Foreclosure & Lien Priority | A.R.S. §§ 33-1807, 33-727 | CV2012-012813
In this Maricopa County Superior Court case, a homeowners association that had won a judgment of foreclosure and forced a sheriff’s sale squared off against Bank of America over who was entitled to the $4,716.06 left over after the sale. The association argued the foreclosure should be treated as a special execution under A.R.S. § 12-1562, entitling it to the surplus; the Bank argued that under A.R.S. § 33-1807(A) association lien foreclosures are treated as mortgages. The court was persuaded by the Bank: distribution is governed by lien priority under A.R.S. § 33-727(A), and the Bank — as the next lienholder in priority — takes the excess proceeds.
Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Ballantrae Ridge Homeowners Association v. Windy Walk Properties, LLC, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2012-012813.
Scope note: This page covers Ballantrae Ridge Homeowners Association v. Windy Walk Properties, LLC (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2012-012813) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s own filed minute entries, including the April 9, 2014 under-advisement ruling on the competing excess-proceeds applications; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: the last collected minute entries, from May 2014, are orders directing the Clerk’s Office to release the excess proceeds to Bank of America; the collected minutes show no appeal or further activity, so the dispute over the sale proceeds appears concluded as of those entries. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The takeaway
The superior court held that Bank of America, not the foreclosing homeowners association, was entitled to the $4,716.06 in excess proceeds left over from the sheriff’s sale that followed the Association’s judgment of foreclosure. The Association argued the lien foreclosure should be treated as a special execution under A.R.S. § 12-1562, which would have sent the surplus to it as judgment creditor. The court was instead persuaded by the Bank’s position — grounded in A.R.S. § 33-1807(A), under which association lien foreclosures are treated as mortgages — that distribution of the excess is governed by lien priority under A.R.S. § 33-727(A). Because the Bank was the next lienholder in priority, the court denied the Association’s application, granted the Bank’s, and directed the Clerk to distribute the excess proceeds to the Bank.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Ballantrae Ridge Homeowners Association (Plaintiff)
Scottsdale homeowners association that obtained a judgment of foreclosure on its lien and, as judgment creditor, applied for the excess proceeds from the September 2013 sheriff’s sale. Its application was denied. - Janet E. Jackim (Counsel)
Counsel for Plaintiff Ballantrae Ridge Homeowners Association, appearing at the February 28, 2014 oral argument on the competing excess-proceeds applications. - Roger Owers (Counsel)
Counsel appearing for Plaintiff Ballantrae Ridge Homeowners Association at the February 28, 2014 oral argument.
Respondent Side
- Windy Walk Properties, LLC (Defendant)
First-named defendant in the Association’s foreclosure suit. The Association applied for a default judgment against it in early 2013, and it appeared at the February 2014 oral argument through a company representative rather than counsel. - Bank of America, N.A. (Defendant)
Defendant lienholder that opposed the Association’s application and filed its own competing application for release of the excess proceeds. The court found the Bank was the next lienholder in priority and awarded it the $4,716.06. - David E. Funkhouser III (Counsel)
Counsel for Defendant Bank of America, N.A., appearing at the February 28, 2014 oral argument. - Lyzzette M. Bullock (Counsel)
Counsel appearing for Defendant Bank of America, N.A. at the February 28, 2014 oral argument. - Doug Metz (Representative)
Representative of Defendant Windy Walk Properties, LLC, present at the February 28, 2014 oral argument. The minute entries identify him as a company representative, not counsel.
Neutral Parties
- Maria del Mar Verdin (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court judge who presided over the excess-proceeds dispute, heard the February 2014 oral argument, and issued the April 9, 2014 under-advisement ruling. - Colleen L. French (Judge)
Judge pro tem who signed the May 2014 orders directing release of the excess proceeds to Bank of America and correcting a clerical error in the release order. - Benjamin E. Vatz (Commissioner)
Court commissioner designated in the February 2013 minute entry to hear the Rule 55(b) default-judgment proceedings against Windy Walk Properties, LLC.
What happened
Ballantrae Ridge Homeowners Association sued Windy Walk Properties, LLC and Bank of America, N.A. in Maricopa County Superior Court (CV2012-012813) and obtained a judgment of foreclosure on its lien. The collected minute entries pick up the case in early 2013, when the Association filed an application and affidavit for default judgment against Windy Walk Properties; the court directed that those Rule 55(b) default proceedings be heard by Commissioner Benjamin E. Vatz and that the default packet be hand-delivered to that division.
In February 2013 the Association also moved for summary judgment on lien priority. That motion never had to be decided: after the parties filed a stipulation in April 2013, the court deemed the summary-judgment motion moot in a May 3, 2013 minute entry.
On September 12, 2013, a sheriff’s sale was conducted on the property as a result of the judgment of foreclosure in the Association’s favor. The sale generated $4,716.06 in excess proceeds, which were deposited with the Clerk of the Maricopa County Superior Court. In October 2013 the Association applied for distribution of the excess proceeds to itself as judgment creditor. Bank of America opposed that application in November 2013 and filed its own competing application for release of the same funds, and the two applications were fully briefed through December 2013.
Judge Maria del Mar Verdin set the competing applications for oral argument and heard them on February 28, 2014. Janet E. Jackim and Roger Owers argued for the Association; David E. Funkhouser and Lyzzette M. Bullock argued for Bank of America; Windy Walk Properties appeared through its representative, Doug Metz. The court took the matter under advisement.
In an under-advisement ruling issued April 9, 2014, the court resolved the statutory tug-of-war in the Bank’s favor. The Association had argued that its lien foreclosure should be treated as a special execution under A.R.S. § 12-1562, entitling it to the excess proceeds; the Bank argued that under A.R.S. § 33-1807(A) association lien foreclosures are treated as mortgages, so any excess should be disbursed to the Bank. The court was persuaded by the Bank’s position that priority, under the circumstances presented, is governed by A.R.S. § 33-727(A), and held that the Bank was entitled to the excess proceeds as the next lienholder in priority. It denied the Association’s application, granted the Bank’s, and directed the Clerk to distribute the $4,716.06 to Bank of America.
The endgame was administrative. The Bank filed a proposed form of order in late April 2014, and Judge Pro Tem Colleen L. French signed an order in May 2014 granting the Bank’s application and directing release of the $4,716.06 — less a $30.00 processing fee and upon presentation of a fully executed U.S. Treasury Form W-9, citing A.R.S. § 33-812(g). A May 20, 2014 minute entry corrected a clerical error so that the Clerk’s Office, rather than the Maricopa County Treasurer, would release the funds. The collected minutes end there, with the excess proceeds ordered released to the Bank.
Procedural timeline
Complete uploaded source-document index
This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/ballantrae-ridge-homeowners-association-v-windy-walk-properties/raw/: 7 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.
Default Judgment
Type: Decision or judgment
Shows the filer trying to move the case forward because the opposing party had not timely appeared.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
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.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Under Advisement Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
FAQ
What are “excess proceeds” in a foreclosure case like this one?
They are the money left over from a foreclosure sale after the amounts the sale was conducted to satisfy are paid. Here, the sheriff’s sale held on September 12, 2013 under the judgment of foreclosure in the Association’s favor produced $4,716.06 more than was needed, and that surplus was deposited with the Clerk of the Maricopa County Superior Court until the judge decided who was entitled to it.
Why did Bank of America get the money instead of the association that foreclosed?
Because of lien priority. The court was persuaded by the Bank’s position that priority in these circumstances is governed by A.R.S. § 33-727(A), and it held the Bank was entitled to the excess proceeds “as the next lien holder in priority.” The Association’s foreclosure judgment gave it the right to force the sale, but it did not give the Association a superior claim to the surplus over the next lienholder in line.
What was the Association’s legal theory, and why did it fail?
The Association argued that its lien foreclosure should be treated as a special execution under A.R.S. § 12-1562, which would have routed the excess sale proceeds to it as the judgment creditor. The court rejected that framing in favor of the Bank’s argument that, under A.R.S. § 33-1807(A), association lien foreclosures are treated as mortgages — so the surplus is distributed by lien priority under A.R.S. § 33-727(A) rather than handed to the foreclosing judgment creditor.
What happened to the earlier summary-judgment motion on lien priority?
The Association moved for summary judgment on lien priority in February 2013, but the parties filed a stipulation in April 2013, and the court then deemed the motion moot in a May 3, 2013 minute entry. The priority question ultimately reached the court a different way — through the competing applications for the excess sale proceeds filed in the fall of 2013.
What is an under-advisement ruling?
When an Arizona superior-court judge takes a motion “under advisement” after briefing or argument, the later written decision is filed as an under-advisement ruling in the court’s minute entries. In this case, Judge Maria del Mar Verdin took the competing excess-proceeds applications under advisement at the February 28, 2014 oral argument and issued the written ruling on April 9, 2014. These rulings are public records available through the Clerk of the Superior Court.
Is this decision binding on other Arizona HOA foreclosure disputes?
No. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties to the case and are not precedent. The case is still useful reading for anyone tracking association lien foreclosures: it shows a court treating an HOA lien foreclosure like a mortgage foreclosure under A.R.S. § 33-1807(A) and distributing surplus sale proceeds strictly by lien priority under A.R.S. § 33-727(A), rather than awarding them to the foreclosing association.
Case Dossier
This generated dossier mirrors the structured data surfaced on the OAH/ADRE case pages. It is added from the curated court-case record and the custom page source package, while the hand-authored analysis below remains intact.
Case Summary
| Case ID / citation | CV2012-012813 (Maricopa County Superior Court) |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Superior Court |
| Decision / key date | April 9, 2014 |
| Judge / panel | Hon. Maria del Mar Verdin, Judge Pro Tem Colleen L. French |
| Parties | Ballantrae Ridge Homeowners Association (Plaintiff, judgment creditor) v. Windy Walk Properties, LLC and Bank of America, N.A. (Defendants) |
| Governing law | |
| Topics | foreclosureassessmentsprocedure |
| Outcome / holding | The superior court held that the excess proceeds from the sheriff’s sale following the association’s lien foreclosure must be distributed by lien priority — being persuaded by the Bank’s position, grounded in A.R.S. § 33-1807(A)’s treatment of association lien foreclosures as mortgages, that priority is governed by A.R.S. § 33-727(A) — and that Bank of America was entitled to the $4,716.06 as the next lienholder in priority, rejecting the association’s argument that the foreclosure was a special execution under A.R.S. § 12-1562 entitling it to the surplus as judgment creditor. |
| Primary public source | View source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Uploaded source package | 7 PDFs |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 11 roadmap entries |
| Video overview | No video embed currently configured |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 6 questions |
| Curated download aliases | 1 download link |
Key Issues & Findings
A Scottsdale homeowners association sued Windy Walk Properties, LLC and Bank of America, N.A. and obtained a judgment of foreclosure on its lien. A September 12, 2013 sheriff’s sale conducted under that judgment produced $4,716.06 in excess proceeds, which were deposited with the Clerk of the Superior Court. The association applied for the surplus as judgment creditor, arguing the lien foreclosure should be treated as a special execution under A.R.S. § 12-1562; Bank of America filed a competing application, arguing that under A.R.S. § 33-1807(A) association lien foreclosures are treated as mortgages so the excess should be disbursed to the Bank. After a February 28, 2014 oral argument, the court issued an April 9, 2014 under-advisement ruling adopting the Bank’s position: priority is governed by A.R.S. § 33-727(A), and the Bank was entitled to the excess proceeds as the next lienholder in priority. The court denied the association’s application, granted the Bank’s, and directed the Clerk to distribute the $4,716.06 to Bank of America; May 2014 orders implemented the release and corrected a clerical error.
The dispute reached the court through competing applications for the same pot of money. After the association won a judgment of foreclosure and a sheriff’s sale was conducted on the property on September 12, 2013, $4,716.06 in excess proceeds was deposited with the Clerk of the Maricopa County Superior Court. In October 2013 the association applied for distribution of the surplus to itself, characterizing the sale as one conducted under execution and an order of sale on special execution; in November 2013 Bank of America both opposed that application and filed its own application for release of the same funds. The applications were fully briefed through December 2013 and argued on February 28, 2014.
The April 9, 2014 under-advisement ruling framed the parties’ positions as a statutory choice. The association argued that the lien foreclosure should be treated as a special execution under A.R.S. § 12-1562, which would entitle it, as judgment creditor, to the excess proceeds. The Bank argued that under A.R.S. § 33-1807(A) association lien foreclosures are treated as mortgages, so any excess monies should be disbursed to the Bank. The court stated it was persuaded by the Bank’s position that priority in the case, under the circumstances presented, is governed by A.R.S. § 33-727(A), and concluded the Bank was entitled to the excess proceeds “as the next lien holder in priority.”
On that basis the court denied the association’s application for distribution, granted the Bank’s application for release, and directed the Clerk to distribute the $4,716.06 to Bank of America, with counsel to lodge a form of order. Implementation followed in May 2014: a judge pro tem signed an order releasing the funds to the Bank less a $30.00 processing fee and upon presentation of a Form W-9, citing A.R.S. § 33-812(g), and a follow-up minute entry corrected a clerical error so the Clerk’s Office, rather than the county treasurer, would release the money. The collected minute entries show no appeal or further activity after the May 2014 release orders.
This case answers a question that recurs whenever an Arizona homeowners association forecloses its lien and the property sells for more than the sale needed to raise: who keeps the surplus? The association here assumed that, as the foreclosing judgment creditor, it would — and framed the sheriff’s sale as a special execution under A.R.S. § 12-1562 to get there. The court instead treated the association’s lien foreclosure like a mortgage foreclosure, following the Bank’s argument under A.R.S. § 33-1807(A), and distributed the excess strictly by lien priority under A.R.S. § 33-727(A). The next lienholder in line — a bank — took the money.
For associations, the lesson is that winning a foreclosure judgment and forcing a sale does not create a right to surplus sale proceeds; other lienholders’ priority positions survive the sale and control the distribution of any excess. For homeowners and lenders, the case shows the mechanics of how these fights actually unfold — competing applications to the court for funds deposited with the Clerk, briefing, oral argument, and an under-advisement ruling. The dollar amount here was modest ($4,716.06), but the priority principle applies regardless of size. As a superior-court decision it binds only the parties and is not precedent; the collected minute entries show the matter concluded with the May 2014 release orders and no appeal.