HOA Foreclosure, Sheriff’s Sale & Quiet Title | A.R.S. §§ 12-1802, 12-341.01 | CV2018-053929
This Maricopa County Superior Court case shows the limits of trying to unwind an HOA-related foreclosure after a sheriff’s sale. The court refused to stop a later eviction action, then granted Northern Manor Townhouse Association and Maricopoly summary judgment because Boles did not prove any valid chain of title or right of possession, had notice of the sheriff’s sale, and lost any possible property interest when the sale occurred. A later fee ruling denied the association’s contract-fee request because the CC&Rs were only a factual predicate, not the essential basis of Boles’s title and wrongful-foreclosure claims.
Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Sky Boles v. Jason Tarrell, et al., Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2018-053929.
Scope note: This page covers Sky Boles v. Jason Tarrell, et al. (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2018-053929) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s own filed minute entries, including the May 12, 2020 preliminary-injunction ruling, the October 9, 2020 summary-judgment ruling, the November 30, 2020 Rule 60 ruling, and the December 1, 2020 fee-and-cost ruling; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: the last collected minute entry is the January 5, 2021 order denying Boles’s renewed motion to vacate; any later appellate or enforcement history 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
The court treated Boles’s title and possession theories as defeated by the recorded title chain, an earlier foreclosure action, the sheriff’s sale, and Boles’s failure to challenge those events in time. It refused to enjoin Maricopoly’s separate eviction case under A.R.S. § 12-1802(1), then granted Northern Manor and Maricopoly summary judgment because Boles had not shown ownership, title, or possession rights. The court also rejected Northern Manor’s contract-fee request: the CC&Rs were at most a factual predicate to Boles’s title and wrongful-foreclosure theories, not the essential basis of claims “arising out of contract” under A.R.S. § 12-341.01.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Sky Boles (Plaintiff)
Claimant who sought title, possession, injunctive relief against an eviction proceeding, and later relief from summary judgment. - Mark W. Horne (Counsel)
Counsel appearing for Boles in the 2020 injunction proceedings.
Respondent Side
- Jason Tarrell (Defendant)
Defendant from whom Boles claimed a title transfer; the court found Tarrell had testified he never transferred title to Boles and had provided an affidavit to the same effect. - Northern Manor Townhouse Association (Defendant / Intervenor)
Homeowners association that intervened, sought summary judgment, opposed the title and possession claims, requested vexatious-litigant relief, and later sought attorney fees and costs. - Maricopoly, LLC (Defendant in consolidated action)
Entity that bought the property at sheriff’s sale and pursued a separate eviction proceeding; the court found the sheriff’s sale was conclusive evidence of Maricopoly’s title ownership. - Erik Wright (Defendant)
Defendant referenced in the court’s title-chain analysis; the court found no deed from Wright to Tarrell to support Boles’s claims. - Kathryn A. Battock, Emily H. Mann, Joseph M. Hoffman, and Troy B. Stratman (Counsel)
Attorneys appearing for Northern Manor in the collected minute entries. - Mark Zinman (Counsel)
Counsel for Maricopoly, LLC in the collected minute entries.
Neutral Parties
- Theodore Campagnolo (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court judge who issued the key 2020 injunction, summary-judgment, fee, and post-judgment rulings. - John R. Hannah Jr. (Judge)
Judge who issued early 2018 service and voluntary-dismissal entries.
What happened
Sky Boles sued Jason Tarrell and others in 2018. Northern Manor Townhouse Association later appeared as an intervenor, and the case was eventually consolidated with Boles’s 2020 action against Northern Manor and Maricopoly, LLC. The consolidated dispute centered on whether Boles had title, ownership, or possession rights in a Northern Manor property after an earlier foreclosure action and sheriff’s sale.
The first major merits ruling came after a May 12, 2020 evidentiary hearing. Boles asked the court to preliminarily enjoin an eviction proceeding brought by Maricopoly against Tarrell and Boles. Judge Theodore Campagnolo denied the injunction. He ruled that A.R.S. § 12-1802(1) gave the court little discretion to stop an eviction case filed before Boles’s 2020 injunction action, and that consolidating the later action with the 2018 quiet-title case did not change each action’s filing date or party rights.
The court also found Boles had not shown the injunction factors. Based on the title chain, the prior foreclosure action, the sheriff’s sale, and Boles’s failure to timely challenge those events, the evidence showed Maricopoly had a legitimate claim of possession. The court found no substantial likelihood of success, no irreparable harm because the possible damages were monetary, hardships favoring Maricopoly, and public policy favoring speedy resolution of the earlier eviction proceeding.
Northern Manor’s dispositive motion was first filed as a motion to dismiss, then converted to a summary-judgment motion because the association attached exhibits outside the pleadings. After several scheduling and filing-protocol entries, the court heard argument on October 9, 2020. Boles had notice but did not appear. The court found she had wholly failed to show any ownership, title, or right of possession. It specifically found there was no deed from Wright to Tarrell, Tarrell had testified and sworn he never transferred title to Boles, and even if the purported Tarrell deed were genuine, Tarrell had not been shown to hold legal title that he could transfer.
The court granted summary judgment to Northern Manor and Maricopoly. It found no genuine issue of material fact, held that any ownership or possession right had been lost at the sheriff’s sale, found the sheriff’s sale conclusive evidence of Maricopoly’s title ownership as bona fide purchaser, and held future claims by Boles about the property were barred by collateral estoppel and res judicata. The court dismissed the consolidated cases with prejudice, quashed Boles’s lis pendens, barred further title or possession filings about the property, and denied a broader vexatious-litigant designation as unnecessary and procedurally confusing.
Post-judgment rulings followed. The court denied Boles’s Rule 60(b)(1) motion to vacate because a nonlawyer could not appear for her, the medical note submitted did not establish excusable neglect, and Boles had not shown a meritorious claim. It denied Northern Manor attorney fees under A.R.S. § 12-341.01 because Boles’s claims did not arise out of contract: the CC&Rs were only a factual predicate, while the essential basis of the claims was Boles’s alleged title transfer from Tarrell. The association did recover $73.70 in taxable costs as the successful party.
Video overview of the ruling
An AI-generated video overview of Boles v. Tarrell (CV2018-053929 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). Quiet-title claimant lost after a sheriff’s sale cut off any ownership or possession rights. 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 Boles v. Tarrell. 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/boles-v-tarrell/raw/: 39 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.
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.
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.
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
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Default Judgment
Type: Decision or judgment
Shows the filer trying to move the case forward because the opposing party had not timely appeared.
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.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling converting Northern Manor Townhouse Association’s motion to dismiss into a Rule 56 summary-judgment motion because the association attached exhibits outside the pleadings.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling again converting Northern Manor Townhouse Association’s motion to dismiss into a Rule 56 summary-judgment motion and setting a hearing-management path for pertinent materials.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying Sky Boles’s application for a preliminary injunction to stop Maricopoly’s eviction proceeding and denying reconsideration under A.R.S. § 12-1802(1).
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.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying Northern Manor Townhouse Association’s motion to declare Sky Boles a vexatious litigant because A.R.S. § 12-3201(C) applies only to self-represented litigants and Boles was then represented by counsel.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying Boles’s motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law and request for entry of order in connection with the preliminary-injunction hearing.
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.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying Northern Manor Townhouse Association’s reconsideration motion without prejudice to re-urge it after the court ruled on the pending summary-judgment motion.
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.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying Northern Manor Townhouse Association and Maricopoly’s request for a telephonic hearing regarding attorney Mark Horne as moot.
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.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling granting summary judgment to Northern Manor Townhouse Association and Maricopoly, dismissing the consolidated cases with prejudice, quashing Boles’s lis pendens, and barring further title or possession filings about the property.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying Boles’s Rule 60(b)(1) motions to vacate summary judgment and denying her Rule 62 stay request as moot.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying Northern Manor Townhouse Association attorney fees under A.R.S. § 12-341.01 but awarding the association $73.70 in taxable costs.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying Northern Manor Townhouse Association’s motion for reconsideration on its request to declare Boles a vexatious litigant.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying Boles’s renewed motion to vacate for the reasons stated in the court’s December 2020 minute entry.
FAQ
Why did the court refuse to stop the eviction case?
The eviction action was filed before Boles’s 2020 injunction action, and the court found A.R.S. § 12-1802(1) generally precluded the requested injunction. It also found Boles had not shown likelihood of success, irreparable harm, favorable hardship balancing, or public policy supporting an injunction.
Why did Northern Manor and Maricopoly win summary judgment?
The court found Boles had not shown ownership, title, or possession rights. There was no deed from Wright to Tarrell, Tarrell had testified and sworn he never transferred title to Boles, and even a genuine Tarrell-to-Boles deed would not help if Tarrell lacked title to transfer. The sheriff’s sale then cut off any possible ownership or possession rights and made Maricopoly the bona fide purchaser.
Did the court declare Boles a vexatious litigant?
No. The court denied a broader vexatious-litigant designation. It reasoned that Boles’s repeated filings concerned this property, and the court had already barred future filings claiming title, ownership, or possession about the property, so a broader A.R.S. § 12-3201 order would add procedural confusion.
Why were Northern Manor’s attorney fees denied?
Northern Manor sought fees under A.R.S. § 12-341.01, which applies to actions arising out of contract. The court held Boles’s claims did not arise out of a contract with the association. The CC&Rs were only a factual predicate; the essential basis was Boles’s alleged title transfer and wrongful-foreclosure theory. The association did receive taxable costs.
What happened to Boles’s motion to vacate?
The court denied it. A nonlawyer had filed the motions for Boles, the submitted note did not establish excusable neglect for missing the summary-judgment argument, and Boles did not show a meritorious claim as required for Rule 60(b)(1) relief.
Is this decision binding on other HOA foreclosure disputes?
No. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. The case is still useful for understanding how one court handled title-chain proof, sheriff’s-sale consequences, eviction-injunction limits, and contract-fee requests after an HOA-related foreclosure.
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 | CV2018-053929 (Maricopa County Superior Court) |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Superior Court |
| Decision / key date | October 9, 2020 |
| Judge / panel | Hon. Theodore Campagnolo, Hon. John R. Hannah Jr. |
| Parties | Sky Boles (Plaintiff) v. Jason Tarrell, Northern Manor Townhouse Association, Erik Wright, and Maricopoly, LLC through consolidated proceedings (Defendants or Intervenor) |
| Governing law | |
| Topics | foreclosurelienscc-and-rsprocedureattorneys-fees |
| Outcome / holding | The superior court denied Boles’s request to enjoin a related eviction proceeding, granted summary judgment to Northern Manor Townhouse Association and Maricopoly because Boles failed to prove title or possession rights after the sheriff’s sale, dismissed the consolidated cases with prejudice, quashed Boles’s lis pendens, and later denied Northern Manor attorney fees while awarding taxable costs. |
| Primary public source | View source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Uploaded source package | 39 PDFs |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 9 roadmap entries |
| Video overview | Boles v. Tarrell |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 6 questions |
| Curated download aliases | 1 download link |
Key Issues & Findings
Sky Boles sued Jason Tarrell and others, and Northern Manor Townhouse Association intervened in litigation later consolidated with Boles’s action against Northern Manor and Maricopoly, LLC. Boles sought to stop Maricopoly’s eviction proceeding and claimed ownership, title, or possession rights after an earlier foreclosure action and sheriff’s sale. The court denied the preliminary injunction under A.R.S. § 12-1802(1) and the traditional injunction factors, then granted summary judgment to Northern Manor and Maricopoly because Boles did not prove a valid chain of title, any right of possession was lost through the sheriff’s sale, and Maricopoly was the bona fide purchaser. It later denied Boles Rule 60 relief, denied Northern Manor attorney fees under A.R.S. § 12-341.01 because the claims did not arise out of contract, and awarded the association $73.70 in taxable costs.
On the preliminary-injunction request, the court found A.R.S. § 12-1802(1) left little discretion to enjoin an eviction action filed before Boles’s 2020 injunction case. Consolidation with the older 2018 quiet-title action did not change filing dates or party rights. The court also found Boles failed the injunction factors: Maricopoly had a legitimate possession claim based on the title chain, foreclosure action, and sheriff’s sale; monetary damages would not be irreparable harm; hardships favored allowing the eviction case to proceed; and public policy favored speedy resolution of the earlier eviction proceeding.
On summary judgment, the court found Boles had wholly failed to show ownership, title, or possession. There was no deed from Wright to Tarrell, Tarrell had testified and sworn that he never transferred title to Boles, and even a genuine Tarrell deed would not establish Boles’s title if Tarrell had no legal title to convey. The court found no genuine issue of material fact, held that the sheriff’s sale cut off any ownership or possession interest, and treated the sale as conclusive evidence of Maricopoly’s title as bona fide purchaser.
The court denied broader vexatious-litigant relief but barred future filings by Boles claiming title, ownership, or possession of the property. It then denied Rule 60(b)(1) relief because Boles did not prove excusable neglect or a meritorious claim. On fees, the court held A.R.S. § 12-341.01 did not apply because Boles’s claims were not essentially contract claims: the CC&Rs were only a factual predicate, and the core dispute was her alleged title transfer and wrongful-foreclosure theory. Northern Manor recovered taxable costs as the successful party.
This case is a practical example of how difficult it is to use a later quiet-title or injunction case to stop an eviction after an HOA-related foreclosure and sheriff’s sale. The court separated possession in the eviction case from title claims in the civil action, then held that Boles’s chain-of-title proof failed and that the sheriff’s sale cut off any title or possession claim.
The fee ruling is also useful. Even though CC&Rs may be contractual between an association and an owner, the court would not award contract fees where the plaintiff was not claiming under a contract with the association and the essential basis of the case was title and wrongful foreclosure. The result was summary judgment and taxable costs for the association, but no attorney-fee award under A.R.S. § 12-341.01.