HOA Construction Dispute | Default Damages | CV2025-007913
The court struck the association’s post-default answer, required proof of unliquidated damages, and denied a jury demand for the default-damages hearing.
Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: John Ballard, et al. v. Carriage Square at Gainey Village Homeowners Association, et al., Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2025-007913.
Scope note: This page covers John Ballard, et al. v. Carriage Square at Gainey Village Homeowners Association, et al. (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2025-007913) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from 15 filed minute entries, especially the September 25, 2025 default-hearing entry, the October 7, 2025 ruling striking the association’s answer, and the November 6, 2025 ruling on default damages and jury trial. Currency caveat: the collected record ends with the June 22, 2026 order dismissing the action in its entirety after notice of settlement and no further filings. Any settlement terms, performance, or appeal 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
Default does not automatically prove the amount of unliquidated damages. Here, the association’s answer was struck because default had already occurred, but the homeowners still had to prove damages at a court-run default hearing, and the court rejected a jury demand for that damages proceeding.
Case Participants
Neutral Parties
- John Ballard (Plaintiff)
Homeowner plaintiff who sought emergency and default-related relief. - Claudia Ballard (Plaintiff)
Homeowner plaintiff in the construction-related HOA dispute. - Carriage Square at Gainey Village Homeowners Association (Defendant)
Association defendant whose answer was struck after default occurred. - Colby Management Inc. (Defendant)
Management-company defendant listed in the case-party data and minute entries. - Mary K. Chapman (Defendant)
Named defendant in the case. - Tyler Chapman (Defendant)
Named defendant in the case. - Jacob A. Kubert (Counsel)
Counsel for the homeowners in the collected entries. - Wm. Michael Yohler (Counsel)
Counsel listed for the association before substitution. - Joseph A. Brophy (Counsel)
Counsel substituted for the association in September 2025. - Hon. Richard Albrecht (Commissioner)
Commissioner who handled default-damages proceedings and the jury-demand ruling. - Hon. David McDowell (Judge)
Judge who struck the association’s answer and later entered dismissal-related orders.
What happened
The homeowners sued the association, Colby Management, and neighboring owners in a dispute involving construction issues. Early entries show the court setting oral argument on the homeowners’ temporary-restraining-order application and later default-related proceedings.
After the association filed an answer, the homeowners moved to strike it. The court granted the motion, explaining that default had occurred in May 2025, the answer was filed more than two months later, and the association had not moved to set aside default. The court declared the answer of no effect.
At the default hearing, the homeowners argued that damages were liquidated and based on a sum certain. The court disagreed. The claimed amount relied on an appraiser’s unsworn opinion about loss in value of the home, which the court found was not a sum certain under Rule 55(b)(1). The court required a damages hearing under Rule 55(b)(2).
The homeowners then argued that Rule 55(b)(2)(D) and their jury demand required a jury trial on damages. The court rejected that argument. It reasoned that default admitted liability, that there were no liability facts left for a jury, and that default damages are a judicial determination under Arizona authority.
Before the damages hearing proceeded, the parties filed a notice of settlement. The court vacated the default hearing and placed the case on the dismissal calendar. A later unilateral notice of dismissal with prejudice was not enough because defendants had appeared. The final collected order dismissed the action in its entirety after no stipulation, judgment, or filing to continue the case was submitted.
Video overview of the ruling
An AI-generated video overview of Ballard v. Carriage Square at Gainey Village Homeowners Association (CV2025-007913 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). HOA answer was struck after default, but loss-of-value damages still required a judge-run proof hearing. 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 Ballard v. Carriage Square at Gainey Village Homeowners Association. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.
Procedural timeline
Complete uploaded source-document index
This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/ballard-v-carriage-square-at-gainey-village-homeowners-association/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.
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
Return-hearing minute entry setting oral argument on the homeowners’ temporary-restraining-order application concerning construction issues.
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.
Judgment Entered
Type: Decision or judgment
Order approving and settling a formal written order in the early default-related proceedings.
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.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Default-hearing minute entry holding that claimed loss-of-value damages were not a sum certain and requiring briefing on whether a jury trial was required for default damages.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling striking the association’s untimely answer because default had occurred months earlier and the association had not moved to set it aside.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling holding that default damages would be determined by the court, not a jury, because default admitted liability and left no jury issue for the damages hearing.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying as moot the homeowners’ motion to strike the association’s response on jury-trial rights after the court had already denied the jury request.
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.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Minute entry affirming the dismissal-calendar date because a unilateral notice of dismissal with prejudice was insufficient after defendants appeared.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Order dismissing the action in its entirety after notice of settlement and no further filings to prevent dismissal.
FAQ
What was the underlying HOA dispute about?
The collected entries describe the dispute as involving construction issues and the homeowners’ request for temporary and preliminary injunctive relief.
Why was the association’s answer struck?
The court found that default had occurred months earlier, the association filed an answer without moving to set aside default, and the answer was therefore improperly filed.
Did default mean damages were automatically fixed?
No. The court held that an unsworn appraisal opinion about loss in value was not a sum certain, so damages had to be proved at a hearing.
Did the homeowners get a jury for default damages?
No. The court held that after default admitted liability, the damages hearing was a judicial determination and Rule 55(b)(2)(D) did not require a jury on those damages.
How did the case end in the collected record?
The parties filed a notice of settlement, and the court later dismissed the action in its entirety after no further filings were made to prevent dismissal.
Why is this case classified as standard?
It is useful for HOA default procedure, but it does not decide substantive CC&R, statutory, governance, or architectural-review merits.
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 | CV2025-007913 (Maricopa County Superior Court) |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Superior Court |
| Decision / key date | November 6, 2025 |
| Judge / panel | Hon. Rodrick Coffey, Hon. Richard Albrecht, Hon. David McDowell, Hon. Addison Owen |
| Parties | John Ballard and Claudia Ballard (Plaintiffs) v. Carriage Square at Gainey Village Homeowners Association, Colby Management Inc., Mary K. Chapman, and Tyler Chapman (Defendants) |
| Topics | architectural-reviewcovenantsprocedureboard-governance |
| Outcome / holding | The court struck the association’s answer because default had occurred months earlier and the association had not moved to set it aside. It held that the homeowners’ claimed damages based on an appraiser’s loss-of-value opinion were not a sum certain under Rule 55(b)(1), requiring a damages hearing under Rule 55(b)(2). It further held that default admitted liability and left no factual issue requiring a jury trial on damages in that default proceeding. |
| Primary public source | View source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Uploaded source package | 15 PDFs |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 7 roadmap entries |
| Video overview | Ballard v. Carriage Square at Gainey Village Homeowners Association |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 6 questions |
| Curated download aliases | 1 download link |
Key Issues & Findings
Homeowners sought temporary and preliminary injunctive relief in a construction-related dispute involving Carriage Square at Gainey Village Homeowners Association, Colby Management, and neighboring owners. After default issues arose, the court struck the association’s untimely answer, held that claimed loss-of-value damages were not a sum certain, rejected a jury demand for the default-damages hearing, and later dismissed the action after notice of settlement and no further filings.
The early entries show that the homeowners sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction connected to construction issues. After default proceedings developed, the court concluded that Carriage Square’s answer was improperly filed because default had already occurred and the association had not sought to set aside the default.
At the default hearing, the homeowners argued that damages were liquidated and no hearing was needed. The court disagreed because the claimed amount was based on an unsworn appraisal opinion about loss in home value, which did not qualify as a sum certain for Rule 55(b)(1). The court therefore required a Rule 55(b)(2) damages hearing.
The homeowners also demanded a jury trial on default damages. The court rejected that request, reasoning that once default is entered, liability is admitted and the default damages hearing is a judicial determination. The court read Rule 55(b)(2)(D) as preserving any existing jury right where liability has not been found, not as creating a mandatory jury trial on damages after default. The case later settled and was dismissed in its entirety.
This case is useful for HOA litigation procedure because it shows how a construction or architectural dispute can shift into default practice. Associations that miss default deadlines may have their answers struck, but plaintiffs still must prove unliquidated damages, and the court may treat the damages hearing as a judicial proceeding rather than a jury trial after default.