Elections & Records | Electronic Balloting & Remand | LC2025-000025
When Sunland Springs Village HOA claimed that electronic voting through vendor VoteHOANow did not produce inspectable association ballots, an owner obtained electronic voting data the association had not produced during the administrative hearing. Judge Joseph P. Mikitish remanded the case to ADRE for a full evidentiary hearing.
Last updated September 17, 2026. Case: AZNH Revocable Trust, John Sullivan, and Susan Sullivan v. Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association and Arizona Department of Real Estate, Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2025-000025 (minute entries use LC2025-000025-001 DT); related Office of Administrative Hearings / ADRE matter; Hon. Joseph P. Mikitish.
Scope note: This page covers Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2025-000025, an administrative appeal filed on January 14, 2025. AZNH Revocable Trust and its trustees petitioned against Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association alleging violations of A.R.S. § 33-1812 and records inspection statutes for failing to retain and produce electronic election ballots conducted through third-party platform VoteHOANow. After an Administrative Law Judge initially concluded no violation occurred because the system used an electronic user interface, appellants uncovered an electronic ballot that the HOA possessed but had failed to produce. Superior Court Judge Joseph P. Mikitish dismissed the appeal and remanded the case to ADRE under A.R.S. § 12-911 for a formal evidentiary hearing to address the newly discovered electronic voting records. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The takeaway
The Superior Court remanded the administrative appeal to the Arizona Department of Real Estate pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-911 and Rule 10 of the JRAD Rules to conduct a formal evidentiary hearing regarding newly discovered electronic election ballots, holding that determining whether electronic records maintained by third-party voting platforms constitute association records under A.R.S. § 33-1812 requires comprehensive factual examination.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- AZNH Revocable Trust (Plaintiff/Appellant)
Homeowner trust owning property in Sunland Springs Village that petitioned to enforce statutory ballot inspection rights. - John Sullivan (Plaintiff/Appellant)
Trustee of AZNH Revocable Trust; appeared pro se to enforce election transparency. - Susan Sullivan (Plaintiff/Appellant)
Co-trustee of AZNH Revocable Trust.
Respondent Side
- Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association (Defendant/Appellee)
Master planned 55+ community homeowners association in East Mesa that conducted elections via VoteHOANow. - Arizona Department of Real Estate (Defendant/Appellee)
State regulatory department overseeing HOA disputes; remand recipient for the evidentiary hearing. - Chad M. Gallacher (Counsel)
Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.
Counsel representing Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association. - B. Austin Baillio (Counsel)
Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.
Counsel representing Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association. - Deanie J. Reh (Counsel)
Office of the Arizona Attorney General
Assistant Attorney General representing the Arizona Department of Real Estate. - Raya Gardner (Counsel)
Office of the Arizona Attorney General
Assistant Attorney General representing the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
Neutral Parties
- Hon. Joseph P. Mikitish (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court
Superior Court Judge who ordered the appeal remanded to ADRE for an evidentiary hearing on electronic ballots.
What happened
AZNH Revocable Trust filed an administrative petition with ADRE alleging Sunland Springs Village HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1812 by failing to retain and produce electronic election ballots.
An ALJ concluded no violation occurred because the voting was conducted via an electronic user interface without physical ballots.
Following the ruling, the Sullivans obtained an electronic ballot that, according to AZNH, the HOA had in its custody but failed to produce.
Appellants filed an administrative appeal in Maricopa County Superior Court (LC2025-000025) and moved for an evidentiary hearing.
The HOA contended the electronic files belonged to third-party vendor VoteHOANow and were not association records.
Judge Joseph P. Mikitish ruled that the storage, ownership, and technology of the ballots required an evidentiary hearing and remanded the proceeding to ADRE under A.R.S. § 12-911.
On September 17, 2025, the court held an Order to Show Cause return hearing with all parties and state counsel regarding case status.
Video overview of the case record
An AI-generated video overview of AZNH Revocable Trust v. Sunland Springs Village HOA and ADRE (Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2025-000025). Superior court remanded to ADRE for evidentiary hearing on disputed VoteHOANow electronic election ballots. This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own records control.
Listen: audio deep dive on the case record
An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the case record in AZNH Revocable Trust v. Sunland Springs Village HOA and ADRE. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked records below.
Procedural timeline
AZNH Revocable Trust files Notice of Appeal of Administrative Decision in Maricopa County Superior Court (LC2025-000025).
Appellants file Motion for Evidentiary Hearing to Introduce Additional Evidence regarding newly discovered electronic ballots.
Judge Joseph P. Mikitish issues minute entry remanding the matter to ADRE for an evidentiary hearing on VoteHOANow records.
Appellants file Motion to Enforce Judgment and for Order to Show Cause.
Court sets virtual Order to Show Cause Return hearing.
Court conducts OSC hearing with Assistant Attorneys General and Maxwell & Morgan counsel, concluding Superior Court proceedings.
Complete source-document index
This index contains 4 PDFs from the reviewed public source packet. Byte-identical copies are listed once. Files are ordered by the date and sequence in the public filename, and party filings or research materials are labeled separately from court rulings.
Administrative Review Orders
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Order Of Dismissal And Remand For Evidentiary Hearing
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Minute Entry Setting OSC Return Hearing
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Minute Entry OSC Return Hearing
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
FAQ
What was the dispute in AZNH Trust v. Sunland Springs Village HOA?
AZNH Revocable Trust and trustees John and Susan Sullivan filed an administrative petition with ADRE alleging that Sunland Springs Village HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1812 by failing to retain all ballots and related election materials and refusing to make them available for member inspection.
What did the administrative agency originally rule?
The Office of Administrative Hearings initially ruled in favor of the HOA, accepting its defense that because voting occurred through an online electronic user interface, no paper ballots existed and the association therefore did not violate ballot retention requirements.
What new evidence was discovered after the administrative decision?
Following the administrative ruling, the Sullivans obtained an actual electronic ballot that Sunland Springs Village HOA had in its custody but had failed to disclose or produce during the hearing.
What did the HOA argue about third-party voting platforms like VoteHOANow?
Represented by Maxwell & Morgan, the HOA argued that the electronic voting records were inadmissible, belonged exclusively to third-party vendor VoteHOANow, and did not constitute official association records subject to member inspection.
What did Judge Mikitish decide?
Judge Joseph P. Mikitish ruled that the background of the documents, the entity owning and storing the files, and the use of election technology required a detailed factual analysis. Under A.R.S. § 12-911, the court remanded the proceeding to ADRE to conduct a formal evidentiary hearing to address the newly discovered electronic ballot evidence.
Case Dossier
This dossier combines the case metadata, linked court sources, and the explanatory sections below. It distinguishes court rulings from party filings, allegations, and requested relief.
Case Summary
| Case ID / citation | Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2025-000025 |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Superior Court |
| Decision / key date | April 17, 2025 |
| Judge / panel | Hon. Joseph P. Mikitish |
| Parties | AZNH Revocable Trust (Appellant) v. Sunland Springs Village HOA & ADRE (Appellees) |
| Governing law |
|
| Topics | Voting And ElectionsMeetings & RecordsProcedure |
| Outcome / holding | The Superior Court remanded the administrative appeal to the Arizona Department of Real Estate pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-911 and Rule 10 of the JRAD Rules to conduct a formal evidentiary hearing regarding newly discovered electronic election ballots, holding that determining whether electronic records maintained by third-party voting platforms constitute association records under A.R.S. § 33-1812 requires comprehensive factual examination. |
| Primary public source | View hosted source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Reviewed source package | 4 PDFs |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 6 roadmap entries |
| Video overview | AZNH Revocable Trust v. Sunland Springs Village HOA and ADRE |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 5 questions |
| Featured download links | 3 download links |
Key Issues & Findings
In January 2025, AZNH Revocable Trust and its trustees John and Susan Sullivan appealed to Maricopa County Superior Court (LC2025-000025) seeking judicial review of an adverse administrative decision by the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE). The Sullivans had petitioned against Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association, alleging that the association violated state law by failing to retain all election ballots and related materials and refusing to make them available for inspection pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1812 and § 33-1805. An Administrative Law Judge at the Office of Administrative Hearings initially concluded that the HOA did not violate the law because the election was conducted through an electronic user interface without traditional paper ballots. Following that decision, however, appellants obtained an electronic ballot that, according to AZNH, the HOA had in its custody but failed to produce. In Superior Court, appellants moved for an evidentiary hearing to introduce the newly discovered evidence. The HOA, represented by Maxwell & Morgan, resisted the hearing, asserting that the records belonged to third-party vendor VoteHOANow rather than the association and were inadmissible. Judge Joseph P. Mikitish ruled that the background of the documents, ownership and storage of digital records, and the technologies used in the election required a formal evidentiary hearing, and remanded the matter back to ADRE under A.R.S. § 12-911 for an evidentiary hearing on the new electronic ballot evidence.
Under A.R.S. § 12-911(A)(7) and Rule 10 of the Rules of Procedure for Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions, the Superior Court possesses statutory authority to remand an administrative proceeding when it appears that justice requires taking additional evidence not previously available or considered.
The core controversy centers on the growing use of third-party software vendors like VoteHOANow in Arizona HOA elections. While associations frequently argue that third-party digital platforms insulate elections from statutory ballot retention and inspection mandates under A.R.S. § 33-1812 and § 33-1805, the discovery of an electronic ballot that AZNH contended the association had in its custody directly challenged the ALJ's initial finding that no inspectable ballots existed.
Judge Mikitish concluded that determining the legal status of digital voting records requires a detailed evidentiary inquiry into 'the background of the documents, the entity owning and storing the documents, and the details of the use of various technologies in the HOA election.' Because the administrative agency is the proper forum for taking testimony and resolving expert regulatory questions regarding record-keeping, remand was the legally mandated remedy.
As Arizona HOAs increasingly transition to online voting vendors like VoteHOANow, boards routinely tell members that electronic voting records cannot be inspected because 'the vendor owns the data.' This precedent demonstrates that associations cannot use third-party platforms to evade statutory ballot retention and disclosure duties under A.R.S. § 33-1812. When an owner demonstrates that digital ballots exist, courts will compel evidentiary scrutiny rather than accepting boilerplate vendor-custody defenses.