Author Archives: [email protected]

Enclave Villas Condominium Council Of Co-owners INC v. Thomas C Tracy: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on by

HOA Judgment | CV2017-002958

The court approved the formal written judgment against Thomas C. Tracy.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Enclave Villas Condominium Council Of Co-owners INC v. Thomas C Tracy, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2017-002958.

Download ruling

Scope note: This page covers Enclave Villas Condominium Council Of Co-owners INC v. Thomas C Tracy (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2017-002958) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s collected minute entries through 2018-05-02; 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 written judgment against Thomas C. Tracy.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Enclave Villas Condominium Council Of Co-owners INC (Plaintiff)
    Association party in the HOA-related dispute. Court party records list counsel as Christina Morgan.

Respondent Side

  • Thomas C Tracy (Defendant)
    Opposing homeowner or property-side party identified in the case caption.

Neutral Parties

  • Hon. Karen (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.
  • Hon. Hugh Hegyi (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.
  • Hon. James (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.

What happened

The court approved and settled a formal written judgment against Thomas C. Tracy for Enclave Villas after earlier default-related proceedings and motion practice.

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 Enclave Villas Condominium Council Of Co-owners INC v. Thomas C Tracy (CV2017-002958 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). Enclave Villas obtained a formal judgment against the owner after default-related 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 Enclave Villas Condominium Council Of Co-owners INC v. Thomas C Tracy. 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 2017-03-15 IT IS ORDERED that no action will be taken by this division on the above-referenced document(s).
Step 2017-05-16 IT IS ORDERED the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is denied.
Step 2017-08-03 IT IS ORDERED setting Oral Argument on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Lien Foreclosure for August 22, 2017 at 9:00 a.
Step 2017-08-22 IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Lien Foreclosure.
Step 2017-08-25 IT IS ORDERED that Defendant shall, by August 31, 2017, communicate with Plaintiff’s counsel as to the proposed dates in the report.
Step 2017-10-03 IT IS ORDERED placing this matter on the dismissal calendar for dismissal on October 31, 2017, unless an amended joint report and scheduling order is filed by that date.
Step 2017-11-09 Minute entry filed.
Step 2018-01-05 IT IS ORDERED extending the deadline to complete a settlement conference to April 15, 2018.
Step 2018-01-19 IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss in its present form.
Step 2018-01-19 IT IS ORDERED correcting the January 5, 2018 minute entry to reflect the correct judicial officer as Honorable Karen A.
Step 2018-03-12 IT IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: TRIAL This matter is set for a Bench Trial on May 2, 2018 at 9:30 a.
Step 2018-04-13 IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Deadline to File Trial Exhibits on April 12, 2018.

Complete uploaded source-document index

This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/enclave-villas-condominium-council-of-co-owners-inc-v-thomas-c-tracy/raw/: 14 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 2017-03-15

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
2017-03-15_001_default-judgment.pdf
Source 2 2017-05-16

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
2017-05-16_002_default-judgment.pdf
Source 3 2017-08-03

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
2017-08-03_003_oral-argument-set.pdf
Source 4 2017-08-22

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
2017-08-22_004_oral-argument.pdf
Source 5 2017-08-25

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
2017-08-25_005_minute-entry.pdf
Source 6 2017-10-03

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
2017-10-03_006_minute-entry.pdf
Source 7 2017-11-09

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
2017-11-09_007_minute-entry.pdf
Source 8 2018-01-05

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
2018-01-05_008_minute-entry.pdf
Source 9 2018-01-19

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2018-01-19_009_ruling.pdf
Source 10 2018-01-19

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
2018-01-19_010_minute-entry.pdf
Source 11 2018-03-12

Status Conference

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2018-03-12_011_status-conference.pdf
Source 12 2018-04-13

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
2018-04-13_012_minute-entry.pdf
Source 13 2018-05-02

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
2018-05-02_013_minute-entry.pdf
Source 14 2018-05-02

Judgment Entered

Type: Decision or judgment

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

Download source file
2018-05-02_014_judgment-entered.pdf

FAQ

What did the superior court decide?

The court approved the formal written judgment against Thomas C. Tracy.

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 Enclave Villas Condominium Council Of Co-owners INC.

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 / citationCV2017-002958 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateMay 2, 2018
Judge / panelHon. Karen, Hon. Hugh Hegyi, Hon. James
PartiesEnclave Villas Condominium Council Of Co-owners INC (Plaintiff) v. Thomas C Tracy (Defendant)
Topics
AssessmentsLiensProcedureCondominiums
Outcome / holding

The superior court approved the parties’ stipulation to entry of judgment and covenant not to execute, then approved and settled the formal written judgment against Thomas C. Tracy signed May 1, 2018 and entered May 2, 2018.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package14 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap12 roadmap entries
Video overviewEnclave Villas Condominium Council Of Co-owners INC v. Thomas C Tracy
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Curated download aliases1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

The court approved and settled a formal written judgment against Thomas C. Tracy for Enclave Villas after earlier default-related proceedings and motion practice.

Key Issues & Findings

The court approved and settled a formal written judgment against Thomas C. Tracy for Enclave Villas after earlier default-related proceedings and motion practice.

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

Edet Effiong Asuquo v. La Fuente Condominium Association: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on by

Condo Maintenance Settlement | Rule 80 | CV2019-015684

A condominium owner’s roof and HVAC claims against La Fuente ended when the court enforced a signed Rule 80 settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Edet Effiong Asuquo v. La Fuente Condominium Association, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2019-015684.

Download ruling

Scope note: This page covers Edet Effiong Asuquo v. La Fuente Condominium Association (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2019-015684) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s collected minute entries through 2026-03-06; 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

A signed Rule 80 settlement can be enforced even if the parties expected to prepare a later formal document. Once the case was dismissed with prejudice, later settlement disputes had to follow the settlement’s own dispute-resolution path.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Edet Effiong Asuquo (Plaintiff)
    Listed in the court party records as plaintiff.

Respondent Side

  • La Fuente Condominium Association (Defendant)
    Listed in the court party records as defendant. Court party records list counsel as Jonathan Wallack.

Neutral Parties

  • Hon. James D. Smith (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.
  • Hon. James Smith (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.
  • Hon. Scott Minder (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.

What happened

The owner sued La Fuente over a series of condominium maintenance disagreements. The court first required a clearer pleading, then dismissed all claims except the alleged failure to properly level the roof beneath the owner’s HVAC unit around September 2015.

After arbitration and trial scheduling, the parties attended a settlement conference and signed an Agreement Between the Parties Pursuant to Rule 80(a). The owner later argued no enforceable settlement existed.

The court held an evidentiary hearing and found a binding settlement. It rejected arguments based on separate rooms at the settlement conference, the absence of a later formal settlement document, lack of association-member notice, and alleged coercion by the judge pro tempore.

The settlement order dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice and required La Fuente, through its insurance carrier, to pay the owner $10,000 within ten days of the order. It assigned future responsibility for the HVAC/heat pump equipment servicing only the unit to the owner, and left La Fuente responsible for common elements and general common elements as defined in the CC&Rs. Later efforts to reopen or enforce the settlement in the closed case were denied.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Edet Effiong Asuquo v. La Fuente Condominium Association (CV2019-015684 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). The court enforced a Rule 80 settlement resolving roof and HVAC claims against La Fuente. 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 Edet Effiong Asuquo v. La Fuente Condominium Association. 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 2020-06-09 The court dismissed all claims except the alleged September 2015 roof/HVAC leveling claim.
Step 2021-08-31 The court found the parties had an enforceable Rule 80 settlement agreement.
Step 2021-09-02 The court adopted the settlement terms and dismissed the case with prejudice.
Step 2022-04-01 The court denied a Rule 60-style request for relief from judgment.
Step 2026-03-06 The court denied a later motion to enforce or rescind settlement terms in the closed case.

Complete uploaded source-document index

This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/edet-effiong-asuquo-v-la-fuente-condominium-association/raw/: 37 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 2020-04-22

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
2020-04-22_001_minute-entry.pdf
Source 2 2020-06-09

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

Ruling granting La Fuente’s renewed motion to dismiss in part and leaving only the alleged September 2015 roof/HVAC leveling claim.

Download source file
2020-06-09_002_minute-entry.pdf
Source 3 2020-06-30

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
2020-06-30_003_minute-entry.pdf
Source 4 2020-07-15

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
2020-07-15_004_minute-entry.pdf
Source 5 2020-08-17

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
2020-08-17_005_default-judgment.pdf
Source 6 2020-09-16

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
2020-09-16_006_default-judgment.pdf
Source 7 2020-12-03

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
2020-12-03_007_minute-entry.pdf
Source 8 2020-12-03

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
2020-12-03_008_minute-entry.pdf
Source 9 2021-01-04

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
2021-01-04_009_minute-entry.pdf
Source 10 2021-01-04

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
2021-01-04_010_minute-entry.pdf
Source 11 2021-01-08

Status Conference

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2021-01-08_011_status-conference.pdf
Source 12 2021-02-01

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
2021-02-01_012_minute-entry.pdf
Source 13 2021-02-02

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2021-02-02_013_ruling.pdf
Source 14 2021-04-09

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
2021-04-09_014_oral-argument.pdf
Source 15 2021-05-19

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
2021-05-19_015_minute-entry.pdf
Source 16 2021-05-21

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
2021-05-21_016_oral-argument.pdf
Source 17 2021-05-21

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2021-05-21_017_ruling.pdf
Source 18 2021-05-27

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
2021-05-27_018_minute-entry.pdf
Source 19 2021-06-08

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
2021-06-08_019_minute-entry.pdf
Source 20 2021-06-15

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
2021-06-15_020_minute-entry.pdf
Source 21 2021-06-16

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
2021-06-16_021_minute-entry.pdf
Source 22 2021-06-17

Status Conference

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2021-06-17_022_status-conference.pdf
Source 23 2021-06-29

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
2021-06-29_023_minute-entry.pdf
Source 24 2021-07-06

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
2021-07-06_024_minute-entry.pdf
Source 25 2021-07-12

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
2021-07-12_025_minute-entry.pdf
Source 26 2021-07-19

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2021-07-19_026_ruling.pdf
Source 27 2021-07-23

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
2021-07-23_027_minute-entry.pdf
Source 28 2021-07-23

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
2021-07-23_028_minute-entry.pdf
Source 29 2021-08-23

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
2021-08-23_029_minute-entry.pdf
Source 30 2021-08-25

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
2021-08-25_030_minute-entry.pdf
Source 31 2021-08-31

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

Ruling finding the parties had a binding Rule 80 settlement agreement after an evidentiary hearing.

Download source file
2021-08-31_031_minute-entry.pdf
Source 32 2021-08-31

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
2021-08-31_032_minute-entry.pdf
Source 33 2021-09-02

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

Ruling adopting the settlement terms, dismissing the case with prejudice, and entering a Rule 54(c) final order.

Download source file
2021-09-02_033_minute-entry.pdf
Source 34 2022-02-10

Judgment Entered

Type: Decision or judgment

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

Download source file
2022-02-10_034_judgment-entered.pdf
Source 35 2022-04-01

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

Ruling denying the owner’s Rule 60-style request for relief from the settlement judgment.

Download source file
2022-04-01_035_minute-entry.pdf
Source 36 2024-12-12

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
2024-12-12_036_minute-entry.pdf
Source 37 2026-03-06

Judgment Entered

Type: Decision or judgment

Ruling denying the owner’s motion to enforce or rescind settlement terms in the closed case.

Download source file
2026-03-06_037_judgment-entered.pdf

FAQ

What did the superior court decide?

It enforced the parties’ settlement agreement — under which La Fuente, through its insurer, paid the owner $10,000 and the owner took over servicing the HVAC/heat-pump equipment for the unit — and dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice.

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 La Fuente Condominium Association.

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 / citationCV2019-015684 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateSeptember 2, 2021
Judge / panelHon. James D. Smith, Hon. James Smith, Hon. Scott Minder
PartiesEdet Effiong Asuquo (Plaintiff) v. La Fuente Condominium Association (Defendant)
Governing law
Topics
CC&RsCovenantsProcedureAttorney FeesCondominiumsPro Se Litigant
Outcome / holding

The court held the signed Rule 80 agreement was an enforceable settlement, adopted its terms as the court’s dismissal order, and later denied post-judgment attempts to avoid or enforce the settlement in the closed case.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package37 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap5 roadmap entries
Video overviewEdet Effiong Asuquo v. La Fuente Condominium Association
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Curated download aliases1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

The court narrowed the owner’s claims to an alleged September 2015 roof/HVAC leveling issue, later found the parties had an enforceable Rule 80 settlement, adopted settlement terms allocating future HVAC responsibility to the owner while preserving La Fuente’s responsibility for common elements, and dismissed the case with prejudice. Later efforts to undo or enforce the settlement in the closed case were denied.

Key Issues & Findings

The June 2020 dismissal ruling applied Arizona pleading and limitations principles and left only one timely contract-type claim: whether La Fuente failed to properly level the roof beneath the owner’s HVAC unit around September 2015.

After the parties attended a settlement conference, the court held an evidentiary hearing and found a binding agreement under Rule 80(a). The court rejected arguments that separate rooms, lack of a later formal signature, lack of member notice, and alleged coercion defeated assent. The September 2021 order adopted the settlement terms, dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice, and entered a Rule 54(c) judgment.

Post-judgment, the court denied a Rule 60-style request and later denied efforts to enforce or revise the settlement in the closed case, noting the settlement directed disputes to the named judge pro tempore and that the superior court had not retained enforcement jurisdiction.

Why It Matters

This case is a practical caution about settlement finality in owner-association maintenance litigation. It is not precedential, but it shows that a signed Rule 80 agreement can end an HOA dispute even when one side later regrets the terms or wants a more formal settlement document.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Doubletree Canyon Homeowners Association v. Teodora Cupes: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on by

Architectural Review | CC&Rs | CV2021-014955

The court granted summary judgment for Doubletree Canyon and ordered owners to correct exterior doors and windows that did not match the approved architectural plan.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Doubletree Canyon Homeowners Association v. Teodora Cupes, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2021-014955.

Download ruling

Scope note: This page covers Doubletree Canyon Homeowners Association v. Teodora Cupes (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2021-014955) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s collected minute entries through 2023-01-20; 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

Architectural-control language can reach the whole exterior improvement when the operative CC&R text is broader than the section heading.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Doubletree Canyon Homeowners Association (Plaintiff)
    Association party in the HOA-related dispute. Court party records list counsel as Curtis Ekmark.

Respondent Side

  • Cipriano Ionutescu (Defendant)
    Listed in the court party records as defendant. Court party records list counsel as John Moore.
  • Teodora Cupes (Defendant)
    Opposing homeowner or property-side party identified in the case caption. Court party records list counsel as John Moore.

Neutral Parties

  • Hon. John R. Hannah Jr (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.
  • Hon. Judge John Hannah (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.
  • Hon. John Hannah (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.

What happened

Doubletree Canyon sued homeowners over exterior doors and windows that did not match the plan submitted to the Architectural Review Committee.

At oral argument on the association’s summary-judgment motion, the court found the property as built was admittedly inconsistent with the CC&Rs because the approved plan showed matching doors and windows.

The court rejected the owners’ interpretation of section 3.2.21. Although the heading referred to window coverings, the operative sentence prohibited reflective material on any improvement without prior written Architectural Review Committee consent.

The court granted summary judgment, gave the owners 90 days to remedy the issue, and required the parties to follow the CC&R approval process for the work to be done. A formal judgment followed in January 2023.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Doubletree Canyon Homeowners Association v. Teodora Cupes (CV2021-014955 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). Nonmatching exterior doors and windows violated the CC&Rs and had to be corrected in 90 days. 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 Doubletree Canyon Homeowners Association v. Teodora Cupes. 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 2021-11-01 IT IS ORDERED that no action will be taken by this division on the above-referenced document(s).
Step 2022-03-02 IT IS ORDERED setting a Telephonic Trial Scheduling Conference for the purpose of assigning a trial date on August 9, 2022 at 8:45 a.
Step 2022-03-02 IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall participate in a mandatory settlement conference.
Step 2022-07-12 IT IS ORDERED relieving Mr.
Step 2022-07-13 Minute entry filed.
Step 2022-08-19 IT IS ORDERED setting a virtual Status Conference on September 1, 2022 at 9:30 a.
Step 2022-08-19 IT IS ORDERED setting virtual oral argument on September 7, 2022 at 9:00 a.
Step 2022-09-01 IT IS ORDERED amending the Scheduling Order to extend the deadline for the parties to participate in a settlement conference.
Step 2022-09-07 IT IS ORDERED plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.
Step 2022-11-22 IT IS ORDERED setting virtual oral argument on January 10, 2023 at 9:00 a.
Step 2022-11-28 IT IS ORDERED extending the deadline for replacing the non-compliant windows in the structure from December 7, 2022 to January 15, 2023.
Step 2023-01-10 IT IS ORDERED awarding plaintiff $54,000.

Complete uploaded source-document index

This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/doubletree-canyon-homeowners-association-v-teodora-cupes/raw/: 13 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 2021-11-01

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
2021-11-01_001_default-judgment.pdf
Source 2 2022-03-02

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
2022-03-02_002_oral-argument.pdf
Source 3 2022-03-02

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
2022-03-02_003_minute-entry.pdf
Source 4 2022-07-12

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
2022-07-12_004_minute-entry.pdf
Source 5 2022-07-13

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
2022-07-13_005_minute-entry.pdf
Source 6 2022-08-19

Status Conference

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2022-08-19_006_status-conference.pdf
Source 7 2022-08-19

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
2022-08-19_007_oral-argument-set.pdf
Source 8 2022-09-01

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
2022-09-01_008_oral-argument.pdf
Source 9 2022-09-07

Oral Argument

Type: Court/source PDF

Ruling granting Doubletree Canyon summary judgment, rejecting the owners’ CC&R interpretation, and ordering correction within 90 days.

Download source file
2022-09-07_009_oral-argument.pdf
Source 10 2022-11-22

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
2022-11-22_010_oral-argument-set.pdf
Source 11 2022-11-28

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
2022-11-28_011_minute-entry.pdf
Source 12 2023-01-10

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
2023-01-10_012_oral-argument.pdf
Source 13 2023-01-20

Judgment Entered

Type: Decision or judgment

Judgment-entry minute granting judgment in favor of Doubletree Canyon under the formal written judgment.

Download source file
2023-01-20_013_judgment-entered.pdf

FAQ

What did the superior court decide?

It granted summary judgment for the association and ordered the exterior mismatch corrected.

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 Doubletree Canyon 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 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 / citationCV2021-014955 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateSeptember 7, 2022
Judge / panelHon. John R. Hannah Jr, Hon. Judge John Hannah, Hon. John Hannah
PartiesDoubletree Canyon Homeowners Association (Plaintiff) v. Teodora Cupes and Cipriano Ionutescu (Defendants)
Topics
Architectural ReviewCC&RsCovenantsProcedureAttorney Fees
Outcome / holding

The court granted the association’s summary-judgment motion, held that the CC&R prohibition on reflective materials applied beyond window coverings to exterior building surfaces including doors, and ordered the owners to correct the nonmatching windows and doors through the CC&R approval process.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package13 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap12 roadmap entries
Video overviewDoubletree Canyon Homeowners Association v. Teodora Cupes
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Curated download aliases1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

The court granted Doubletree Canyon summary judgment in an architectural-control dispute. It found the property was admittedly in violation because the approved plan showed matching doors and windows but the installed doors and windows did not match, rejected the owners’ narrow reading of CC&R section 3.2.21, and ordered the owners to remedy the issue within 90 days.

Key Issues & Findings

The court began from the undisputed condition of the property: the plan submitted to the Architectural Review Committee showed matching doors and windows, but the installed doors and windows did not match. That mismatch made the property noncompliant.

The owners argued that CC&R section 3.2.21 was limited by its heading, “Window Coverings.” The court rejected that interpretation because the second sentence barred reflective material on any “Improvement” without prior written Architectural Review Committee consent. The court read “Improvement” to include the building itself, so the restriction applied to exterior surfaces including doors.

The remedy was prospective and compliance-focused. The owners received 90 days to fix the nonmatching doors and windows and had to follow the CC&R approval process by submitting materials to the Architectural Review Committee.

Why It Matters

This is must-read for architectural-review disputes because it applies CC&R text to an exterior-material dispute and shows that a section heading may not confine broader operative language. It also shows how a court can order a practical compliance remedy rather than only damages.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Montelena Villas Homeowners Association v. Deborah Minamyer: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on by

Condo Maintenance Appeal | Limitations | LC2018-000441

A record appeal affirmed dismissal of roof-leak claims against Montelena Villas after the justice court applied the statute of limitations.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Montelena Villas Homeowners Association v. Deborah Minamyer, Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2018-000441.

Download ruling

Scope note: This page covers Montelena Villas Homeowners Association v. Deborah Minamyer (Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2018-000441) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s collected minute entries through 2019-06-03; 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

A homeowner appealing a maintenance-dispute loss must work from the trial record and show reversible error; new evidence and requested relief against non-parties will not carry the appeal.

Case Participants

Respondent Side

  • Montelena Villas Homeowners Association (DEFT/Appellee)
    Association party in the HOA-related dispute. Court party records list counsel as Peter Brown.
  • Mcdowell Mountain Justice Court (Originating Court)
    Listed in the court party records as originating court.
  • Deborah Minamyer (PLF/Appellant)
    Opposing homeowner or property-side party identified in the case caption.

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

The homeowner sued over alleged long-running roof leaks in a condominium unit. The justice court dismissed individual defendants with prejudice and the association without prejudice after applying the statute of limitations.

On appeal, the superior court first rejected the association’s request to dismiss the appeal for record defects. The court treated the recording as the record and did not find a missing item that required dismissal.

The court then affirmed. It found no prejudice from any inability to cross-examine an association witness because the limitations ruling came from the homeowner’s own case-in-chief.

The court also held lien issues were not shown to matter, new evidence could not be introduced on appeal, and Scottsdale Condominium Management was not a party subject to court-ordered relief.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Montelena Villas Homeowners Association v. Deborah Minamyer (LC2018-000441 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). The superior court affirmed dismissal of old condominium roof-leak claims on limitations grounds. 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 Montelena Villas Homeowners Association v. Deborah Minamyer. 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 2019-01-15 IT IS ORDERED assigning this appeal on January 14, 2019 to Hon.
Step 2019-03-07 IT IS ORDERED affirming the order of the McDowell Mountain Justice Court IT IS FURTHER ORDERED remanding this matter to the McDowell Mountain Justice Court for all further proceedings.
Step 2019-06-03 IT IS ORDERED denying the Request for Rehearing.

Complete uploaded source-document index

This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/deborah-minamyer-v-montelena-villas-homeowners-association/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 2019-01-15

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
2019-01-15_001_oral-argument.pdf
Source 2 2019-03-07

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

Record-appeal ruling affirming dismissal of claims against Montelena Villas after a statute-of-limitations ruling.

Download source file
2019-03-07_002_ruling.pdf
Source 3 2019-06-03

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2019-06-03_003_ruling.pdf

FAQ

What did the superior court decide?

It affirmed the justice-court dismissal of the claims against the 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 Montelena Villas 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 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 / citationLC2018-000441 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateMarch 7, 2019
Judge / panelHon. Patricia Ann Starr, Hon. Patricia Starr For, Hon. Patricia A. Starr
PartiesDeborah Minamyer (Appellant) v. Montelena Villas Homeowners Association (Appellee)
Governing law
Topics
CovenantsProcedure
Outcome / holding

The superior court affirmed the justice-court order dismissing claims against individual defendants with prejudice and against the association without prejudice, rejecting appellate arguments about cross-examination, lien evidence, new evidence, and relief against a non-party management company.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package3 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap3 roadmap entries
Video overviewMontelena Villas Homeowners Association v. Deborah Minamyer
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Curated download aliases1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

On appeal from justice court, the superior court affirmed dismissal of claims against Montelena Villas. The homeowner sought compensation for alleged long-running roof leaks, but the trial court dismissed the association based on the statute of limitations, and the superior court found no reversible error.

Key Issues & Findings

The superior court first declined to dismiss the appeal for procedural record defects, applying civil record-appeal rules liberally.

On the merits, it held the homeowner had not shown prejudice from any inability to cross-examine an association witness because the trial court dismissed on limitations grounds based on evidence from the homeowner’s case-in-chief. It also held lien issues were not shown to be relevant, new evidence could not be introduced on appeal, and the court could not order relief against Scottsdale Condominium Management because it was not a party.

The court therefore affirmed the justice-court dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.

Why It Matters

This standard appeal is useful for maintenance-dispute procedure, especially limitations and appellate-record limits. It is not must-read because it does not interpret an HOA statute or governing-document provision of broad application.

← Back to Superior Court cases

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

Posted on by

HOA Foreclosure Judgment | CV2021-001103

The court approved the formal foreclosure judgment and order of sale for Coventry Tempe.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Coventry Tempe Community Association v. Faisal H Elhassan, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2021-001103.

Download ruling

Scope note: This page covers Coventry Tempe Community Association v. Faisal H Elhassan (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2021-001103) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s collected minute entries through 2021-12-03; 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 approved the formal foreclosure judgment and order of sale for Coventry Tempe.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Coventry Tempe Community Association (Plaintiff)
    Association party in the HOA-related dispute. Court party records list counsel as Charlene Cruz.

Respondent Side

  • C S A A General Insurance Company (Defendant)
    Listed in the court party records as defendant.
  • Faisal H Elhassan (Defendant)
    Opposing homeowner or property-side party identified in the case caption.
  • Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development (Defendant)
    Listed in the court party records as defendant. Court party records list counsel as Emory Hurley.

Neutral Parties

  • Hon. Joseph P. Mikitish (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.
  • Hon. Susan G. White (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 Coventry Tempe Community 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 Coventry Tempe Community Association v. Faisal H Elhassan (CV2021-001103 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). Coventry Tempe 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 Coventry Tempe Community Association v. Faisal H 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 2021-05-06 IT IS ORDERED that no action will be taken by this division on the above referenced document(s).
Step 2021-07-13 IT IS ORDERED approving and settling formal written Order Entering Default Judgment Against Defendant CSAA General Insurance Company signed by the Court on July 13, 2021, and filed (entered) by the Clerk on July 13, 2021.
Step 2021-12-03 IT IS ORDERED approving and settling the formal written Judgment and Decree o Foreclosure and Order of Sale, signed by the Court December 2, 2021, and filed (entered) by the Clerk December 3, 2021.

Complete uploaded source-document index

This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/coventry-tempe-community-association-v-faisal-h-elhassan/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 2021-05-06

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
2021-05-06_001_default-judgment.pdf
Source 2 2021-07-13

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
2021-07-13_002_default-judgment.pdf
Source 3 2021-12-03

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
2021-12-03_003_judgment-entered.pdf

FAQ

What did the superior court decide?

The court approved the formal foreclosure judgment and order of sale 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

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 / citationCV2021-001103 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateDecember 3, 2021
Judge / panelHon. Joseph P. Mikitish, Hon. Susan G. White
PartiesCoventry Tempe Community Association (Plaintiff) v. Faisal H Elhassan (Defendant)
Topics
AssessmentsLiensProcedureForeclosure
Outcome / holding

The court approved the formal foreclosure judgment and order of sale for Coventry Tempe.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package3 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap3 roadmap entries
Video overviewCoventry Tempe Community Association v. Faisal H Elhassan
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Curated download aliases1 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 Coventry Tempe Community Association.

Key Issues & Findings

The court approved and settled a formal written Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure and Order of Sale for Coventry Tempe Community 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

Camelback House Homeowners Association INC v. Terri A Ware: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on by

HOA Foreclosure Judgment | CV2013-095550

The court accepted the stipulation and entered the formal order regarding judgment on foreclosure and money judgment.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Camelback House Homeowners Association INC v. Terri A Ware, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2013-095550.

Download ruling

Scope note: This page covers Camelback House Homeowners Association INC v. Terri A Ware (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2013-095550) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s collected minute entries through 2013-10-29; 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 accepted the stipulation and entered the formal order regarding judgment on foreclosure and money judgment.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Camelback House Homeowners Association INC (Plaintiff)
    Association party in the HOA-related dispute. Court party records list counsel as Mark Waldron.

Respondent Side

  • Catholic Healthcare West (Defendant)
    Listed in the court party records as defendant.
  • Donald Ware (Defendant)
    Listed in the court party records as defendant.
  • Mercy Care Plan (Defendant)
    Listed in the court party records as defendant.
  • Orchid Family Revocable Living Trust Agreement, The (Defendant)
    Listed in the court party records as defendant.
  • Terri A Ware (Defendant)
    Opposing homeowner or property-side party identified in the case caption.

Neutral Parties

  • Hon. Mark F. Aceto (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.

What happened

The court accepted a stipulation for judgment on foreclosure and money judgment involving Camelback House and the Ware trust defendants.

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 Camelback House Homeowners Association INC v. Terri A Ware (CV2013-095550 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). Camelback House obtained a stipulated foreclosure and money 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 Camelback House Homeowners Association INC v. Terri A Ware. 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 2013-10-29 IT IS ORDERED accepting the Stipulation electronically filed on October 23, 2013, all in accordance with the formal written Order e-signed by the Court on October 28, 2013 and entered (e-filed) by the clerk on October 29, 2013.

Complete uploaded source-document index

This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/camelback-house-homeowners-association-inc-v-terri-a-ware/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 2013-10-29

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2013-10-29_001_minute-entry.pdf

FAQ

What did the superior court decide?

The court accepted the stipulation and entered the formal order regarding judgment on foreclosure and money 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 Camelback House Homeowners Association INC.

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 / citationCV2013-095550 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateOctober 29, 2013
Judge / panelHon. Mark F. Aceto
PartiesCamelback House Homeowners Association INC (Plaintiff) v. Terri A Ware (Defendant)
Topics
AssessmentsLiensProcedureForeclosure
Outcome / holding

The court accepted the stipulation and entered the formal order regarding judgment on foreclosure and money judgment.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package1 PDF
Step-by-step docket roadmap1 roadmap entry
Video overviewCamelback House Homeowners Association INC v. Terri A Ware
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Curated download aliases1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

The court accepted a stipulation for judgment on foreclosure and money judgment involving Camelback House and the Ware trust defendants.

Key Issues & Findings

The court accepted a stipulation for judgment on foreclosure and money judgment involving Camelback House and the Ware trust defendants.

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

Camelback House Homeowners Association INC v. Marc Secter: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on by

Condo Assessment Foreclosure | A.R.S. § 33-1256 | CV2013-095878

The court treated A.R.S. § 33-1256(A) as a foreclosure trigger once the condominium owner was delinquent for more than twelve months and more than $1,200.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Camelback House Homeowners Association INC v. Marc Secter, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2013-095878.

Download ruling

Scope note: This page covers Camelback House Homeowners Association INC v. Marc Secter (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2013-095878) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s collected minute entries through 2015-12-14; 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

A condominium association can survive dismissal and obtain summary judgment when the recorded CC&Rs impose assessment obligations and the A.R.S. § 33-1256(A) delinquency threshold is met.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Camelback House Homeowners Association INC (Plaintiff)
    Association party in the HOA-related dispute. Court party records list counsel as Mark Waldron.

Respondent Side

  • Marc Secter (Defendant)
    Opposing homeowner or property-side party identified in the case caption.

Neutral Parties

  • Hon. David (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.
  • Hon. John Rea (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.

What happened

Camelback House sued Marc Secter over unpaid condominium assessments. The owner first moved to dismiss, arguing the complaint failed to state a claim.

In September 2014, the court denied dismissal. It found the complaint alleged a history of nonpayment and that A.R.S. § 33-1256(A) allows a condominium association to exercise foreclosure rights when the statutory delinquency threshold is met.

In May 2015, after oral argument on the association’s summary-judgment motion, the court found the Camelback House CC&Rs applied to the owner, required payment of assessments and charges, and supported late fees, costs, and attorney fees.

The court found the owner remained $3,237.00 in arrears, had been delinquent for more than twelve months and more than $1,200, and granted summary judgment. The June 2015 minute entry granted the association’s fee application and entered final judgment.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Camelback House Homeowners Association INC v. Marc Secter (CV2013-095878 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). A condo association could foreclose once A.R.S. § 33-1256 delinquency thresholds were met. 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 Camelback House Homeowners Association INC v. Marc Secter. 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 2014-09-16 The court denied the owner’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the association’s assessment-foreclosure claim.
Step 2015-05-15 The court granted Camelback House summary judgment, entered $3,237.00 against the owner, and awarded fees and costs.
Step 2015-06-29 The court granted the association’s fee application and entered final judgment under Rule 54(c).
Step 2015-08-20 The court modified a later order to remove language regarding lien voidance and allowed payoff information to be provided to the title company.

Complete uploaded source-document index

This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/camelback-house-homeowners-association-inc-v-marc-secter/raw/: 15 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 2014-02-12

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
2014-02-12_001_minute-entry.pdf
Source 2 2014-07-09

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
2014-07-09_002_minute-entry.pdf
Source 3 2014-07-24

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
2014-07-24_003_oral-argument-set.pdf
Source 4 2014-07-24

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
2014-07-24_004_oral-argument.pdf
Source 5 2014-09-11

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
2014-09-11_005_oral-argument.pdf
Source 6 2014-09-16

Under Advisement Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

Under-advisement ruling denying the owner’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion because the complaint stated an A.R.S. § 33-1256 assessment-foreclosure claim.

Download source file
2014-09-16_006_under-advisement-ruling.pdf
Source 7 2015-02-18

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
2015-02-18_007_oral-argument-set.pdf
Source 8 2015-05-08

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
2015-05-08_008_oral-argument.pdf
Source 9 2015-05-15

Under Advisement Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

Under-advisement ruling granting Camelback House summary judgment, entering $3,237.00 against the owner, and awarding fees and costs.

Download source file
2015-05-15_009_under-advisement-ruling.pdf
Source 10 2015-05-20

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
2015-05-20_010_default-judgment.pdf
Source 11 2015-06-29

Judgment Entered

Type: Decision or judgment

Judgment-entry minute granting Camelback House’s fee application and entering final judgment for the association.

Download source file
2015-06-29_011_judgment-entered.pdf
Source 12 2015-08-20

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
2015-08-20_012_oral-argument.pdf
Source 13 2015-11-30

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
2015-11-30_013_minute-entry.pdf
Source 14 2015-12-11

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
2015-12-11_014_minute-entry.pdf
Source 15 2015-12-14

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
2015-12-14_015_minute-entry.pdf

FAQ

What did the superior court decide?

It granted summary judgment for the association and entered final judgment after finding the statutory foreclosure threshold was met.

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 Camelback House Homeowners Association INC.

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 / citationCV2013-095878 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateMay 15, 2015
Judge / panelHon. David, Hon. John Rea
PartiesCamelback House Homeowners Association, Inc. (Plaintiff) v. Marc Secter (Defendant)
Governing law
Topics
AssessmentsForeclosureLiensCC&RsAttorney Fees
Outcome / holding

The superior court held that Camelback House stated and proved a foreclosure claim: the owner was delinquent for more than twelve months and more than $1,200, triggering A.R.S. § 33-1256(A), and the association could foreclose on the entirety of its lien and recover fees and costs.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package15 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap4 roadmap entries
Video overviewCamelback House Homeowners Association INC v. Marc Secter
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Curated download aliases1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

The court denied the owner’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion, then granted Camelback House summary judgment on unpaid condominium assessments. The court found the CC&Rs required the owner to pay assessments and charges, found arrears above the A.R.S. § 33-1256(A) foreclosure threshold, entered judgment for $3,237.00, and later awarded fees and final judgment for the association.

Key Issues & Findings

The September 2014 ruling treated the owner’s motion as a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge and accepted the pleaded delinquency allegations. The court noted that A.R.S. § 33-1256(A) allows a condominium association to exercise foreclosure rights when the owner has been delinquent in payment obligations, found the owner had been delinquent for more than one year and more than $1,200, and denied dismissal.

At summary judgment, the court found the recorded Camelback House CC&Rs applied to the owner and required him to pay assessments and charges. It found an undisputed arrearage of $3,237.00 after a payment toward past assessments, held that the statutory delinquency threshold was a triggering mechanism for foreclosure, and concluded there were no genuine issues of material fact. The court entered judgment for the amount owed and awarded attorney fees and costs.

The June 2015 judgment-entry minute then granted the association’s fee application and stated that no further matters remained, making the judgment final under Rule 54(c).

Why It Matters

This is a useful superior-court example of A.R.S. § 33-1256(A) being applied to condominium assessment-lien foreclosure. It is must-read because the court expressly connected the statutory one-year-or-$1,200 delinquency threshold to the association’s foreclosure right and applied the CC&Rs to the owner’s assessment obligations.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Westerman v. Bridgewood Nine 30 Property Owners Association: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on by

HOA Governance | Declaration Enforcement | CV2019-005775

The court narrowed a homeowner’s pleading-stage claims, holding that fiduciary duty and tort good-faith remedies were not available on the allegations while contract enforcement theories could continue.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Debbie Westerman v. Michael Brubaker, et al., Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2019-005775.

Download ruling

Scope note: This page covers Debbie Westerman v. Michael Brubaker, et al. (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2019-005775) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from six filed minute entries, especially the July 1, 2019 and September 16, 2019 motion-to-dismiss rulings. Currency caveat: the collected record ends with the October 4, 2022 order dismissing any remaining unadjudicated claims and parties without prejudice for lack of prosecution. Any later refiling, appeal, settlement, or bankruptcy-court activity is outside these records. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

A homeowner’s HOA enforcement complaint needs the right legal theory for each defendant. The court allowed some contract and declaration-enforcement theories to continue, but dismissed fiduciary-duty, warranty, tort good-faith, fraud, and derivative association-contract theories where the pleadings did not allege the required legal predicates.

Case Participants

Neutral Parties

  • Debbie Westerman (Plaintiff)
    Homeowner who asserted claims concerning the association’s Declaration and Bylaws and alleged enforcement failures.
  • Bridgewood Nine 30 Property Owners Association, Inc. (Defendant)
    Property owners association defendant in the amended complaint ruling.
  • Michael Brubaker (Defendant)
    Individual defendant whose motion to dismiss was granted in part in the July 2019 ruling.
  • Bridgewood 38 LLC (Defendant)
    Named defendant in the case-party data.
  • Patrick R. MacQueen (Counsel)
    Counsel listed for the plaintiff in the 2019 dismissal rulings.
  • Mark E. Lines (Counsel)
    Counsel listed for defendants in the 2019 dismissal rulings.
  • Hon. Christopher Coury (Judge)
    Judge who issued the 2019 motion-to-dismiss rulings.
  • Hon. Frank W. Moskowitz (Judge)
    Judge who later dismissed remaining unadjudicated claims for lack of prosecution.

What happened

The plaintiff brought claims against an individual defendant and the Bridgewood Nine 30 Property Owners Association. The claims referenced the neighborhood association’s Declaration and Bylaws and alleged failures connected to those governing documents.

In July 2019, the court granted in part the individual defendant’s motion to dismiss. The court concluded that contract and warranty claims based on the Declaration, Bylaws, or contracts between the individual defendant and the association could not be asserted individually without a contract with the plaintiff, and derivative claims on behalf of the association required derivative-suit prerequisites. It also dismissed a fraud claim for lack of particularity and a fiduciary-duty claim because the duty was owed, if at all, to the association rather than the plaintiff.

The plaintiff then filed a first amended verified complaint against the individual defendant and the association. In September 2019, the court again narrowed the case. It dismissed tort remedies for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing because the pleadings did not show the special relationship required for tort remedies, but it allowed contract-based good-faith relief to remain pending.

The court also dismissed warranty claims against the association because the POA was not a builder or developer and was not alleged to have assumed warranty liability. It dismissed fiduciary duty because the homeowner-association contractual relationship alone did not create a fiduciary duty. The court let the requested permanent injunction for failure to enforce the Declaration and Bylaws continue at that stage, although it noted the injunction was probably a remedy rather than a standalone claim.

After later bankruptcy-related docket activity and a long period with no case activity, the court placed the case on the dismissal calendar and ultimately dismissed any remaining unadjudicated claims and parties without prejudice for lack of prosecution.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Westerman v. Bridgewood Nine 30 Property Owners Association (CV2019-005775 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). Pleading-stage HOA claims narrowed: no fiduciary duty or tort good-faith remedies, but contract enforcement survived. 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 Westerman v. Bridgewood Nine 30 Property Owners Association. 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 2019-07-01 The court grants in part Michael Brubaker’s motion to dismiss, dismissing several claims without prejudice while allowing two claims to proceed and granting leave to amend.
Step 2019-09-16 The court grants in part defendants’ motion to dismiss the first amended complaint, narrowing good-faith, warranty, fiduciary-duty, and injunction theories.
Step 2020-05-20 The court receives bankruptcy notification and places claims on the dismissal calendar as to the debtor, later followed by correction of a prior bankruptcy entry.
Step 2022-07-11 After no activity since May 2020, the court places the matter on the dismissal calendar.
Step 2022-10-04 The court dismisses any remaining unadjudicated claims and parties without prejudice for lack of prosecution.

Complete uploaded source-document index

This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/westerman-v-bridgewood-nine-30-property-owners-association/raw/: 6 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 2019-07-01

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

Ruling granting in part Michael Brubaker’s motion to dismiss by treating declaration, bylaw, contract, warranty, fiduciary-duty, fraud, and injunction claims as insufficient or derivative in part, while allowing two claims to proceed.

Download source file
2019-07-01_001_ruling.pdf
Source 2 2019-09-16

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

Ruling granting in part the association’s motion to dismiss by rejecting tort good-faith remedies, warranty liability, and fiduciary-duty claims, while allowing contract good-faith and declaration-enforcement injunction theories to proceed.

Download source file
2019-09-16_002_ruling.pdf
Source 3 2020-05-20

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
2020-05-20_003_minute-entry.pdf
Source 4 2020-05-21

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
2020-05-21_004_minute-entry.pdf
Source 5 2022-07-11

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
2022-07-11_005_minute-entry.pdf
Source 6 2022-10-04

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

Final dismissal-calendar order dismissing any remaining unadjudicated claims and parties without prejudice for lack of prosecution.

Download source file
2022-10-04_006_ruling.pdf

FAQ

Did the homeowner’s claims all get dismissed in 2019?

No. The court dismissed some claims and parts of claims, but allowed contract-based good-faith relief and an injunction theory for failure to enforce the Declaration and Bylaws to remain pending at that stage.

What happened to the fiduciary-duty claim against the association?

The court dismissed it, stating that no fiduciary duty is owed simply from the contractual relationship between a homeowner and the homeowners association.

What happened to the tort good-faith claim?

The court dismissed the claim to the extent it sought tort remedies because no fiduciary, special, or adhesion relationship was shown. It did not dismiss the claim to the extent contract remedies were sought.

Why did the warranty claim fail?

The court found that the POA was not alleged to be a builder, developer, or party that made warranties or assumed warranty liability.

Did the case end on the merits?

No final merits judgment is shown in the collected entries. The remaining unadjudicated claims and parties were later dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution.

Why is this case classified as standard?

The case contains useful pleading-stage HOA analysis, but it is a superior-court ruling and the record ended with a lack-of-prosecution dismissal rather than a final merits judgment on all claims.

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 / citationCV2019-005775 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateSeptember 16, 2019
Judge / panelHon. Christopher Coury, Hon. Frank W. Moskowitz
PartiesDebbie Westerman (Plaintiff) v. Michael Brubaker and Bridgewood Nine 30 Property Owners Association, Inc. (Defendants)
Topics
CC&RsCovenantsGood Faith & Fair DealingSelective EnforcementProcedure
Outcome / holding

The court held that contract and warranty claims against the individual defendant were derivative of association rights unless derivative-suit prerequisites were met, dismissed fraud for lack of particularity, and dismissed fiduciary-duty claims against both the individual defendant and the association. As to the association, it dismissed tort good-faith remedies and warranty claims, but allowed contract-based good-faith relief and an injunction theory for failure to enforce the declaration and bylaws to remain pending at the pleading stage.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package6 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap5 roadmap entries
Video overviewWesterman v. Bridgewood Nine 30 Property Owners Association
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions6 questions
Curated download aliases1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

A homeowner sued a property owners association and an individual defendant over alleged declaration and bylaw enforcement failures. The superior court dismissed several claims at the pleading stage, including tort good-faith remedies, warranty, and fiduciary-duty claims against the association, while allowing contract-based good-faith relief and an injunction theory aimed at enforcing the declaration and bylaws to proceed at that stage.

Key Issues & Findings

In the first dismissal ruling, the court treated several claims against the individual defendant as predicated on the neighborhood association’s Declaration and Bylaws or contracts between that defendant and the association. Because no contract was alleged between the plaintiff and the individual defendant, and because individual relief on association contracts would be derivative, the court dismissed those contract and warranty claims unless derivative-suit prerequisites were met. The court also dismissed fraud because it was not pled with Rule 9(b) particularity and dismissed fiduciary-duty and enforcement-injunction claims against that individual defendant.

In the amended-complaint ruling, the court evaluated claims against Bridgewood POA. It held that tort remedies for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing require a special relationship and that no fiduciary, special, or adhesion relationship was shown between the homeowner and the association. The court therefore dismissed tort remedies but allowed contract remedies for good faith to continue. It also dismissed warranty claims because the POA was not alleged to be a builder, developer, or party that assumed warranty liability, and dismissed fiduciary duty because no fiduciary duty arises simply from the homeowner-association contractual relationship. The court allowed the requested permanent injunction for failure to enforce the Declaration and Bylaws to remain pending, while noting it was likely a remedy rather than a standalone claim.

Why It Matters

This case is useful for homeowners and associations because it separates several common HOA pleading theories: contract-based enforcement claims may survive, but tort good-faith remedies, fiduciary-duty claims, warranty theories, and derivative claims require specific legal predicates. It also highlights that an injunction to enforce governing documents may be treated as a remedy rather than an independent cause of action.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Val Vista Lakes Community Association v. Russell: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on by

HOA Stipulated Judgment | CV2023-092215

The court approved a stipulation to judgment for Val Vista Lakes Community Association.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: The Val Vista Lakes Community Association v. Casey Wade Russell, et al., Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2023-092215.

Download ruling

Scope note: This page covers The Val Vista Lakes Community Association v. Casey Wade Russell, et al. (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2023-092215) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from one collected minute entry: the July 18, 2023 order-signed entry approving the parties’ stipulation to judgment. Currency caveat: the formal written order, judgment amount, payment terms, satisfaction history, and any enforcement history are not included in the collected minute entries. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The only sourced disposition is that the court approved and granted a stipulation to judgment. The collected entry does not state the amount, terms, lien rights, or legal analysis.

Case Participants

Neutral Parties

  • The Val Vista Lakes Community Association (Plaintiff)
    Association that obtained the stipulated judgment.
  • Casey Wade Russell (Defendant)
    Named defendant in the stipulation-to-judgment record.
  • Danielle Marie Russell (Defendant)
    Named defendant in the stipulation-to-judgment record.
  • Charles B. Sellers (Counsel)
    Counsel listed for the association in the minute entry.
  • Hon. Adam D. Driggs (Judge)
    Judge who signed the order-signed minute entry.

What happened

The association filed an action against Casey Wade Russell and Danielle Marie Russell. The collected record does not include the complaint, so this page does not infer the amount or full theory of the association’s claim.

The parties filed a stipulation to judgment on July 10, 2023. The court later received that stipulation and approved it.

The minute entry states that the court approved and granted the stipulation to judgment in accordance with the formal written order signed on July 14, 2023 and filed on July 18, 2023.

The collected minute entry does not state the amount, payment terms, whether lien or foreclosure relief was included, or any reasoning about governing documents or statutes.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Val Vista Lakes Community Association v. Russell (CV2023-092215 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). Val Vista Lakes obtained a stipulated judgment, with no amount or merits analysis in the minute entry. This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own ruling controls.

Listen: audio deep dive on the ruling

An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the court’s reasoning and disposition in Val Vista Lakes Community Association v. Russell. 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 2023-07-10 The parties file a stipulation to judgment, according to the court’s minute entry.
Step 2023-07-14 The court signs the formal written order approving the stipulation to judgment.
Step 2023-07-18 The clerk files the order, and the minute entry reports that the stipulation to judgment is approved and granted.

Complete uploaded source-document index

This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/val-vista-lakes-community-association-v-russell/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 2023-07-18

Judgment Entered

Type: Decision or judgment

Judgment-entry minute entry approving and granting the parties’ Stipulation to Judgment in favor of Val Vista Lakes Community Association under a formal written order.

Download source file
2023-07-18_001_judgment-entered.pdf

FAQ

What did the court approve?

The court approved and granted the parties’ Stipulation to Judgment.

Does the collected entry state the judgment amount?

No. The minute entry does not state the amount or payment terms.

Does the entry say whether this was a foreclosure judgment?

No. The collected entry says only that a stipulation to judgment was approved and granted.

Did the court interpret the CC&Rs or statutes?

No. The entry contains no legal analysis of governing documents or statutes.

Is this case precedential?

No. It is a superior-court stipulated judgment entry and is not precedent.

Why is this case classified as standard?

It is a thin stipulated-judgment record with no substantive HOA-law analysis.

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 / citationCV2023-092215 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateJuly 18, 2023
Judge / panelHon. Adam D. Driggs
PartiesThe Val Vista Lakes Community Association (Plaintiff) v. Casey Wade Russell and Danielle Marie Russell (Defendants)
Topics
AssessmentsLiensProcedure
Outcome / holding

The court approved and granted the parties’ Stipulation to Judgment in accordance with the formal written order signed on July 14, 2023 and filed on July 18, 2023.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package1 PDF
Step-by-step docket roadmap3 roadmap entries
Video overviewVal Vista Lakes Community Association v. Russell
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions6 questions
Curated download aliases1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

The superior court approved and granted the parties’ stipulation to judgment in favor of The Val Vista Lakes Community Association. The collected minute entry does not state the judgment amount, terms, or legal basis.

Key Issues & Findings

The only collected minute entry states that the court received the parties’ Stipulation to Judgment filed on July 10, 2023. The court approved and granted the stipulation through a formal written order signed on July 14 and filed on July 18.

The entry does not state the judgment amount, identify the claims resolved, describe any lien or foreclosure relief, or analyze the association’s governing documents or Arizona statutes.

Why It Matters

This is a narrow procedural record of a stipulated judgment involving an HOA. Because the collected entry contains no legal analysis or financial terms, it should not be read as authority on assessment validity, lien priority, or CC&R enforcement.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Val Vista Lakes Community Association v. Leeds: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on by

HOA Foreclosure Judgment | CV2021-002089

The court approved a default judgment and decree of foreclosure for Val Vista Lakes Community Association.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: The Val Vista Lakes Community Association v. Leland L. Leeds, et al., Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2021-002089.

Download ruling

Scope note: This page covers The Val Vista Lakes Community Association v. Leland L. Leeds, et al. (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2021-002089) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from two collected minute entries: the March 29, 2021 default-paperwork routing entry and the May 12, 2021 judgment-entry minute entry. Currency caveat: no complaint, formal written judgment text, sale history, satisfaction, or appeal is included in the collected minute entries. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The only sourced disposition is that, after a default hearing, the court approved and settled a formal written Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure for the association. The minute entries do not explain the amount, the lien basis, or any contested legal issue.

Case Participants

Neutral Parties

  • The Val Vista Lakes Community Association (Plaintiff)
    Association that obtained the foreclosure judgment.
  • Leland L. Leeds (Defendant)
    Named defendant in the default application and foreclosure judgment record.
  • Discover Bank (Defendant)
    Named defendant in the default application.
  • Unifund CCR, LLC (Defendant)
    Named defendant in the default application.
  • Midland Funding LLC (Defendant)
    Named defendant in the default application; the minute entry spelling appears as Mindland Funding LLC.
  • Lauren A. Vie (Counsel)
    Counsel listed for the association in the minute entries.
  • Hon. Susan G. White (Judge)
    Commissioner who held the default hearing and signed the judgment-entry minute entry.
  • Hon. John R. Hannah Jr. (Judge)
    Judge listed on the default-paperwork routing entry.

What happened

The association filed an action naming Leland L. Leeds and several creditor defendants. The collected record does not include the complaint, so this page does not infer the amount owed or the full lien theory.

In March 2021, the court received the association’s e-filed application or motion for default against Leland Leeds, Discover Bank, Unifund CCR, LLC, and Midland Funding LLC. The assigned division directed the default proceedings to Commissioner Susan White.

On May 12, 2021, the matter was heard for a default hearing. The court approved and settled the formal written Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure signed and filed that day.

The minute entry does not state the foreclosure amount, describe lien priority, or analyze any association governing documents. Those limitations matter when reading the case.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Val Vista Lakes Community Association v. Leeds (CV2021-002089 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). Val Vista Lakes obtained a default foreclosure judgment, with no merits analysis in the minute entries. This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own ruling controls.

Listen: audio deep dive on the ruling

An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the court’s reasoning and disposition in Val Vista Lakes Community Association v. Leeds. 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 2021-03-29 The assigned division receives the association’s e-filed default application against Leland Leeds and several creditor defendants and routes default proceedings to the commissioner.
Step 2021-05-12 After a default hearing, the court approves and settles the formal written Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure.

Complete uploaded source-document index

This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/val-vista-lakes-community-association-v-leeds/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 2021-03-29

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
2021-03-29_001_default-judgment.pdf
Source 2 2021-05-12

Judgment Entered

Type: Decision or judgment

Judgment-entry minute entry approving and settling the formal written Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure for Val Vista Lakes Community Association after a default hearing.

Download source file
2021-05-12_002_judgment-entered.pdf

FAQ

What did the court enter?

The court approved and settled a formal written Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure for Val Vista Lakes Community Association after a default hearing.

Does the minute entry state the amount owed?

No. The collected judgment-entry minute entry does not state the amount of the judgment or the assessment balance.

Did the court analyze lien priority?

No. The collected entries name creditor defendants but do not discuss lien priority or make findings in the text available here.

Was this a contested merits ruling?

The collected record shows a default hearing and judgment, not a contested merits ruling with legal analysis.

Is this case precedential?

No. It is a superior-court default foreclosure judgment entry and is not precedent.

Why is this case classified as standard?

The record is useful as a foreclosure-judgment data point, but it contains no substantive HOA-law analysis.

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 / citationCV2021-002089 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateMay 12, 2021
Judge / panelHon. Susan G. White, Hon. John R. Hannah Jr.
PartiesThe Val Vista Lakes Community Association (Plaintiff) v. Leland L. Leeds, Discover Bank, Unifund CCR, LLC, and Midland Funding LLC (Defendants)
Topics
AssessmentsLiensForeclosureProcedure
Outcome / holding

After a default hearing, the court approved and settled the formal written Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure signed and filed on May 12, 2021.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package2 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap2 roadmap entries
Video overviewVal Vista Lakes Community Association v. Leeds
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions6 questions
Curated download aliases1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

The superior court approved and settled a formal written judgment and decree of foreclosure for The Val Vista Lakes Community Association after a default hearing. The collected minute entries do not state the amount owed or analyze the governing documents.

Key Issues & Findings

The collected record first shows the association seeking default against Leland Leeds and several creditor defendants. The assigned division took no action on the e-filed default materials and directed the default proceedings to Commissioner Susan White.

At the later default hearing, the court approved and settled the formal written Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure. The minute entry does not recite the amount, describe the assessment history, construe the declaration, or explain lien-priority findings.

Why It Matters

This is a narrow record of an HOA foreclosure judgment entered after default. It confirms the procedural result in this case, but because the collected entries contain no merits analysis, it should not be read as authority on assessment validity, lien priority, or foreclosure standards.

← Back to Superior Court cases