Common Area & Covenants | Terravita | CV2014-053595
In this Maricopa County Superior Court case, residents challenged Terravita Country Club and Terravita Community Association over proposed pickleball use of existing courts and asserted rights in Tract G. The court declined to oversee discussion-stage club decisions but allowed the association-related common-area and covenant-enforcement questions to survive summary judgment.
Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Ralph Bianco v. Terravita Country Club, Inc., Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2014-053595.
Scope note: This page covers Ralph Bianco, et al. v. Terravita Country Club, Inc., et al. (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2014-053595) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s filed minute entries, including the March 27, 2015 partial-dismissal ruling, the August 3, 2015 summary-judgment ruling, and the February 25, 2016 settlement/dismissal-calendar entry; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: the last collected entry says the court received a notice of settlement, found pending motions moot, and placed the case on the dismissal calendar. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The takeaway
The court would not oversee a private club’s discussion-stage decisions about proposed pickleball use of existing multi-use courts, but it also refused to grant the Community Association summary judgment where fact issues remained over whether Tract G was common area, whether the plaintiffs had use or voting rights over that area, and whether the association had covenant-enforcement obligations affecting those property rights.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Ralph Bianco (Plaintiff)
Plaintiff in the Terravita court-use and Tract G dispute. - Wayne Holsinger (Plaintiff)
Plaintiff in the Terravita court-use and Tract G dispute. - Gary Nelson (Plaintiff)
Plaintiff in the Terravita court-use and Tract G dispute. - Erin Selene Iungerich (Counsel)
Counsel appearing for plaintiffs in the 2015 summary-judgment proceedings. - J. Roger Wood (Counsel)
Counsel appearing for plaintiffs at the January and July 2015 oral arguments.
Respondent Side
- Terravita Country Club, Inc. (Defendant)
Country Club defendant whose partial motion to dismiss was granted as to several claims in March 2015. - Terravita Community Association, Inc. (Defendant)
Community association defendant whose summary-judgment motion was denied because fact issues remained over Tract G and covenant-enforcement obligations. - Joshua M. Bolen (Counsel)
Counsel appearing for Terravita Country Club, Inc. - Curtis S. Ekmark (Counsel)
Counsel appearing for Terravita Community Association, Inc.
Neutral Parties
- Thomas L. LeClaire (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court judge who issued the March 2015 partial-dismissal ruling. - Susan M. Brnovich (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court judge who issued the August 2015 summary-judgment ruling and later scheduling/settlement entries.
What happened
Terravita residents sued Terravita Country Club, Inc. and Terravita Community Association, Inc. over disputes tied to proposed pickleball use of existing multi-use courts and asserted rights in Tract G. The minute entries show plaintiffs pressing claims against both the Country Club and the Community Association.
The first substantive ruling came after oral argument on Terravita Country Club’s partial motion to dismiss. Judge Thomas L. LeClaire granted the motion as to Counts II, IV, V, and VI of the verified first amended complaint. The court reasoned that the complaint was largely premature: the Country Club had not implemented permanent changes to the courts and had only appointed an ad hoc group to study whether pickleball courts should be incorporated with existing multi-use courts.
The court also drew a line around judicial oversight of private-entity decisions. It said the court does not sit as an overseer of private entities and would not adjudicate discussion-stage matters such as amenity details before a permanent action had been taken.
The Community Association did not get the same result on summary judgment. After July 31, 2015 argument, Judge Susan M. Brnovich denied Terravita Community Association’s motion for summary judgment. The court found genuine fact issues over whether Tract G was common area in Terravita Country Club and whether the plaintiffs had use rights over that area.
The August 2015 ruling also tied those factual disputes to association obligations. If plaintiffs had voting rights over changes in Tract G, the court said there was a legitimate question whether Terravita Community Association had an obligation to enforce covenants, conditions, or restrictions affecting their property rights.
Later entries show continued pleading and scheduling activity. The court denied a motion to strike defendants’ answers, denied reconsideration of an under-advisement ruling, granted plaintiffs leave to amend in December 2015, and then in February 2016 found all pending motions moot after receiving a notice of settlement.
Video overview of the ruling
An AI-generated video overview of Ralph Bianco v. Terravita Country Club, Inc. (CV2014-053595 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). Fact issues over Tract G use and covenant enforcement defeated the community association’s summary 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 Ralph Bianco v. Terravita Country Club, Inc.. 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/bianco-v-terravita-country-club/raw/: 21 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.
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.
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.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Order granting plaintiffs’ voluntary withdrawal of the second amended complaint.
Under Advisement Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Under-advisement ruling granting defendants’ partial motion to dismiss Counts II, IV, V, and VI because the Country Club had taken no permanent action and the dispute was premature.
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
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.
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.
Under Advisement Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Under-advisement ruling denying Terravita Community Association summary judgment because fact issues remained over Tract G, use rights, voting rights, and covenant-enforcement obligations.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying plaintiffs’ motion to strike defendants’ answers to the verified complaint.
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
Ruling denying plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the under-advisement ruling.
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.
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.
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.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Order granting plaintiffs leave to amend and requiring the amended complaint to be filed by December 30, 2015.
Status Conference
Type: Court/source PDF
Minute entry finding all pending motions moot after notice of settlement, placing the case on the dismissal calendar, and vacating the pretrial status conference.
FAQ
Was this only a country-club case?
No. Terravita Country Club, Inc. was a defendant, but Terravita Community Association, Inc. was also a defendant, and the August 2015 ruling addressed common-area, use-right, voting-right, and covenant-enforcement questions involving the Community Association.
Why were several claims dismissed in March 2015?
The court found those claims largely premature. Terravita Country Club had not made permanent changes to the courts and had only appointed an ad hoc group to study whether pickleball courts should be incorporated with existing multi-use courts.
Why did the Community Association lose summary judgment?
The court found genuine issues of material fact over whether Tract G was common area, whether the plaintiffs had use rights over it, whether they had voting rights over changes to it, and whether the association had an obligation to enforce covenants, conditions, or restrictions affecting those property rights.
Did the court decide who ultimately controlled Tract G?
No. The August 2015 ruling denied summary judgment because fact issues remained. It did not make a final merits determination on Tract G ownership, use rights, voting rights, or covenant-enforcement duties.
How did the case end?
The collected minute entries end with a February 25, 2016 entry stating that the court received a notice of settlement, found all pending motions moot, placed the case on the dismissal calendar, and vacated a pretrial status conference.
Is this ruling precedent?
No. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This case is useful as a factual example of a common-area and covenant-enforcement dispute, but not as a published appellate rule.
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 | CV2014-053595 (Maricopa County Superior Court) |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Superior Court |
| Decision / key date | August 3, 2015 |
| Judge / panel | Hon. Thomas L. LeClaire, Hon. Susan M. Brnovich |
| Parties | Ralph Bianco, Wayne Holsinger, Gary Nelson, Don Foster, Sally Foster, and John Walker (Plaintiffs) v. Terravita Country Club, Inc. and Terravita Community Association, Inc. (Defendants) |
| Topics | cc-and-rscovenantsmembershipboard-governanceprocedure |
| Outcome / holding | The superior court granted Terravita Country Club’s partial motion to dismiss counts challenging discussion-stage club decisions, but later denied Terravita Community Association’s summary-judgment motion because genuine issues of material fact remained over Tract G, plaintiffs’ use and voting rights, and the association’s possible obligation to enforce covenants, conditions, or restrictions affecting those rights. |
| Primary public source | View source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Uploaded source package | 21 PDFs |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 9 roadmap entries |
| Video overview | Ralph Bianco v. Terravita Country Club, Inc. |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 6 questions |
| Curated download aliases | 1 download link |
Key Issues & Findings
Terravita members and residents sued Terravita Country Club, Inc. and Terravita Community Association, Inc. over proposed pickleball use of existing multi-use courts and alleged rights in Tract G. In March 2015, the court granted the Country Club’s partial motion to dismiss several counts, reasoning that the club had taken no permanent action and that courts do not sit as overseers of minor private-entity decisions still in discussion. In August 2015, the court denied Terravita Community Association’s summary-judgment motion because fact issues remained over whether Tract G was common area, whether the plaintiffs had use or voting rights over that area, and whether the association had an obligation to enforce covenants, conditions, or restrictions affecting those property rights. Later entries show amended-complaint practice and then a notice of settlement, with pending motions deemed moot and the case placed on the dismissal calendar.
On the Country Club motion, the court found the complaint largely premature. Terravita Country Club had not implemented permanent changes to the courts and had only appointed an ad hoc group to study whether pickleball courts should be incorporated with existing multi-use courts. The court stated that it does not sit as an overseer of private-entity activities and would not adjudicate discussion-stage decisions about minor club matters.
On the Community Association motion, the court applied the summary-judgment standard and found genuine issues of material fact. The unresolved questions included whether Tract G was common area in Terravita Country Club, whether the plaintiffs had use rights over that area, whether they had voting rights over changes in Tract G, and whether Terravita Community Association had an obligation to enforce covenants, conditions, or restrictions affecting their property rights.
This case is useful because it separates two recurring HOA-adjacent problems. A private club’s tentative discussion of amenity changes may be too premature for court intervention, especially before any permanent action is taken. But where an association’s common-area, use-rights, voting-rights, or covenant-enforcement obligations are genuinely disputed, summary judgment may be inappropriate.
The ruling is not a final appellate rule. It is a superior-court case that settled later, and the main association ruling denied summary judgment because fact issues remained. That makes it a standard case rather than a must-read merits decision.