jeremy@azhoawatch.org, Author at - Arizona HOA Transparency Project

undated_001_undated-001-sun-city-home-owners-association-v-acc.txt

Complete source-document index

This index contains 1 PDF, 1 other source file from the reviewed public source packet. Byte-identical copies are listed once. Files are ordered by the date and sequence in the public filename, and party filings or research materials are labeled separately from court rulings.

Source 1 Undated

Undated 001 Sun City Home Owners Association V Acc

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

Source 2 Undated

Undated 002 Sun City Home Owners Association V Acc

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

undated_002_undated-002-sun-city-home-owners-association-v-acc.pdf

FAQ

What was the main issue in Sun City Home Owners Association v. Arizona Corporation Commission?

The case addressed two primary issues: first, whether the Arizona Corporation Commission is entitled to ‘extreme deference’ when courts review its decisions; and second, whether the Commission’s decision to consolidate several geographically distinct wastewater districts into a single district with a uniform rate violated the Arizona Constitution’s prohibition against discriminatory rates.

What did the Court decide regarding judicial deference to the Corporation Commission?

The Arizona Supreme Court held that the Commission is not entitled to ‘extreme deference’ regarding issues of constitutional and statutory compliance. While courts defer to the Commission’s factual findings under a substantial evidence standard, they review questions of constitutional and statutory compliance de novo.

Did the consolidated rate structure violate the Arizona Constitution's prohibition on discriminatory rates?

No. The Court ruled that because the consolidation would result in identical rates for all customers who receive the ‘same exact service’ under like circumstances, it satisfies the constitutional requirement of non-discrimination under Article 15, Section 12. Charging a uniform rate across a consolidated district is not unconstitutionally discriminatory even if the historical costs of serving each individual community differed.

What was the underlying dispute that led to this case?

EPCOR Water Arizona Inc. acquired five wastewater districts with varying monthly rates. The Commission approved a five-year phase-in plan to consolidate these districts into a single rate structure. The Sun City Home Owners Association opposed this consolidation because it would significantly increase monthly bills for Sun City residents to subsidize improvements in other districts.

Which parties supported and opposed the rate consolidation?

The rate consolidation was supported by EPCOR, the Commission staff, and the Agua Fria, Anthem, and Mohave districts. It was opposed by the Sun City Home Owners Association and the Residential Utility Consumer Office, who advocated for maintaining the existing stand-alone rates.

Case Dossier

This dossier combines the case metadata, linked court sources, and the explanatory sections below. It distinguishes court rulings from party filings, allegations, and requested relief.

Case Summary

Case ID / citation	CV-20-0047-PR (Ariz.)
Court / tribunal	Arizona Supreme Court
Decision / key date	October 1, 2021
Judge / panel	Justice Clint Bolick, Chief Justice Robert M. Brutinel, Vice Chief Justice Ann A. Scott Timmer, Justice John R. Lopez IV, Justice James P. Beene, Justice Bill Montgomery, Judge Garye L. Vásquez
Parties	Sun City Home Owners Association (Appellant) v. Arizona Corporation Commission (Appellee), EPCOR Water Arizona, Inc. (Intervenor), and Verrado Community Association, Inc. (Intervenor)
Governing law	A.R.S. § 40-254.01 A.R.S. § 40-334
Topics	AssessmentsProcedure
Outcome / holding	The Arizona Corporation Commission is not entitled to 'extreme deference' on matters of constitutional and statutory compliance, which are subject to de novo judicial review. Furthermore, the Commission's consolidation of distinct utility service districts into a single district with a uniform rate structure does not violate the Arizona Constitution's prohibition against rate discrimination under Article 15, Section 12, as all customers in the consolidated district receive a like and contemporaneous service.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package	1 PDF, 1 other source file
Step-by-step docket roadmap	6 roadmap entries
Video overview	Sun City Home Owners Association v. Arizona Corporation Commission, et al.
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	5 questions
Featured download links	0 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

This case involves an appeal by the Sun City Home Owners Association opposing the Arizona Corporation Commission's decision to fully consolidate five wastewater districts managed by EPCOR Water Arizona Inc. into a single district with uniform rates. The Arizona Supreme Court addressed the level of deference owed to the Commission and whether charging uniform rates across historically separate districts constitutes unlawful discrimination under the Arizona Constitution. The Court clarified that while the Commission holds plenary ratemaking authority, its constitutional compliance is reviewed de novo without 'extreme deference'. The Court ultimately held that achieving rate parity across consolidated districts is not unconstitutionally discriminatory.

Key Issues & Findings

The Court reasoned that Article 15, Section 12 of the Arizona Constitution categorically prohibits rate discrimination between persons or places for rendering a 'like and contemporaneous service.' Because all customers within the newly consolidated EPCOR district would pay identical rates and receive identical wastewater services, the rates satisfy this non-discrimination standard. The Court rejected the argument that rate consolidation is discriminatory because it fails to align with individual district cost of service (cost causation), noting that cost causation is highly relevant to determining whether rates are 'just and reasonable' under Article 15, Section 3, but is not the basis for a discrimination analysis under Section 12. Finally, the Court clarified that although the Commission's factual findings receive deference, courts owe no deference to the Commission's interpretations of constitutional limits.

Why It Matters

This decision is highly significant because it establishes that the Arizona Corporation Commission's constitutional and statutory compliance is reviewed de novo, rejecting the prior 'extreme deference' standard applied by the Court of Appeals. It also confirms the constitutionality of rate consolidation for public utilities serving multiple Arizona communities, paving the way for uniform rate structures despite historical cost-of-service disparities among different geographic areas.

← Back to Arizona Supreme Court cases

Tucson Estates Property Owners Association, Inc. v. McGovern & Sines

Posted on July 15, 2026 by [email protected]

Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two | No. 2 CA-CV 2015-0069

In Tucson Estates POA v. McGovern, the Arizona Court of Appeals addressed whether unilateral attorney fee provisions in HOA covenants require reciprocal awards to prevailing homeowners. While fees remain discretionary, the court ruled that recovery of litigation costs is mandatory under A.R.S. § 12-341.

Last updated July 15, 2026. Case: Tucson Estates Property Owners Association, Inc. v. McGovern, Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division Two, No. 2 CA-CV 2015-0069, Filed January 15, 2016; Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Source-file index FAQ

Scope note: This page summarizes the court’s decision in Tucson Estates Property Owners Association, Inc. v. McGovern regarding unilateral fee clauses in CC&Rs and mandatory litigation costs under Arizona law. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A) permits but does not mandate an award of attorney fees to a prevailing party when the contract contains a unilateral fee provision favoring only the other party. However, A.R.S. § 12-341 mandatorily requires that the successful party in a civil action recover their costs.

Case Participants

Respondent Side

Holly A. McGovern (Defendant / Appellant)
Tucson Estates homeowner
Tucson Estates Property Owners Association, Inc. v. McGovern, Sines (Defendant / Appellant)
Tucson Estates homeowner who replaced the shed

Neutral Parties

Judge Miller (Appellate Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two
Author of the appellate opinion
Presiding Judge Vásquez (Appellate Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two
Concurred in the appellate opinion
Chief Judge Eckerstrom (Appellate Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two
Concurred in the appellate opinion
Richard S. Fields (Trial Judge)
Superior Court in Pima County
Presided over the trial court proceedings

What happened

In 2012, McGovern and Sines purchased property in Tucson Estates with an existing 35-year-old shed.

Sines submitted a change request to replace the shed and received verbal approval from a TEPOA inspector; TEPOA failed to send their written denial form.

Sines completed the shed, and more than a year later TEPOA sent a letter alleging a violation of the CC&Rs.

Sines corresponded with TEPOA and ultimately moved the shed to the cement pad where the original shed had stood.

TEPOA sued the homeowners seeking an injunction, liquidated damages, and attorney fees for breach of contract.

The trial court denied TEPOA’s injunction, vacated the fines, and ordered both sides to bear their own fees and costs.

The homeowners appealed the denial of attorney fees under A.R.S. § 12-341.01 and sanctions under A.R.S. § 12-349, and the denial of costs under A.R.S. § 12-341.

The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of attorney fees but reversed the denial of trial court costs.

Video overview of the case record

An AI-generated video overview of Tucson Estates Property Owners Association, Inc. v. McGovern (2 CA-CV 2015-0069 (Ariz. Ct. App.)). Unilateral CC&R fee provisions do not mandate reciprocal fee awards under A.R.S. 12-341.01(A). This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own records control.

Listen: audio deep dive on the case record

An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the case record in Tucson Estates Property Owners Association, Inc. v. McGovern. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked records below.

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

Procedural timeline

2016-01-15

The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two, files its opinion in the case.

undated_001_undated-001-courtlistener-opinion-3170150.txt

Complete source-document index

Source 1 Undated

Undated 001 Courtlistener Opinion 3170150

Type: Decision or judgment

Decision document; read it to understand the controlling result before moving to later filings.

Download source file

Source 2 Undated

Undated 002 Courtlistener Opinion 3170150

Type: Decision or judgment

Decision document; read it to understand the controlling result before moving to later filings.

Download source file

undated_002_undated-002-courtlistener-opinion-3170150.pdf

FAQ

Are reciprocal attorney fees mandatory when CC&Rs contain a unilateral fee provision?

No. The Arizona Court of Appeals held that A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A) permits but does not mandate an award of attorney fees to a prevailing homeowner when the CC&Rs unilaterally grant fees only to the association.

Is a trial court required to award litigation costs to the successful party under Arizona law?

Yes. Under A.R.S. § 12-341, the successful party to a civil action is entitled to recover all expended or incurred costs, and the court has no discretion to deny costs once the successful party is identified.

What was the core dispute in the Tucson Estates case?

The dispute began when homeowners replaced and relocated a 35-year-old shed after receiving verbal approval. The HOA later sued for an injunction to remove the shed, alleging a violation of the CC&Rs, and sought fines and attorney fees.

Why did the HOA lose its claims in the trial court?

The trial court found that the homeowners relied on actual or implicit approval to build. The court denied the injunction because the HOA delayed over a year in giving notice of violation and failed to send its written rejection form.

Were sanctions awarded against the HOA for bringing the lawsuit?

No. The homeowners sought attorney fees as a sanction under A.R.S. § 12-349, but the court denied them because there was conflicting evidence regarding notice of plan denial, showing the claim was not groundless or in bad faith.

Case Dossier

This dossier combines the case metadata, linked court sources, and the explanatory sections below. It distinguishes court rulings from party filings, allegations, and requested relief.

Case Summary

Case ID / citation	2 CA-CV 2015-0069 (Ariz. Ct. App.)
Court / tribunal	Court of Appeals
Decision / key date	January 15, 2016
Judge / panel	Judge Miller, Presiding Judge Vásquez, Chief Judge Eckerstrom
Parties	Plaintiff/Appellee Tucson Estates Property Owners Association, Inc. v. Defendants/Appellants Holly A. McGovern and Tucson Estates Property Owners Association, Inc. v. McGovern, Sines
Governing law	A.R.S. § 12-341.01 A.R.S. § 12-341 A.R.S. § 12-349
Topics	CC&RsArchitectural ReviewAttorney FeesFines
Outcome / holding	A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A) permits but does not mandate an award of attorney fees to a prevailing party when the contract contains a unilateral fee provision favoring only the other party. However, A.R.S. § 12-341 mandatorily requires that the successful party in a civil action recover their costs.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package	1 PDF, 1 other source file
Step-by-step docket roadmap	1 roadmap entry
Video overview	Tucson Estates Property Owners Association, Inc. v. McGovern
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	5 questions
Featured download links	0 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Tucson Estates Property Owners Association (TEPOA) sued homeowners Holly McGovern and Donald Sines after they replaced a 35-year-old shed, seeking an injunction, fines, and attorney fees. The trial court found the homeowners relied on verbal or implicit approval, denied TEPOA's requests, and vacated all fines, but ordered each party to bear their own fees and costs. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of attorney fees under A.R.S. § 12-341.01, ruling that unilateral contractual fee clauses do not mandate reciprocal fee awards for prevailing homeowners. However, the court reversed the denial of costs, holding that costs under A.R.S. § 12-341 are mandatory for the successful party.

Key Issues & Findings

The court analyzed A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A) and found that its plain language states courts 'may' award fees in contract actions, but does not mandate equity or reciprocity where the contract's unilateral terms favor only one party. Any correction to asymmetrical statutory treatment of parties must come from the legislature. For litigation costs, the court found that A.R.S. § 12-341 uses mandatory language ('shall recover'), and because the homeowners completely defeated all of TEPOA's claims, they were the sole successful party and were entitled to costs as a matter of law.

Why It Matters

This case clarifies that unilateral attorney fees provisions in HOA CC&Rs do not establish a mandatory right to reciprocal fees for homeowners under A.R.S. § 12-341.01, keeping such awards discretionary. Importantly, it emphasizes that trial courts have no discretion to deny litigation costs to a fully successful party under A.R.S. § 12-341.

← Back to Court of Appeals cases

Reed v. CHDB Law LLP: FDCPA Judgment-Renewal Allegations

Posted on July 7, 2026 by [email protected]

FDCPA / Judgment Renewal Allegations

Reed is a settlement record, not a liability finding. The complaint alleged time-barred HOA judgment-collection conduct by CHDB Law LLP and Charlene Cruz; defendants denied wrongdoing, asserted defenses, and the case settled.

Federal court | D. Ariz. No. 2:25-cv-04355-MTL | Settlement notice filed 2026-05-14

Download complaint Download answer FAQ

Current-status note: This page is published as a litigation record based on the source files available through 2026-05-14. Later filings, appeals, mandates, settlements, or dismissal orders may change the posture; the linked court records control.

Allegations, settlements, procedural dismissals, and notices are not findings of liability unless a cited court order expressly makes that finding.

Scope note: This page summarizes a federal settlement record and distinguishes allegations from court findings. The downloaded record does not show a merits ruling that CHDB or any defendant violated the FDCPA. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

Reed is allegation-only public-interest evidence: the complaint accused CHDB Law LLP and Charlene Cruz of time-barred HOA judgment-collection conduct, defendants denied liability, and the downloaded record shows settlement without a merits finding.

Public-interest record: serious allegations, no adjudicated wrongdoing

What Reed alleged

The complaint alleged FDCPA and related violations tied to judgment-renewal, recording, and collection activity Reed characterized as time-barred.

What CHDB answered

CHDB and Cruz denied liability and asserted affirmative defenses. That denial must appear beside the allegations in any fair public summary.

How it ended

The downloaded record contains a settlement notice. It does not contain a court finding that CHDB or Cruz did anything unlawful.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Sara M. Reed (Plaintiff)
Filed the FDCPA/judgment-renewal complaint.

Respondent Side

CHDB Law LLP (Defendant)
Formerly Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP; denied liability in the answer.
Charlene Cruz (Defendant)
CHDB partner named in the complaint; denied liability in the answer.
John Doe Cruz / Paul Colin Rambeau (Defendant spouse / marital community allegation)
The answer identified Paul Colin Rambeau as Charlene Cruz's spouse and denied marital-community liability.
Does I-X (Unidentified defendants)
Placeholder defendants named in the complaint.

Neutral Parties

Michael T. Liburdi (Judge)
U.S. District Judge for the District of Arizona.

What happened

Sara M. Reed alleged that CHDB Law LLP and Charlene Cruz pursued or preserved an HOA-related judgment that Reed characterized as no longer enforceable. The complaint framed the dispute around FDCPA collection conduct, abuse of process, and wrongful-recording theories.

The defendants answered by denying liability. Their answer asserted, among other defenses, bona fide error and a disputed judgment-expiration theory tied to when the ten-year enforcement period began.

The downloaded record then shows a notice of settlement. The fair public conclusion is narrow: Reed documents negative allegations and a settlement, not judicial exoneration and not judicial liability.

Video overview of the case record

AI-generated video overview of Reed v. CHDB Law LLP et al.. This is an allegation-and-settlement record. Defendants denied liability, and no merits ruling appears in the downloaded record.

The written case page and linked court records are the controlling source for legal posture and accuracy.

Listen: audio deep dive on the case record

AI-generated audio deep dive for Reed v. CHDB Law LLP et al.. This is an allegation-and-settlement record. Defendants denied liability, and no merits ruling appears in the downloaded record.

Use the linked court records and written page for the exact legal posture.

Audio overview generated from the case record; verify against the linked court records.

Litigation record

Step 1 2025-11-19

Federal complaint filed alleging FDCPA and related claims over alleged time-barred HOA judgment collection.

Filed by: Reed

This is the source for the negative allegations; it is not a court finding.

Download source

2025-11-19_001_federal-complaint-fdcpa-judgment-renewal-allegations.pdf

Step 2 2026-02-02

Answer filed denying liability and asserting defenses.

Filed by: CHDB

Shows the defense posture that must be included for fair, non-defamatory framing.

Download source

2026-02-02_002_answer-denying-liability.pdf

Step 3 2026-05-14

Notice of settlement filed.

Filed by: Parties

Confirms settlement rather than a merits ruling in the downloaded record.

Download source

2026-05-14_003_notice-of-settlement.pdf

View all 3 source documents for this case ↓

Complete source-document index

This index contains 3 PDFs from the reviewed public source packet. Byte-identical copies are listed once. Files are ordered by the date and sequence in the public filename, and party filings or research materials are labeled separately from court rulings.

Source 1 2025-11-19

Federal Complaint Fdcpa Judgment Renewal Allegations

Type: Decision or judgment

Complaint alleging FDCPA and related claims based on alleged time-barred HOA judgment-renewal and collection activity.

Download source file

2025-11-19_001_federal-complaint-fdcpa-judgment-renewal-allegations.pdf

Source 2 2026-02-02

Answer Denying Liability

Type: Responsive pleading

CHDB answer denying liability and asserting affirmative defenses.

Download source file

2026-02-02_002_answer-denying-liability.pdf

Source 3 2026-05-14

Notice Of Settlement

Type: Procedural/service filing

Notice stating the parties reached settlement; no merits ruling appears in the downloaded record.

Download source file

2026-05-14_003_notice-of-settlement.pdf

FAQ

Did the court find CHDB liable in Reed?

No. The downloaded record shows allegations, an answer denying liability, and settlement. It does not show a merits ruling finding CHDB liable.

Why publish a settled allegation case?

Because the complaint and answer are public federal records involving HOA collection counsel. The page is useful only if it keeps allegations, denials, and settlement posture clear.

Can this page say CHDB acted unlawfully?

No. It can say Reed alleged unlawful conduct and CHDB denied it. It cannot present those allegations as proven.

What should homeowners learn from it?

Judgment-renewal and stale-collection issues can become FDCPA disputes, but the enforceability and liability questions depend on specific facts and court rulings.

Primary sources

Case Dossier

This dossier combines the case metadata, linked court sources, and the explanatory sections below. It distinguishes court rulings from party filings, allegations, and requested relief.

Case Summary

Case ID / citation	D. Ariz. No. 2:25-cv-04355-MTL
Court / tribunal	Federal Court
Decision / key date	July 7, 2026
Judge / panel	Michael T. Liburdi
Parties	Sara M. Reed (plaintiff) v. CHDB Law LLP, Charlene Cruz and John Doe Cruz, and Does I-X.
Governing law	15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (FDCPA) A.R.S. § 12-1551 (judgment renewal / enforcement timing, alleged)
Topics	FDCPAAssessmentsAttorney FeesProcedure
Outcome / holding	No merits holding appears in the downloaded record. The case settled after defendants denied liability, so the public record supports allegation-and-settlement framing only.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package	3 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	3 roadmap entries
Video overview	Reed v. CHDB Law LLP et al. – D. Ariz. No. 2:25-cv-04355-MTL
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	4 questions
Featured download links	3 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Sara M. Reed sued CHDB Law LLP and Charlene Cruz in the District of Arizona. The complaint alleged FDCPA and related claims based on alleged judgment-renewal, recording, and collection activity that Reed characterized as time-barred. CHDB and Cruz answered and denied liability, asserting defenses including bona fide error and a disputed judgment-expiration theory. The downloaded record shows a notice of settlement, but does not include a dismissal order or merits ruling. Reed should therefore be treated as an allegation-and-settlement record, not proof that a court found wrongdoing.

Key Issues & Findings

The complaint framed the dispute as FDCPA, abuse-of-process, and wrongful-recording claims arising from an allegedly untimely judgment-renewal affidavit. The answer denied liability and asserted affirmative defenses, including a disputed calculation of the judgment-renewal deadline. The notice of settlement states that the parties resolved the matter. Without a dismissal order, judgment, or merits findings in the source set, the fair conclusion is narrow: the allegations are serious public-interest allegations, but they were not adjudicated in the downloaded record.

Why It Matters

Reed is useful for understanding the kinds of time-barred-collection and judgment-renewal allegations homeowners may raise against HOA collection counsel. It should not be used as proof of corruption or liability. Any public summary must put the complaint allegations beside the defendants' denial, the bona-fide-error defense, and the settlement/no-merits posture.

← Back to Federal Court cases

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.

Current-status note: This page is published as a litigation record based on the source files available through 2005-03-10. Later filings, appeals, mandates, settlements, or dismissal orders may change the posture; the linked court records control.

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 case record

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 case record

An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the court record and procedural posture in Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corp. v. Gary Tibshraeny. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked case records below.

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

Procedural timeline

2005-01-05

IT IS ORDERED setting oral argument on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment for 02/11/2005 at 8:30 a.

Download source

Oral Argument Set

2005-03-10

IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

Download source

Oral Argument

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

Complete source-document index

This index contains 2 PDFs from the reviewed public source packet. Byte-identical copies are listed once. Files are ordered by the date and sequence in the public filename, and party filings or research materials are labeled separately from court rulings.

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

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 dossier combines the case metadata, linked court sources, and the explanatory sections below. It distinguishes court rulings from party filings, allegations, and requested relief.

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

Reviewed 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
Featured download links	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.

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.

View all 1 source document for this case ↓

Current-status note: Allegations, settlements, procedural dismissals, and notices are not findings of liability unless a cited court order expressly makes that finding.

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

2002-04-03

IT IS ORDERED granting judgment against Defendants Michael R.

Download source

Judgment Entered

Complete source-document index

This index contains 1 PDF from the reviewed public source packet. Byte-identical copies are listed once. Files are ordered by the date and sequence in the public filename, and party filings or research materials are labeled separately from court rulings.

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

This dossier combines the case metadata, linked court sources, and the explanatory sections below. It distinguishes court rulings from party filings, allegations, and requested relief.

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

Reviewed 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
Featured download links	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.

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.

2021-10-22_002_minute-entry.pdf

Current-status note: Allegations, settlements, procedural dismissals, and notices are not findings of liability unless a cited court order expressly makes that finding.

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.

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file

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

This dossier combines the case metadata, linked court sources, and the explanatory sections below. It distinguishes court rulings from party filings, allegations, and requested relief.

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

Reviewed 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
Featured download links	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.

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.

View all 1 source document for this case ↓

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

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.

Download source

Default Judgment

Complete source-document index

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

This dossier combines the case metadata, linked court sources, and the explanatory sections below. It distinguishes court rulings from party filings, allegations, and requested relief.

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

Reviewed 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
Featured download links	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.

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.

2025-08-12_002_default-judgment.pdf

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.

Type: Decision or judgment

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

Download source file

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

This dossier combines the case metadata, linked court sources, and the explanatory sections below. It distinguishes court rulings from party filings, allegations, and requested relief.

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

Reviewed 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
Featured download links	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.

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.

2026-03-30_026_oral-argument.pdf

Current-status note: This page is published as a litigation record based on the source files available through 2026-03-30. Later filings, appeals, mandates, settlements, or dismissal orders may change the posture; the linked court records control.

Pipeline note: the public raw-source folder contains source files that were not in the last staged NotebookLM source set. The page remains a source-linked record, but generated media should be rebuilt or rechecked after the staged source manifest catches up.

Allegations, settlements, procedural dismissals, and notices are not findings of liability unless a cited court order expressly makes that finding.

Video/audio is held from this page until a fresh media package is generated from the approved source record.

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.

Download source

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

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

This dossier combines the case metadata, linked court sources, and the explanatory sections below. It distinguishes court rulings from party filings, allegations, and requested relief.

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

Reviewed source package	26 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	12 roadmap entries
Video overview	Temporarily unavailable while the expanded case record is reviewed
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	5 questions
Featured download links	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.

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.

Current-status note: This page is published as a litigation record based on the source files available through 2019-01-14. Later filings, appeals, mandates, settlements, or dismissal orders may change the posture; the linked court records control.

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 case record

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 case record

An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the court record and procedural posture in Paloma Paseo Homeowners Association v. David Falk. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked case records below.

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

Procedural timeline

2018-11-19

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

Download source

Oral Argument

2019-01-14

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

Download source

Ruling

2018-11-19_001_oral-argument.pdf

Complete source-document index

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

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

This dossier combines the case metadata, linked court sources, and the explanatory sections below. It distinguishes court rulings from party filings, allegations, and requested relief.

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

Reviewed 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
Featured download links	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.