Contractual Enforcement Duties | Fees & Costs | CV2023-014388
The superior court resolved all claims against Litchfield Vista Views III Homeowners Association through summary-judgment rulings after oral argument, then entered judgment awarding the association fees and costs. The written fee ruling matters because it held that the homeowner’s claims against the association arose out of contract for A.R.S. § 12-341.01 purposes, even though CC&R 5.15 itself did not authorize fees when the association was defending rather than bringing an enforcement action.
Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Shawn Blakley v. Roosevelt Grover Parker, et al., Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2023-014388.
Scope note: This page covers Shawn Blakley v. Roosevelt Grover Parker, et al. (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2023-014388) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s own filed minute entries, including the February 27, 2026 oral-argument ruling and the June 1, 2026 judgment-and-fee entry; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: the collected entries show that all claims against Litchfield Vista Views III were resolved and judgment was entered for that association, while scheduling continued as to remaining parties. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The takeaway
When a homeowner sues an association for allegedly failing to perform contractual enforcement duties, the association may be able to recover fees under A.R.S. § 12-341.01 if it prevails, even if the CC&R fee clause itself is limited to offensive enforcement actions by the association. Here, the court granted Litchfield Vista Views III summary judgment on all claims against it, then awarded fees and costs under § 12-341.01 while rejecting CC&R 5.15 as a standalone basis for fees.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Shawn Blakley (Plaintiff)
Plaintiff represented by Sean Woods. The later fee ruling describes his claims against the association as alleging failure to fulfill contractual enforcement duties. - Sean Woods (Counsel)
Counsel listed for Plaintiff Shawn Blakley in the minute entries.
Respondent Side
- Roosevelt G. Parker (Defendant)
Individual defendant represented by J. Gary Linder. - Patricia L. Parker (Defendant)
Individual defendant represented by J. Gary Linder. - Litchfield Vista Views III Homeowners Association (Defendant)
Homeowners association defendant that obtained summary judgment on all claims against it and later received an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. - J. Gary Linder (Counsel)
Counsel listed for Roosevelt G. Parker and Patricia L. Parker. - Mark E. Lines (Counsel)
Counsel listed for Litchfield Vista Views III Homeowners Association and affiant supporting the association’s fee application.
Neutral Parties
- John R. Hannah Jr. (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court judge assigned during the scheduling and amended-complaint phase. - Joseph Kreamer (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court judge who heard the association’s summary-judgment motions and entered the fee-and-cost judgment.
What happened
Shawn Blakley filed suit against Roosevelt Grover Parker, Patricia L. Parker, and Litchfield Vista Views III Homeowners Association. The collected minute entries do not include the complaint or identify the property-level facts, but the June 2026 fee ruling describes the claims against the association as claims that it failed to fulfill contractual enforcement duties rather than claims that it committed the underlying alleged torts.
The early minute entries are mostly procedural. Judge John R. Hannah Jr. entered trial-scheduling orders, reset scheduling conferences after stipulations to extend deadlines, and in November 2024 allowed Blakley to file and serve a First Amended Complaint. The case later moved before Judge Joseph Kreamer.
The association filed a June 17, 2025 motion for partial summary judgment. The Parkers joined that motion in July 2025, and the association later filed an October 27, 2025 motion for summary judgment on Counts V and VI of the First Amended Complaint. Several entries reset oral argument on those motions before the court heard argument on February 27, 2026.
At the February 27, 2026 oral argument, the court granted Litchfield Vista Views III’s motion for partial summary judgment as to Counts II and IV, denied the Parkers’ joinder in that motion as to Counts II and IV, and granted Litchfield Vista Views III’s summary-judgment motion as to Counts V and VI. The minute entry states that those rulings resolved all claims against Litchfield Vista Views III.
The association then sought attorneys’ fees and costs. On June 1, 2026, Judge Kreamer rejected CC&R 5.15 as a fee basis because, on its face, it applied only when the association brings an offensive enforcement action. The court nevertheless held that A.R.S. § 12-341.01 supported a fee award because, regardless of claim labels, Blakley sued the association for allegedly failing to fulfill contractual enforcement duties. The court found the claims intertwined, applied Associated Indemnity and China Doll, made a limited fee reduction, and entered judgment awarding the association fees and costs.
Procedural timeline
Complete uploaded source-document index
This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/blakley-v-parker/raw/: 12 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.
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.
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 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 Set
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling after oral argument granting Litchfield Vista Views III partial summary judgment on Counts II and IV and summary judgment on Counts V and VI, resolving all claims against the association.
Judgment Entered
Type: Decision or judgment
Judgment entry granting Litchfield Vista Views III attorneys’ fees and costs under A.R.S. § 12-341.01 while rejecting CC&R 5.15 as a fee basis because it applies only to offensive enforcement actions by the association.
FAQ
Who won the association part of the case?
Litchfield Vista Views III Homeowners Association won the claims against it. The February 27, 2026 minute entry says the court granted the association partial summary judgment on Counts II and IV, granted summary judgment on Counts V and VI, and that this resolved all claims against the association.
What did the court say the claims against the HOA were about?
The June 1, 2026 fee ruling says that, regardless of how the claims were labeled, Plaintiff sued the association for allegedly failing to fulfill contractual enforcement duties, not for committing the alleged underlying torts.
Did the CC&Rs themselves authorize the fee award?
Not under the clause the association cited. The court held that CC&R 5.15 did not provide a basis for fees because, on its face, it applies only when the association brings an offensive enforcement action.
Why did the association still receive fees?
The court held that A.R.S. § 12-341.01 supported the award because the claims against the association arose out of contract. It also found the claims intertwined, that the Associated Indemnity factors supported fees, and that the submitted billing materials were sufficient under China Doll.
Did the individual homeowner defendants also win summary judgment on the same HOA counts?
Not through the association’s motion. The February 27, 2026 minute entry denied Roosevelt and Patricia Parker’s joinder in the association’s partial summary-judgment motion as to Counts II and IV, while granting the association’s motions.
Is this ruling precedent for other Arizona HOA cases?
No. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. The case is still useful as an example of how a court may separate a CC&R fee clause from A.R.S. § 12-341.01 when a homeowner’s claims against an association are contractual in substance.
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 | CV2023-014388 (Maricopa County Superior Court) |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Superior Court |
| Decision / key date | February 27, 2026 |
| Judge / panel | Hon. John R. Hannah Jr., Hon. Joseph Kreamer |
| Parties | Shawn Blakley (Plaintiff) v. Roosevelt Grover Parker, Patricia L. Parker, and Litchfield Vista Views III Homeowners Association (Defendants) |
| Governing law | |
| Topics | cc-and-rscovenantsattorneys-feesselective-enforcement |
| Outcome / holding | The superior court granted Litchfield Vista Views III summary judgment on all claims against it and later awarded the association attorneys’ fees and costs under A.R.S. § 12-341.01, holding that the plaintiff’s claims against the association arose out of alleged contractual enforcement duties even though CC&R 5.15 did not itself authorize fees for a defensive win. |
| Primary public source | View source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Uploaded source package | 12 PDFs |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 7 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
Shawn Blakley sued individual homeowners and Litchfield Vista Views III Homeowners Association. The collected minute entries do not reproduce the complaint, but the court later described the claims against the association as alleging failure to fulfill contractual enforcement duties. After oral argument, Judge Joseph Kreamer granted the association partial summary judgment on Counts II and IV and summary judgment on Counts V and VI, resolving all claims against the association. The court later entered judgment awarding the association attorneys’ fees and costs under A.R.S. § 12-341.01, while rejecting CC&R 5.15 as an independent fee basis because it applied only when the association brings an offensive enforcement action.
The merits minute entry is limited because the court stated that its reasons were set forth on the oral-argument record. The written order confirms the result: Litchfield Vista Views III obtained partial summary judgment on Counts II and IV and summary judgment on Counts V and VI, and those rulings resolved all claims against the association. The Parkers’ joinder in the association’s partial summary-judgment motion was denied as to Counts II and IV.
The later fee ruling supplies the most detailed written reasoning. Judge Kreamer first rejected CC&R 5.15 as a fee basis because, on its face, that provision applies only when the association brings an offensive enforcement action. The court then held that A.R.S. § 12-341.01 supported fees because the plaintiff’s claims, however labeled, accused the association of failing to perform contractual enforcement duties rather than committing the alleged underlying torts.
Applying Associated Indemnity and China Doll, the court found the claims against the association arose out of contract and were intertwined, making apportionment unnecessary; the discretionary factors supported fees; the association’s materials were sufficient; and most fees and all costs were reasonable, subject to a limited reduction before judgment entered.
This case is useful for the fee question that often follows failed enforcement-duty claims against an HOA. A CC&R fee clause may be too narrow if it applies only when the association sues to enforce the documents, but A.R.S. § 12-341.01 can still support a fee award when a homeowner’s claims against the association are contractual in substance.
The case is less useful on the merits of association enforcement duties because the summary-judgment minute entry does not reproduce the court’s oral reasoning or the factual record behind Counts II, IV, V, and VI. As a superior-court case, it binds only the parties and is not precedent.