full judgment terms, so this guide does not infer them.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association v. Ismael Rivas (CV2024-037894 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). Mountain Vista Ranch obtained a foreclosure judgment and order of sale after default proceedings. 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 Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association v. Ismael Rivas. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

Audio overview generated with Google NotebookLM from the case’s court filings.

Procedural timeline

Step 2025-04-07 IT IS ORDERED that no action will be taken by this Division on the above-referenced document(s).

Step 2025-07-07 IT IS ORDERED vacating the Default Hearing set for today, July 7, 2025, and resetting the same to July 8, 2025 at 1:30 p.

Step 2025-07-08 IT IS ORDERED granting judgment against the named Defendants, all in accordance with the formal written Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure and Order of Sale signed by the Court on July 8, 2025 and filed (entered) by the Clerk on July 9, 2025.

Complete uploaded source-document index

This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/mountain-vista-ranch-owners-association-v-ismael-rivas/raw/: 3 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.

Source 1 2025-04-07

Default Judgment

Type: Decision or judgment

Shows the filer trying to move the case forward because the opposing party had not timely appeared.

Download source file

2025-04-07_001_default-judgment.pdf

Source 2 2025-07-07

Default Judgment

Type: Decision or judgment

Shows the filer trying to move the case forward because the opposing party had not timely appeared.

Download source file

2025-07-07_002_default-judgment.pdf

Source 3 2025-07-08

Judgment Entered

Type: Decision or judgment

Judgment-entry minute entering or approving the formal written Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure and Order of Sale.

Download source file

2025-07-08_003_judgment-entered.pdf

FAQ

What did the superior court decide?

The court granted judgment and approved the formal foreclosure judgment and order of sale.

Is this superior-court ruling precedent?

No. It binds the parties in this case but is useful only as a public record of how this dispute was handled.

Does the page summarize addresses or unit numbers?

No. Residential addresses and unit identifiers from the minute entries are intentionally omitted.

Who was the association party?

The association party identified in the collected court records was Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association.

Does this replace legal advice?

No. This is an educational case guide based on public minute entries, not legal advice.

Case Dossier

Case Summary

Case ID / citation	CV2024-037894 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunal	Superior Court
Decision / key date	July 8, 2025
Judge / panel	Hon. Scott, Hon. Brian
Parties	Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association (Plaintiff) v. Ismael Rivas (Defendant)
Topics	AssessmentsLiensProcedureForeclosure
Outcome / holding	The court granted judgment and approved the formal foreclosure judgment and order of sale.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package	3 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	3 roadmap entries
Video overview	Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association v. Ismael Rivas
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	5 questions
Curated download aliases	1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

The court granted judgment against the named defendants and entered a formal Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure and Order of Sale for Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association.

Key Issues & Findings

The court granted judgment against the named defendants and entered a formal Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure and Order of Sale for Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association.

The collected entries do not include substantive analysis of assessment calculations, lien priority, or CC&R interpretation. The page therefore treats the ruling as a procedural judgment record only.

Why It Matters

This case is useful as a public record of an HOA judgment or foreclosure disposition, but the collected minute entries are too thin to serve as guidance on contested HOA law.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Coventry Tempe Community Association v. Faisal Elhassan: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on July 2, 2026 by [email protected]

HOA Summary Judgment | Ledger Dispute | CV2024-090807

The court granted Coventry Tempe summary judgment because the owner did not create a factual dispute over the association’s ledger.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Coventry Tempe Community Association v. Faisal Elhassan, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2024-090807.

Download ruling

Scope note: This page covers Coventry Tempe Community Association v. Faisal Elhassan (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2024-090807) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s collected minute entries through 2025-12-09; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: later filings, satisfaction history, appeals, and the formal written orders referenced by the minutes may not be included in these records. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

An owner opposing HOA summary judgment must point to actual evidence; disagreement with a prior judgment and unsupported ledger objections were not enough here.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Faisal Elhassan (Plaintiff)
Opposing homeowner or property-side party identified in the case caption.

Respondent Side

Coventry Tempe Community Association (Defendant)
Association party in the HOA-related dispute. Court party records list counsel as Jill Ormond.

Neutral Parties

Hon. Rodrick Coffey (Judge)
Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.
Hon. David Mcdowell (Judge)
Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.

What happened

The owner sued Coventry Tempe after earlier litigation involving the same parties. The court first allowed implied-covenant and unjust-enrichment claims to proceed while dismissing other theories.

Coventry Tempe later moved for summary judgment. The court found the owner’s factual references concerned matters already decided in the earlier case.

The court also found the owner produced no documents, receipts, cancelled checks, bank statements, or other evidence to dispute the association’s ledger of charges and credits.

Summary judgment was granted in full for the association, and reconsideration was denied.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Coventry Tempe Community Association v. Faisal Elhassan (CV2024-090807 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). Coventry Tempe won summary judgment because the owner offered no evidence disputing the ledger. 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 Coventry Tempe Community Association v. Faisal Elhassan. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

Audio overview generated with Google NotebookLM from the case’s court filings.

Procedural timeline

Step 2024-04-03 IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Respond and extending the deadline for Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss until May 1, 2024.

Step 2024-04-04 IT IS ORDERED granting the Defendants Motion for Enlargement of Time for Defendants to File a Responsive Pleading, electronically filed on February 28, 2024.

Step 2024-05-29 IT IS ORDERED granting the Defendant, Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado and Bolen, LLP’s Motion to Dismiss Caption, electronically filed March 8, 2024 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing with prejudice against Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado and Bolen, LLP.

Step 2024-07-18 IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff request.

Step 2024-09-11 IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint.

Step 2024-09-12 IT IS ORDERED approving and settling the formal written Judgment signed by the Court on September 10, 2024 and filed [entered] by the clerk on September 12, 2024.

Step 2024-10-09 IT IS ORDERED that Defendants may file a response to that Motion by no later than October 25, 2024.

Step 2024-11-07 Minute entry filed.

Step 2024-12-17 IT IS ORDERED denying Defendants’ Motion to Strike Notice of Appeal.

Step 2025-01-14 IT IS ORDERED denying in part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss with regard to Plaintiff’s claims for: 1) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and 2) unjust enrichment.

Type: Court order/minute entry

Ruling denying reconsideration of the summary-judgment order.

Download source file

2025-12-09_014_ruling.pdf

FAQ

What did the superior court decide?

It granted summary judgment for Coventry Tempe.

Is this superior-court ruling precedent?

No. It binds the parties in this case but is useful only as a public record of how this dispute was handled.

Does the page summarize addresses or unit numbers?

No. Residential addresses and unit identifiers from the minute entries are intentionally omitted.

Who was the association party?

The association party identified in the collected court records was Coventry Tempe Community Association.

Does this replace legal advice?

No. This is an educational case guide based on public minute entries, not legal advice.

Case Dossier

Case Summary

Case ID / citation	CV2024-090807 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunal	Superior Court
Decision / key date	October 28, 2025
Judge / panel	Hon. Rodrick Coffey, Hon. David Mcdowell
Parties	Faisal Elhassan (Plaintiff) v. Coventry Tempe Community Association and other defendants
Topics	AssessmentsLiensGood Faith & Fair DealingProcedure
Outcome / holding	The court granted Coventry Tempe’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety and later denied reconsideration, explaining that the ruling rested on the grounds stated in the order rather than the owner’s absence from oral argument.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package	14 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	12 roadmap entries
Video overview	Coventry Tempe Community Association v. Faisal Elhassan
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	5 questions
Curated download aliases	1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

The court allowed two claims to proceed past dismissal, then granted Coventry Tempe summary judgment. It found the owner’s factual references related to issues already decided in CV2021-001103 and that he produced no documents, receipts, cancelled checks, bank statements, or other evidence disputing the association’s ledger of charges and credits.

Key Issues & Findings

The January 2025 dismissal ruling allowed claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment to proceed, while dismissing other theories.

At summary judgment, the court applied Arizona summary-judgment standards and found the owner relied on matters already fully and finally determined in CV2021-001103, including disputes about judgment, default, and satisfaction. The court further found he did not produce evidence disputing the ledger of charges and credits attached to the association’s statement of facts.

Because the owner did not meet his burden to show a genuine issue of material fact, the court granted summary judgment for the association and directed it to lodge a proposed judgment and any fee application.

Why It Matters

This standard case is useful for repeat-litigation and ledger-proof issues after an HOA judgment. It is not must-read because it applies ordinary summary-judgment and preclusion concepts rather than interpreting HOA statutes or governing documents.

← Back to Superior Court cases