Author Archives: [email protected]

Bolton Anderson, et al. v. Recreation Centers of Sun City Inc.

Posted on by

Bolton Anderson, et al. v. Recreation Centers of Sun City Inc.

CV2015-012458 · Superior Court · September 4, 2018

At a Glance

Parties Sun City residents sued the nonprofit corporation that operates Sun City recreational facilities and imposes mandatory charges tied to residential ownership.
Panel Hon. Roger E. Brodman
Statutes interpreted

Summary

This Maricopa County Superior Court ruling is one of the more important Arizona trial-level decisions on when a community operator can be treated like an HOA even if it uses a different corporate label. The plaintiffs argued that Recreation Centers of Sun City, Inc. should be treated as an association under Arizona’s Planned Community Act because it owned and operated Sun City recreational facilities, funded those facilities through mandatory assessments, and tied those obligations to ownership of residential property in Sun City. Judge Brodman agreed with the plaintiffs on that threshold issue. The publicly available ruling text states there were no material facts in dispute on the statutory-applicability question and describes RCSC as a nonprofit that manages, maintains, and improves the recreational system through mandatory charges imposed on residential owners whether or not they personally use the facilities. On that record, the court held RCSC was an association within the meaning of the Act for purposes of the lawsuit.

Holding

For purposes of the case, the superior court held that Recreation Centers of Sun City, Inc. qualified as an association subject to Arizona’s Planned Community Act.

Reasoning

The ruling looked past labels and focused on how the community actually functioned. The court noted that RCSC owned and operated the recreational facilities, funded those facilities through mandatory assessments imposed on Sun City residential-property owners, and required payment whether or not an owner made personal use of the amenities. Those characteristics made the arrangement operate like a planned-community structure rather than a voluntary club.

Because the court found no material factual dispute on that threshold issue, it resolved the statutory-applicability question as a matter of law. The order is important not because it decided every underlying claim, but because it recognized that an entity cannot necessarily avoid Title 33 arguments simply by organizing itself as a separate nonprofit recreation corporation.

Why This Matters for HOAs

This ruling is highly useful in Arizona HOA fights involving master associations, recreation corporations, country-club style entities, or other hybrids that collect mandatory charges from homeowners while claiming they are outside usual HOA rules. It supports a substance-over-form argument: if ownership of a home effectively requires membership and payment, a court may treat the operator as an association under Arizona law.

For boards and counsel, the practical lesson is that corporate structure alone may not defeat Planned Community Act claims. For homeowners, the case is a roadmap for arguing that mandatory-fee community operators should still answer to Arizona’s statutory HOA framework.

Topics

board-governanceassessmentsprocedure

View the original opinion →

← Back to Superior Court cases

Sunrise Meadows Estates Community Association v. Erlinda B. Isip

Posted on by

Sunrise Meadows Estates Community Association v. Erlinda B. Isip

LC2012-000034-001 DT · Superior Court · June 21, 2013

At a Glance

Parties An HOA sought unpaid assessments from a woman it claimed inherited the property, and appealed after justice court set aside its default judgment.
Panel Hon. Myra Harris

Summary

This Maricopa County Superior Court appeal involved a very common HOA move: suing for delinquent assessments, obtaining a default, and then trying to preserve that default after the defendant appears. The HOA alleged Erlinda Isip owed assessments because she inherited the property after her husband’s death. It obtained a default judgment after substituted service, and later pursued garnishment. Isip then moved to set the judgment aside, arguing service was improper and that she did not actually own the property or owe the debt. The justice court agreed and vacated the default. On record appeal, the superior court first held the HOA’s appeal itself was timely, but then affirmed the lower court on the merits. The ruling is useful because it shows that collection cases against surviving spouses, heirs, or other possible successors are not plug-and-play. Ownership, succession, waiver documents, and especially valid service all have to be handled correctly before an HOA can rely on default procedures.

Holding

The superior court affirmed the order setting aside the HOA’s default judgment because the record supported the lower court’s conclusion that service was improper.

Reasoning

The ruling centered on the idea that a default judgment cannot stand if the defendant was not properly brought before the court. The HOA had used substituted service and then proceeded to default and garnishment, but the lower court found the service defective. On review, the superior court did not disturb that determination.

The background dispute over whether Isip had any enforceable ownership interest also mattered because the HOA’s theory of liability depended on inheritance and succession. The defendant consistently maintained that she had no obligation for the assessments because she was not the owner. That ownership dispute made the service and default problems even more serious: the association was trying to collect from a person whose legal responsibility was itself contested.

Why This Matters for HOAs

For Arizona HOAs, this ruling is a warning against aggressive default practice in succession cases. If the association is trying to collect from a surviving spouse, heir, devisee, or occupant after an owner’s death, it needs to confirm who actually holds title or obligation before filing and serving the case.

For homeowners and successors, the case shows that improper service is still one of the strongest defenses to an HOA default judgment. And if the judgment is void for service reasons, the fact that time has passed may not save the association.

Topics

assessmentsprocedure

View the original opinion →

← Back to Superior Court cases

Mesa Sierra Ranch II Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Rosales M. Escobedo

Posted on by

Mesa Sierra Ranch II Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Rosales M. Escobedo

LC2013-000373-001 DT · Superior Court · January 23, 2014

At a Glance

Parties An HOA appealed from justice court after its assessment-collection case against a homeowner was dismissed with prejudice.
Panel Hon. Lisa Ann VandenBerg

Summary

This Maricopa County Superior Court ruling came out of a routine HOA collection case that turned into a procedural loss for the association. The HOA sued homeowner Rosales Escobedo for unpaid assessments in justice court. During the lower-court proceedings, the homeowner relied on evidence that the HOA, through counsel, had accepted or at least entertained a payment arrangement, and the justice court dismissed the collection action with prejudice and awarded fees. Instead of reaching the collection dispute on the merits, the superior court focused on whether the HOA had properly invoked appellate review. It held that the HOA’s record appeal was untimely and therefore had to be dismissed. That meant the superior court never revisited the homeowner’s merits arguments or the lower court’s fee ruling. The case is useful because it shows how fast appeal deadlines can shut down an HOA’s attempt to rescue a failed collection action.

Holding

The superior court dismissed the HOA’s record appeal as untimely, leaving the justice court’s dismissal and fee consequences in place.

Reasoning

The ruling treated appellate timing as jurisdictional. Once the lower court entered the operative signed ruling, the HOA had only the short appeal window allowed in lower-court record appeals. Because the notice of appeal was not filed within that deadline, the superior court concluded it lacked authority to review the merits.

That procedural conclusion mattered more than anything else in the file. Even if the HOA believed the justice court had mishandled the payment-plan evidence, dismissed too aggressively, or awarded fees incorrectly, the superior court would not reach those issues after finding the appeal late. The ruling is a reminder that in HOA assessment cases, a missed deadline can permanently foreclose appellate review.

Why This Matters for HOAs

For HOA boards and collection counsel, this is a hard lesson in litigation discipline. If a collection case goes sideways in justice court, the first question is not whether the lower court was wrong. The first question is whether the appeal was filed on time. If that deadline is missed, the merits usually do not matter.

For homeowners, the case shows that ordinary contract and procedure defenses can still matter in HOA collection suits. Payment-plan communications, dismissal orders, and fee rulings can become decisive if the association mishandles the next procedural step.

Topics

assessmentsprocedureattorneys-fees

View the original opinion →

← Back to Superior Court cases

Colette McNally v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc.

Posted on by

Colette McNally v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc.

1 CA-CV 15-0744 · Court of Appeals · October 13, 2016

At a Glance

Parties A duly elected board member sued the HOA after the board voted to exclude her from executive sessions.
Panel Presiding Judge Andrew W. Gould, Judge Peter B. Swann, Judge Patricia A. Orozco

Summary

After internal conflict on the board, Sun Lakes voted to bar one of its own elected directors from executive sessions. The excluded director sought injunctive relief, arguing the board had no authority to cut her out of board deliberations simply because other directors believed she had breached confidentiality or loyalty duties. The Court of Appeals agreed with her and reversed. The court treated board membership as carrying the right to participate in board meetings, including executive sessions, unless some legally valid removal or other recognized mechanism had been used. It would not let the rest of the board create an ad hoc punishment that effectively stripped an elected director of core board functions without following the governing legal framework.

Holding

The court held that the HOA board lacked authority to exclude a duly elected director from executive sessions and reversed the denial of injunctive relief.

Reasoning

The court focused on the nature of board office itself. A director is elected to participate in governing the corporation, and executive sessions are still board meetings, not separate private clubs for a board majority. Without a valid removal, suspension, or other recognized authority, the majority could not invent a partial-disqualification remedy.

The association argued that exclusion was justified by the director’s alleged misconduct and by the board’s need to protect confidential matters. The court was not persuaded that those concerns created authority where none existed. Governance has to follow the corporation’s legal structure and governing documents, not improvisation by fellow directors.

Why This Matters for HOAs

McNally is highly useful in HOA board-power disputes. It limits majority control tactics against dissident directors and reinforces that board process must track real authority, not political convenience.

For directors and members, the case supports the idea that elected office in an HOA carries enforceable participation rights unless the association follows the proper path to remove or discipline the director.

Topics

board-governancemeetings-and-records

View the original opinion →

← Back to Court of Appeals cases

Windrose Estates Homeowners Association v. Justin T. Wright; and Justin T. Wright v. Sunstate Acquisitions, LLC and SV 1, LLC

Posted on by

Windrose Estates Homeowners Association v. Justin T. Wright; and Justin T. Wright v. Sunstate Acquisitions, LLC and SV 1, LLC

2 CA-CV 2024-0074 and 2 CA-CV 2025-0058 · Court of Appeals · December 15, 2025

At a Glance

Parties An HOA foreclosure purchaser and the homeowner fought over whether a completed HOA foreclosure sale could be set aside because the price was grossly inadequate and the owner was allegedly misled.
Panel Judge Sklar, Vice Chief Judge Eppich, Judge O’Neil
Statutes interpreted

Summary

Windrose is a major 2025 Arizona HOA foreclosure case. After an HOA foreclosed and the home sold, the trial court set the sale aside and quieted title back to the owner partly because the sale price was grossly inadequate. The Court of Appeals reversed that core ruling. It held that although Arizona courts ordinarily have common-law power to set aside foreclosure sales for gross inadequacy, that power is implicitly displaced in the HOA-lien setting by A.R.S. § 33-1807’s more specific statutory scheme. The court also rejected setting aside the sale based on the owner’s claim of surprise or misleading circumstances and reinstated the sale. The decision sharply narrows post-sale equitable rescue arguments in Arizona HOA foreclosure litigation.

Holding

The court held that A.R.S. § 33-1807 implicitly abrogates the usual common-law authority to undo an HOA foreclosure sale for grossly inadequate price and that the sale should be reinstated.

Reasoning

The court began with the general equitable principle that foreclosure sales can sometimes be set aside when the price is shockingly low. But it treated HOA lien foreclosures as a distinct statutory regime. In the panel’s view, the legislature’s detailed rules in § 33-1807 left no room for importing that general common-law remedy in a way that would destabilize completed HOA sales.

The court also rejected the alternative theory that the homeowner was sufficiently misled or surprised to justify undoing the sale. And in the related consolidated action, it upheld the refusal to set aside the default judgment authorizing foreclosure, including the service-related rulings. The combined effect was to restore finality to the completed sale.

Why This Matters for HOAs

Windrose is likely to become a central Arizona authority on post-sale challenges to HOA foreclosures. It gives purchasers and associations a strong finality argument once a sale has been completed.

For homeowners, the case means defenses and cure efforts need to happen earlier. After the sale, equitable arguments that might work in other foreclosure contexts may not work in the HOA statutory framework.

Topics

foreclosureassessmentsprocedure

View the original opinion →

← Back to Court of Appeals cases

Cao et al. v. PFP Dorsey Investments, LLC, et al.

Posted on by

Cao et al. v. PFP Dorsey Investments, LLC, et al.

257 Ariz. 82 (2024), CV-22-0228-PR · Arizona Supreme Court · March 22, 2024

At a Glance

Parties Minority condominium owners sued the condominium association and a majority owner that forced a termination sale.
Panel Justice Clint Bolick, Chief Justice Robert M. Brutinel, Vice Chief Justice Ann A. Scott Timmer, Justice John R. Lopez IV, Justice James P. Beene, Justice William G. Montgomery, Justice Kathryn H. King
Statutes interpreted

Summary

This case arose after a company bought almost all the units in a Tempe condominium project, then used the association’s voting structure to approve termination and force the remaining owners out. The Arizona Supreme Court held that, in these circumstances, the Arizona Condominium Act did not work an unconstitutional taking because the declaration had incorporated the statute and the owners bought subject to that framework. But the court still ruled for the owners on the core statutory issue. It held that A.R.S. § 33-1228(C) did not allow the association to sell only the minority owners’ units while leaving the majority owner’s units untouched. If a nonconsensual termination sale occurs under that section, the statute requires sale of all the common elements and all the units. The court also awarded the owners reasonable fees for the successful declaration-enforcement portion of the case.

Holding

When a declaration incorporates the Condominium Act, termination procedures under A.R.S. § 33-1228 can govern the owners’ rights, but a compelled post-termination sale under § 33-1228(C) must involve the entire condominium, not just the holdouts’ units.

Reasoning

The court first focused on contract and consent. The declaration repeatedly incorporated the Condominium Act, and the purchasers took title subject to that recorded framework. On that basis, the court concluded the case did not require striking the statute down as an unconstitutional taking in the way the owners argued.

The court then turned to statutory text. It read the phrase authorizing sale of all the common elements and units according to its ordinary meaning and emphasized that all means all. Reading the statute to permit sale of only dissenting units would strip critical words of meaning and would not fit the structure of the rest of § 33-1228, which treats termination with sale as a whole-condominium event administered by the association as trustee for all owners.

Why This Matters for HOAs

This is now the leading Arizona case on condominium terminations and forced buyouts. Associations, investors, and counsel can no longer assume that a supermajority can use termination to squeeze out a minority one unit at a time while keeping majority-owned units outside the sale.

The case also matters beyond terminations. It shows that Arizona courts will closely read condominium declarations that incorporate statutes by reference, but they will still enforce the text of the governing statute and declaration against associations that overreach.

Topics

cc-and-rsprocedureattorneys-fees

View the original opinion →

← Back to Arizona Supreme Court cases

Kalway v. Calabria Ranch HOA, LLC

Posted on by

Kalway v. Calabria Ranch HOA, LLC

252 Ariz. 532, 506 P.3d 18 (2022) · Arizona Supreme Court · March 22, 2022

At a Glance

Parties A subdivision owner challenged broad amended CC&Rs adopted by the HOA and other owners.
Panel Chief Justice Robert M. Brutinel

Summary

This is the modern Arizona Supreme Court case on how far an HOA can go when amending CC&Rs. Calabria Ranch used a general amendment clause to adopt major new restrictions affecting home size, outbuildings, fences, animals, improvements, and use of lots. Kalway argued that the original declaration did not give owners fair notice that such sweeping new limitations could later be imposed. The court agreed in large part. It said CC&Rs are not ordinary contracts because they run with land and bind future owners. That means amendment power has limits. Even if the declaration allows amendment by vote, later amendments must stay within the range of changes a buyer could reasonably expect from the original recorded declaration. An HOA cannot use a broad amendment clause as a blank check to create entirely new servitudes or materially different burdens that were not reasonably foreseeable at purchase.

Holding

A general amendment provision does not authorize an HOA to impose entirely new and different restrictions unless the original declaration gave owners sufficient notice that those kinds of changes could later be adopted.

Reasoning

The court treated recorded covenants as special property contracts. Because they bind land and not just the original signers, buyers must have notice from the original declaration of the kinds of burdens they may later face. The court rejected the idea that a generic amendment clause, standing alone, lets a majority rewrite the deal in any manner it wants.

The court drew the line at reasonable and foreseeable amendments. Changes that refine, clarify, or build on an existing covenant may be valid. But amendments that add new categories of restrictions untethered to the original declaration exceed the amendment power because they upset owners’ settled expectations and effectively create new servitudes without meaningful notice.

Why This Matters for HOAs

For Arizona HOA practice, this is the controlling case on CC&R amendments. Boards now have to ask not just whether they got the required vote, but whether the original declaration fairly warned owners that the specific type of restriction might later be adopted.

For homeowners and counsel, Kalway is the main defense against surprise amendments. It is also the main drafting lesson for developers and associations: if the community may later want rental limits, design controls, livestock limits, use restrictions, or similar burdens, the original declaration should say so with real specificity.

Topics

cc-and-rsboard-governance

View the original opinion →

← Back to Arizona Supreme Court cases

Arcadia Spring Townhomes Unit 1

Posted on by

Arcadia Spring Townhomes Unit 1 is tracked here as a homeowner research file:
public contact records, current board/officer names, governing-document links, corporate
filings, and 1 matched ADRE/OAH dispute.
Homeowners prevailed in 0 case-level outcomes,
the association prevailed in 0, and 1 were split or neutral.

Homeowner Research Summary

This homeowner research page combines public association contact data, board/officer filings, governing-document links, AZCC corporate records, and ADRE/OAH case history for Arcadia Spring Townhomes Unit 1.

CommunityLocation not yet verified
ManagementManagement company not yet identified
Board / OfficersNo board/officer names on file
Governing RecordsNo governing-document links on file
OAH History1 ADRE/OAH case matched
Corporate StatusAZCC status not yet linked
OAH history

Data on File

  • — CC&Rs on file
  • — Bylaws on file
  • — Rules & Regulations on file
  • — Amendments on file
  • — Association phone on record
  • — Association email on record
  • — Association website on record
  • — Management company identified
  • — Board/officer names on file
  • — AZCC corporate record linked

ADRE/OAH Case History

OAH Cases1
Issues Reviewed1
Homeowner Issue Wins0
Association Issue Wins0
Homeowner Win Rate0.0%
Dominant RoleRespondent
Respondent Appearances1
Petitioner Filings0
Last Decision2018-05-16
Penalties AssessedNone
Avg Penalty / CaseNone
Filing Fees RecordedNone

Case Volume by Year

Year Cases
2018 1

Case Explorer







    Frequently Asked Questions

    How many OAH cases involve Arcadia Spring Townhomes Unit 1?

    1 Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings matter involving Arcadia Spring Townhomes Unit 1 are on record. Homeowners prevail in about 0% of issues litigated.



    Michael Brubaker

    Posted on by
    Law Firm
    Side
    respondent
    Total Issues
    1
    Issue Wins
    1
    Issue Losses
    0
    Issue Win Rate
    100.0%

    Associations Represented

    Issues Breakdown



    Cases Handled

    Violations Handled




    Northwood Park Homeowners Association

    Posted on by

    Northwood Park Homeowners Association is tracked here as a homeowner research file:
    public contact records, current board/officer names, governing-document links, corporate
    filings, and 1 matched ADRE/OAH dispute.
    Homeowners prevailed in 0 case-level outcomes,
    the association prevailed in 1, and 0 were split or neutral.

    Homeowner Research Summary

    This homeowner research page combines public association contact data, board/officer filings, governing-document links, AZCC corporate records, and ADRE/OAH case history for Northwood Park Homeowners Association.

    CommunityLocation not yet verified
    ManagementAMY TAYLOR
    Board / OfficersRandall Ford, Lynn Sharp, Genowefa Sarko, Jeffrey S. Ditgen, Jerie Redding
    Governing RecordsNo governing-document links on file
    OAH History1 ADRE/OAH case matched
    Corporate StatusActive
    Board namesOAH historyAZCC source details

    Statutory agent of record: AMY TAYLOR.

    Contact, Management & Documents

    Contact & Community

    Physical Address AMY TAYLOR – THRIVE COMMUNITY MGMT 3100 W RAY ROAD, STE 201, CHANDLER, AZ, Maricopa, 85226, USA
    Entity Type AZCC Agent Discovery

    Management

    Management Company AMY TAYLOR
    Management Address THRIVE COMMUNITY MGMT 3100 W RAY ROAD, STE 201, CHANDLER, AZ, Maricopa, 85226, USA

    Board Members & Officers

    Current public records for Northwood Park Homeowners Association list Randall Ford, Lynn Sharp, Genowefa Sarko, Jeffrey S. Ditgen, Jerie Redding.

    Role Name Took Office Term Source
    President Randall Ford 01/2022 — AZCC principal filing
    Vice-President Lynn Sharp 06/2022 — AZCC principal filing
    Director Genowefa Sarko — — AZCC principal filing
    Director Jeffrey S. Ditgen 12/2022 — AZCC principal filing
    Director Jerie Redding — — AZCC principal filing

    Data on File

    • — CC&Rs on file
    • — Bylaws on file
    • — Rules & Regulations on file
    • — Amendments on file
    • — Association phone on record
    • — Association email on record
    • — Association website on record
    • ✓ Management company identified
    • ✓ Board/officer names on file
    • ✓ AZCC corporate record linked

    Last updated 2026-05-08T17:15:44.656644Z.

    ADRE/OAH Case History

    OAH Cases1
    Issues Reviewed1
    Homeowner Issue Wins0
    Association Issue Wins1
    Homeowner Win Rate0.0%
    Dominant RoleRespondent
    Respondent Appearances1
    Petitioner Filings0
    Last Decision2026-03-26
    Penalties AssessedNone
    Avg Penalty / CaseNone
    Filing Fees RecordedNone

    Key Statutes & Violations

    • A.R.S. § 33-1806.01 (1 cases)
    • A.R.S. § 33-1806 (1 cases)

    Representation Snapshot

    When Defending Complaints

    Top Law Firms

    • Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP — 1 cases

    Lead Attorneys

    • Neil Berglund — 1 cases
    • Jeffrey Mclerran — 1 cases

    When Filing as Petitioner

    No petitioner firm data recorded.

    Case Volume by Year

    Year Cases
    2026 1

    Case Explorer







      Frequently Asked Questions

      Where is Northwood Park Homeowners Association located?

      Northwood Park Homeowners Association is located at AMY TAYLOR – THRIVE COMMUNITY MGMT 3100 W RAY ROAD, STE 201, CHANDLER, AZ, Maricopa, 85226, USA, AZ.

      Who manages Northwood Park Homeowners Association?

      Northwood Park Homeowners Association is managed by AMY TAYLOR.

      How many OAH cases involve Northwood Park Homeowners Association?

      1 Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings matter involving Northwood Park Homeowners Association are on record. Homeowners prevail in about 0% of issues litigated.

      Who are the board members or officers of Northwood Park Homeowners Association?

      Current public records for Northwood Park Homeowners Association list Randall Ford (President), Lynn Sharp (Vice-President), Genowefa Sarko (Director), Jeffrey S. Ditgen (Director), Jerie Redding (Director).

      Who is the statutory agent of Northwood Park Homeowners Association?

      The statutory agent of record for Northwood Park Homeowners Association is AMY TAYLOR at THRIVE COMMUNITY MGMT 3100 W RAY ROAD, STE 201, CHANDLER, AZ, Maricopa, 85226, USA.

      Public Record Source Details

      These registration, agent, name-history, and filing records are kept lower on the page so the primary homeowner research summary stays readable.

      Corporate Registration

      AZCC Business ID 01403512
      Legal Name NORTHWOOD PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
      Entity Type Domestic Nonprofit Corporation
      Formation Date 08/03/1981
      State of Formation Arizona
      Business Status Active
      Reason for Status In Good Standing
      Period of Duration Perpetual
      Character of Business 813990007-Homeowners' associations, condominium 813990006-Homeowners' associations
      Known Place of Business AMY TAYLOR – THRIVE COMMUNITY MGMT 3100 W RAY ROAD, STE 201, CHANDLER, AZ, Maricopa, 85226, USA
      Annual Report Due 05/03/2027
      Last Annual Report Filed 2026

      Source: Arizona Corporation Commission

      Statutory Agent

      Agent AMY TAYLOR
      Agent Type Individual
      Status Active
      Physical Address THRIVE COMMUNITY MGMT 3100 W RAY ROAD, STE 201, CHANDLER, AZ, Maricopa, 85226, USA
      Mailing Address TRU-STAR MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS 3100 W RAY RD STE 201, CHANDLER, AZ, 85226, USA

      Name History

      Name on File Effective From Ends Filing #
      NORTHWOOD PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 08/03/1981 12:00 AM Present —

      Filing History

      Date Type Filing # Status Documents
      12/24/2014 12:00 AM Statutory Agent Resignation 04912479 Approved 04912479.pdf
      12/16/2014 12:00 AM Statement of Change – Corps 04909664 Approved 04909664.pdf
      12/02/2022 03:41 PM Officer/Director/Shareholder Change 22111615484682 Approved 22111615484682.pdf
      11/05/1996 12:00 AM Annual Report(1995) -00045202 Approved -00045202.pdf
      11/03/2018 09:58 AM Statutory Agent Resignation 18091413014787 Approved 18091413014787.pdf
      10/16/2019 01:27 PM Annual Report(2019) 19101613271699 Approved 19101613271699.pdf
      07/25/2019 08:08 AM Statement of Change – Corps 19071208142438 Approved 19071208142438.pdf
      07/21/1998 12:00 AM Annual Report(1998) -00202600 Approved -00202600.pdf
      07/14/2020 11:14 AM Annual Report(2020) 20071410474365 Approved 20071410474365.pdf
      05/24/2001 12:00 AM Annual Report(2001) 00313746 Approved 00313746.pdf
      05/19/2010 12:00 AM Annual Report(2010) 03145053 Approved 03145053.pdf
      05/15/2017 12:00 AM Annual Report(2017) 05933894 Approved 05933894.pdf
      05/14/2014 12:00 AM Statement of Change – Corps 04682244 Approved 04682244.pdf
      05/13/2008 12:00 AM Annual Report(2008) 02429132 Approved 02429132.pdf
      05/03/2021 02:29 PM Annual Report(2021) 21050314294995 Approved 21050314294995.pdf
      05/02/2012 12:00 AM Annual Report(2012) 03890249 Approved 03890249.pdf
      04/30/2015 12:00 AM Annual Report(2015) 05049829 Approved 05049829.pdf
      04/30/1997 12:00 AM Annual Report(1996) -00080902 Approved -00080902.pdf
      04/27/2011 12:00 AM Annual Report(2011) 03471494 Approved 03471494.pdf
      04/25/2013 12:00 AM Annual Report(2013) 04272794 Approved 04272794.pdf
      Show older filings (19)
      Date Type Filing # Status Documents
      04/18/2022 10:32 PM Annual Report(2022) 22041822329680 Approved 22041822329680.pdf
      04/17/2016 12:00 AM Annual Report(2016) 05491115 Approved 05491115.pdf
      04/16/2014 12:00 AM Annual Report(2014) 04642418 Approved 04642418.pdf
      04/16/2009 12:00 AM Annual Report(2009) 02757181 Approved 02757181.pdf
      04/16/2002 12:00 AM Annual Report(2002) 00478174 Approved 00478174.pdf
      04/10/2025 08:59 AM Annual Report(2025) 25041008594164 Approved 25041008594164.pdf
      04/04/2023 11:15 AM Annual Report(2023) 23040411157433 Approved 23040411157433.pdf
      04/01/2026 07:54 PM Annual Report (2026) 04012607542242 Approved Filing Image
      03/31/2024 11:08 PM Annual Report(2024) 24033123084923 Approved 24033123084923.pdf
      03/23/2018 12:00 AM Annual Report(2018) 06282041 Approved 06282041.pdf
      03/21/2017 12:00 AM Statement of Change – Corps 05867283 Approved 05867283.pdf
      03/15/1999 12:00 AM Annual Report(1999) 00001652 Approved 00001652.pdf
      03/14/2003 12:00 AM Annual Report(2003) 00669053 Approved 00669053.pdf
      03/13/2000 12:00 AM Annual Report(2000) 00124269 Approved 00124269.pdf
      03/12/2004 12:00 AM Annual Report(2004) 00892611 Approved 00892611.pdf
      03/10/2005 12:00 AM Annual Report(2005) 01152830 Approved 01152830.pdf
      03/08/2006 12:00 AM Annual Report(2006) 01501587 Approved 01501587.pdf
      03/01/2017 12:00 AM Statutory Agent Resignation 05836273 Approved 05836273.pdf
      02/16/2007 12:00 AM Annual Report(2007) 01892541 Approved 01892541.pdf