Trilogy at Power Ranch v. John Doe: An HOA’s Anonymous-Critic Suit Dies on Service

Posted on June 22, 2026 by [email protected]

Arizona HOA vs. Anonymous Critics | Maricopa County Superior Court CV2025-036877

Trilogy at Power Ranch v. John Doe: An HOA’s Anonymous-Critic Suit Dies on Service

An HOA sued 50 anonymous ‘John Doe’ email critics, got leave to take discovery to identify them, but never completed service. The court dismissed the case without prejudice.

Last updated June 22, 2026. Case: Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association v. John Doe #1-50, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2025-036877 (Hon. Michael J. Herrod).

Download dismissal order Download complaint

Scope note: This page covers a Maricopa County Superior Court trial-court matter (CV2025-036877) that was dismissed without prejudice for lack of service — the court never reached the merits. The complaint contained allegations against unidentified defendants; none were proven. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The rule in one sentence

An association cannot keep an injunction case alive against unidentified ‘John Doe’ defendants it never serves; without personal service inside the court’s deadline, the case is dismissed.

Case snapshot

Case name

Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association v. John Doe #1-50.

Superior Court docket

Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2025-036877 (Hon. Michael J. Herrod).

Result

Dismissed without prejudice on March 4, 2026 for failure to serve the defendants within the court-ordered deadline.

Relationship to CV2025-036771

Companion case filed the same day; the association’s identified-defendant claims continued in CV2025-036771 (Berman), which was itself later dismissed and settled.

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	CV2025-036877
Court / tribunal	Superior Court
Decision / key date	March 4, 2026
Judge / panel	Hon. Michael J. Herrod
Parties	The companion suit Trilogy at Power Ranch filed the same day, targeting 50 unidentified ‘John Doe’ senders of the anonymous ‘Trilogy News’ emails and seeking to declare the emails unlawful and enjoin them.
Governing law	42 U.S.C. § 3601 (Fair Housing Act)
Topics	board-governancefree-speechprocedure
Outcome / holding	An association cannot keep an injunction case alive against unidentified ‘John Doe’ defendants it never serves; absent personal service within the court-ordered deadline, the case is dismissed without prejudice.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package	3 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	3 roadmap entries
Video overview	Trilogy at Power Ranch v. John Doe: Suing Anonymous HOA Critics
Study / briefing material	0 sections
FAQ / homeowner questions	0 questions
Curated download aliases	3 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Filed the same day as CV2025-036771, this companion case targeted 50 anonymous ‘John Doe’ defendants behind the ‘Trilogy News’ email campaign, again pleading tortious interference, injurious falsehood, and (as to one sender) hostile housing harassment. The court granted the association leave to take discovery to identify the senders and set a service deadline, but the association never completed personal service. Judge Michael Herrod vacated the order-to-show-cause hearing on November 14, 2025 and dismissed the case without prejudice on March 4, 2026 for failure to serve. The court never reached the merits.

Key Issues & Findings

Recognizing the defendants were anonymous, the court granted limited discovery to identify them and set a deadline for service. The association did not effect personal service within that window, and email service on anonymous accounts was inadequate. Under the civil rules governing failure to serve, the court dismissed the case without prejudice rather than reaching whether the emails were actually wrongful.

Why It Matters

The case shows how hard it is for an association to weaponize the courts against anonymous online criticism: identification, personal jurisdiction, and service are real procedural hurdles that frequently end a case before any judge evaluates whether the speech crossed a legal line. ‘Without prejudice’ means the claims were not decided on the merits, but as a practical matter the anonymous-critic suit ended here while the identified-defendant case (CV2025-036771) was itself later dismissed and settled.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association (Plaintiff)
Association party that sued unidentified John Doe defendants.
Scott B. Carpenter (Counsel)
Carpenter Law Firm
Counsel for Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association.
Keegan Klein (Counsel)
Carpenter Law Firm
Counsel for Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association.

Respondent Side

John Doe #1-50 (Defendants) (Defendants)
Unidentified anonymous defendants named in the complaint.

Neutral Parties

Michael J. Herrod (Judge)
Superior Court judge who dismissed the John Doe case without prejudice.

Why this case matters

On the same day in October 2025, Trilogy at Power Ranch filed two suits over the anonymous ‘Trilogy News’ email campaign criticizing its board, staff, and committees. This one, CV2025-036877, targeted 50 unnamed ‘John Doe’ defendants and asked the court to declare the emails unlawful and enjoin them. The association alleged tortious interference, injurious falsehood, and (as to one sender) hostile housing harassment under the Fair Housing Act.

The problem was procedural and basic: you cannot sue people you cannot identify and serve. The court granted the association leave to take discovery to unmask the senders and set a service deadline, but the association never completed personal service. Judge Michael Herrod vacated the show-cause hearing in November 2025 and dismissed the case without prejudice in March 2026.

For homeowners, the case illustrates how hard it is for an association to weaponize the courts against anonymous online criticism. Identification, jurisdiction, and service are real hurdles that often end a case before any judge weighs whether the speech was actually wrongful.

Video overview: suing anonymous HOA critics

Watch this overview of Trilogy at Power Ranch v. John Doe #1-50, the companion HOA suit against anonymous ‘Trilogy News’ email critics that was dismissed without prejudice when the association never completed service.

What the court decided

Discovery to identify, granted

The court let the association take limited discovery to try to identify the anonymous senders.

Service never completed

The association did not personally serve the defendants within the court-ordered window, and email service on anonymous accounts was inadequate.

Dismissed without prejudice

Under the civil rules, Judge Herrod dismissed the case for lack of service; ‘without prejudice’ means it could in theory be refiled.

Filing roadmap and PDF downloads

Step 1 Oct 9, 2025

Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against John Doe #1-50.

Filed by: Association

The association sued 50 unidentified email senders.

Download source

2025-10-09_001_complaint.pdf

Step 2 Nov 14, 2025

Order vacating the order-to-show-cause hearing; leave to take discovery to identify defendants.

Filed by: Superior Court

With no one served, the court called off the injunction hearing and allowed discovery to find the senders.

Download source

2025-11-14_002_order-vacating-show-cause-hearing.pdf

Step 3 Mar 4, 2026

Order dismissing the case without prejudice for lack of service.

Filed by: Superior Court

Because no defendant was served by the deadline, Judge Herrod dismissed the case.

Download source

2026-03-04_003_order-of-dismissal-without-prejudice.pdf

Complete uploaded source-document index

This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/trilogy-at-power-ranch-v-john-doe-cv2025-036877/raw/: 3 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.

Source 1 2025-10-09

Complaint

Type: Opening pleading

Starts or reframes the case and identifies the claims or relief requested.

Download source file

2025-10-09_001_complaint.pdf

Source 2 2025-11-14

Order Vacating Show Cause Hearing

Type: Court order/minute entry

Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.

Download source file

2025-11-14_002_order-vacating-show-cause-hearing.pdf

Source 3 2026-03-04

Order Of Dismissal Without Prejudice

Type: Court order/minute entry

Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.

Download source file

2026-03-04_003_order-of-dismissal-without-prejudice.pdf

Primary sources

← Back to Superior Court cases

Trilogy at Power Ranch v. Berman: When an Arizona HOA Sues a Critic and Loses

Posted on June 22, 2026 by [email protected]

Arizona HOA vs. Critic | Maricopa County Superior Court CV2025-036771

Trilogy at Power Ranch v. Berman: When an Arizona HOA Sues a Critic and Loses

A self-managed 2,035-home HOA sued a vocal resident over critical mass emails. The Superior Court dismissed the claims, and the case settled with each side paying its own fees.

Last updated June 22, 2026. Case: Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association v. Steve Berman, et al., Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2025-036771 (Hon. Greg S. Como).

Download dismissal ruling Download first amended complaint Download stipulation of dismissal

Scope note: This page covers a Maricopa County Superior Court trial-court matter (CV2025-036771) that was dismissed and then settled. The association’s complaint contained allegations against the defendants; those allegations were never proven, and the case ended without any finding that the defendants did anything unlawful. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The rule in one sentence

An Arizona HOA cannot turn a member’s critical emails about board spending, salaries, and governance into a lawsuit by labeling them ‘tortious interference with business operations’ — a tort Arizona does not recognize — or ‘hostile housing harassment’; criticism of how an association is run is generally protected, not actionable.

Case snapshot

Case name

Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association v. Steve Berman, et al. (originally filed against John Doe defendants).

Superior Court docket

Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2025-036771 (Hon. Greg S. Como).

Result

Motion to dismiss granted on June 1, 2026; the parties then stipulated to dismiss with prejudice, each side bearing its own fees, on June 18, 2026.

What was at stake

The association sought declaratory and injunctive relief to stop a resident’s mass ‘Trilogy News’ emails criticizing the board, staff, and committees.

Case Dossier

Case Summary

Case ID / citation	CV2025-036771
Court / tribunal	Superior Court
Decision / key date	June 1, 2026
Judge / panel	Hon. Greg S. Como
Parties	A self-managed 2,035-home Gilbert HOA sued a vocal resident (former Gilbert mayor Steve Berman) and Marc Herbener over a campaign of anonymous, critical ‘Trilogy News’ mass emails, seeking to declare the emails unlawful and to enjoin them.
Governing law	42 U.S.C. § 3601 (Fair Housing Act)
Topics	board-governancefree-speechprocedure
Outcome / holding	An Arizona HOA cannot convert member criticism — even repeated, anonymous, and harsh mass emails about board spending, salaries, and governance — into a civil claim by labeling it ‘tortious interference with business operations’ (a tort Arizona does not recognize) or ‘hostile housing harassment’; on the association’s pleadings the court found no viable legal theory and dismissed.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package	15 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	15 roadmap entries
Video overview	Trilogy at Power Ranch v. Berman: An Arizona HOA Sues a Critic and Loses
Study / briefing material	0 sections
FAQ / homeowner questions	0 questions
Curated download aliases	4 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association — a self-managed, 2,035-home active-adult HOA in Gilbert — sued resident Steve Berman (a former Gilbert mayor) and Marc Herbener over a series of anonymous ‘Trilogy News’ mass emails criticizing the board’s spending, executive and manager salaries, water management, contractor bidding, and committee appointments. The association sought declaratory relief and an injunction, pleading ‘tortious interference with business operations,’ injurious falsehood, and ‘hostile housing harassment’ under the Fair Housing Act, and amended its complaint three times. On June 1, 2026, Judge Greg Como granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, and on June 18, 2026 the parties stipulated to dismiss the remaining case with prejudice, each side bearing its own attorney fees and costs. The complaint’s allegations were never proven.

Key Issues & Findings

The court concluded the operative complaint failed to identify a viable cause of action. Arizona does not recognize a freestanding tort of ‘interference with business operations,’ a core theory of the suit; the ‘hostile housing harassment’ framing under the Fair Housing Act did not fit what was, in substance, members criticizing how a nonprofit board governs and spends; and the gravamen of the case was protected commentary on association governance. The court therefore granted dismissal, after which the parties stipulated to a dismissal with prejudice with no fee award to either side. Because the case was resolved at the pleading stage and by stipulation, no factual findings were made about the truth of the emails.

Why It Matters

For Arizona homeowners and critics, the case is a clear marker that an association’s displeasure with a critic is not, by itself, a cause of action: speech about how a board spends money, pays staff, and appoints volunteers is ordinary community participation, not a tort, and boards that sue over it risk a quick dismissal and the ‘SLAPP’ label that this community’s own board raised when it voted to settle. For boards and managers, it is a caution that litigation is a costly and weak response to an unflattering email campaign. It does not immunize defamation — false statements of fact about identifiable people can still carry consequences — but the association here lost on the theories it chose.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association (Plaintiff)
Association party that sued Steve Berman and other defendants.
Adrian Gordon (Association Principal)
Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association
Listed as a Trilogy principal present at oral argument.
Lisa Gurtler (Association Principal)
Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association
Listed as a Trilogy principal present at oral argument.
Scott B. Carpenter (Counsel)
Carpenter Law Firm
Counsel for Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association.
Keegan Klein (Counsel)
Carpenter Law Firm
Counsel for Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association.

Respondent Side

Geoffrey G. Collins (Counsel)
Childers, Hanlon & Hudson, PLC
Counsel of record for Steve Berman in later minute entries and the dismissal stipulation.
Steve Berman (Defendant)
Named defendant accused of sending critical emails.
Jane Doe Berman (Defendant)
Spouse defendant named in the second amended complaint.
Marc Herbener (Defendant)
Named defendant accused of authoring or sending Trilogy News emails.
Kevin R. Harper (Counsel)
Minute entries list him at the show-cause hearing for Steve Berman.

Neutral Parties

Greg S. Como (Judge)
Superior Court judge who granted the motion to dismiss.

Why this case matters

Trilogy at Power Ranch is a self-managed, 2,035-home active-adult community in Gilbert run by a volunteer board and its own staff. Beginning in 2025, residents received a stream of mass emails — branded as ‘Trilogy News’ and sent from a rotating set of anonymous accounts — that sharply criticized the board’s spending, executive and manager salaries, water management, contractor bidding, and committee appointments. The association attributed the campaign to former Gilbert mayor Steve Berman and resident Marc Herbener and took them to court.

Rather than answer the criticism through normal community channels, the association sued, asking a judge to declare the emails unlawful and to enjoin the defendants from sending more. It styled the claims as ‘tortious interference with business operations,’ ‘injurious falsehood,’ and even ‘hostile housing harassment’ under the Fair Housing Act. After three rounds of amended complaints, Judge Greg Como dismissed the case, and the parties settled with each side walking away and paying its own fees.

For homeowners, the case is a clean example of why an association’s displeasure with a critic is not, by itself, a lawsuit. When a board reaches for litigation to silence unflattering emails about governance, it risks a quick dismissal — and the ‘SLAPP’ label that the community itself raised when its board voted to settle.

Video overview: when an HOA sues a resident over critical emails

Watch this overview of Trilogy at Power Ranch v. Berman, where a Gilbert HOA tried to use tortious-interference and harassment theories to shut down a resident’s critical mass emails — and the Superior Court dismissed the claims.

What Judge Como decided

No ‘interference with business operations’ tort

The court found Arizona does not recognize a freestanding tort of interference with business operations — a core theory of the association’s complaint.

Harassment theory failed

The ‘hostile housing harassment’ framing did not fit a dispute that was, at bottom, members criticizing how a nonprofit board governs and spends.

Dismissed, then settled

After the dismissal, the parties stipulated to dismiss the remaining case with prejudice, waiving fees and costs on both sides.

For homeowners and critics

Speaking out about how an association spends money, pays staff, and picks committee members is ordinary community participation, not a tort. This case shows that even repeated, anonymous, and harsh email campaigns are difficult for an association to convert into civil liability — and that a board that sues over them may end up dismissed and labeled as bringing a SLAPP-style suit.

It is not a license to defame: false statements of fact about identifiable people can still carry consequences under defamation law. But the association here did not win on that ground; its chosen theories failed at the pleading stage.

For HOA boards and managers

Download source

2026-06-01_014_ruling-granting-motion-to-dismiss.pdf

Step 15 Jun 18, 2026

Stipulation to dismiss with prejudice, each side bearing its own fees.

Filed by: Parties

The parties agreed to end the case permanently, with no fee award to either side.

Type: Court order/minute entry

A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.

Download source file

2026-06-01_014_ruling-granting-motion-to-dismiss.pdf

Source 15 2026-06-18

Stipulation Of Dismissal With Prejudice

Type: Court/source PDF

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file

2026-06-18_015_stipulation-of-dismissal-with-prejudice.pdf

Primary sources

← Back to Superior Court cases

Rodriguez v. Gardens-Gilbert Community Association: CC&Rs as Contract, Negligence, and the Limits of HOA Tort Claims

Posted on June 19, 2026 by [email protected]

Arizona HOA Litigation | PENDING | A.R.S. § 33-1805 | CV2024-005940

Rodriguez is an active, heavily litigated case on remand from the Court of Appeals. The latest substantive ruling narrowed it to negligence and CC&R-based contract claims, dismissed the retaliation, discrimination, and conspiracy theories, and sanctioned the pro se plaintiff. No final judgment has been entered.

Last updated June 19, 2026. Case: Sandra Rodriguez v. Gardens-Gilbert Community Association, et al., Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2024-005940 (consolidated with CV2024-013806; Hon. Christopher Coury). Status: pending / not final.

Download omnibus ruling Download motion to dismiss Source-file index FAQ

Status: PENDING / NOT FINAL (June 2026). This is an active Maricopa County Superior Court case on remand from the Court of Appeals; no final judgment has been entered and rulings may change. This page summarizes the uploaded record and is educational, not legal advice.

The takeaways so far

An HOA’s CC&Rs are the contract between owner and association, so breach-of-contract claims survive only against the association and only as to specific recorded CC&R terms — not against a management company that is not a party to that contract. Arizona recognizes no standalone tort of ‘retaliation,’ and the economic-loss doctrine can bar tort claims that merely restate CC&R breaches. But negligence and gross-negligence claims tied to common-area maintenance and management duties, and records-access claims under A.R.S. § 33-1805, can still proceed.

What the case is about

Sandra Rodriguez, a Gilbert homeowner appearing pro se, sued the Gardens-Gilbert Community Association, its management company (Focus HOA Management, LLC), and three individual agents, alleging they failed to maintain common areas and address health-and-safety hazards, obstructed remediation of water-intrusion damage at her property, denied her access to records and meetings under A.R.S. § 33-1805, and retaliated against her.

After the trial court dismissed several defendants, the Court of Appeals (1 CA-CV 24-0790/25-0040, August 2025 memorandum decision) reinstated her negligence, gross-negligence, and intentional-tort claims and remanded. On remand, Judge Coury’s May 27, 2026 omnibus ruling narrowed the case to surviving negligence and CC&R-based contract claims, dismissed the discrimination, retaliation, and conspiracy theories, sanctioned the plaintiff for a missed deposition, and imposed a filing restriction; a summary-judgment motion remains pending and a third appeal was filed June 1, 2026.

Video overview: Fair Housing claims and reinstated tort counts

Watch this overview of Rodriguez v. Gardens-Gilbert Community Association, where the Arizona Court of Appeals reinstated negligence and intentional-tort claims and vacated the fee awards, sending the homeowner’s case back for further proceedings.

Procedural timeline

Step 2024-03-21 Complaint filed (CV2024-005940)

Step 2025-08-12 Court of Appeals reinstates negligence/gross-negligence/intentional-tort claims; remands (1 CA-CV 24-0790/25-0040)

Step 2025-09-03 Cases CV2024-005940 and CV2024-013806 consolidated

Type: Procedural/service filing

Service document used to notify a defendant or respondent that the case has been filed.

Download source file

undated_218_summons.pdf

Source 219 Undated

Verified Answer

Type: Responsive pleading

Responding party’s first substantive response to the complaint or petition.

Download source file

undated_219_verified-answer.pdf

Key holdings (so far)

Breach-of-contract claims run against the association, limited to recorded CC&R terms.
A management company is not a party to that contract.

Arizona recognizes no standalone HOA retaliation tort.
The economic-loss doctrine bars tort claims that merely restate CC&R breaches.

Negligence and gross negligence tied to common-area maintenance.
Records-access theory under A.R.S. § 33-1805.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Sandra Rodriguez (Plaintiff)
Self-represented homeowner plaintiff.

Respondent Side

Gardens-Gilbert Community Association (Defendant/Appellee)
Association party named in Rodriguez’s complaint and appeal.
Focus HOA Management, LLC (Defendant/Appellee)
Management-company defendant in the case record.
Harman Cadis (Defendant)
Focus HOA Management
Individual defendant named in the verified partial answer.
Brooke Sortor (Defendant)
Focus HOA Management
Individual defendant named in the verified partial answer.
Anna Schultz (Defendant)
Focus HOA Management
Individual defendant named in the verified partial answer.
Augustus H. Shaw IV (Counsel)
Counsel for defendants in the verified partial answer.
Dominick D. Detente (Counsel)
Counsel for defendants in the verified partial answer.

Neutral Parties

Rodrick Coffey (Judge)
Superior Court judge listed in one order.
David McDowell (Judge)
Superior Court judge assigned in later pleadings.
Christopher Coury (Judge)
Superior Court judge addressed in later notices.

FAQ

Case Dossier

Case Summary

Case ID / citation	Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2024-005940 (consolidated with CV2024-013806)
Court / tribunal	Superior Court
Decision / key date	May 27, 2026
Judge / panel	Hon. Christopher Coury
Parties	A Gilbert homeowner, appearing pro se, sued her HOA, its management company, and three individual agents over common-area maintenance, records access, and alleged retaliation; the case is active on remand from the Court of Appeals.
Governing law	A.R.S. § 33-1805 A.R.S. § 12-1809
Topics	pending-litigationccrs-as-contractnegligencears-33-1805economic-loss-doctrinepro-se-litigant
Outcome / holding	On the operative pleading, the court held that an HOA’s CC&Rs are the contract between owner and association, so breach-of-contract claims survive only against the association and only as to specific recorded CC&R terms (not against the non-contracting management company); the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing requires a contract; Arizona recognizes no standalone tort of ‘retaliation’ and the economic-loss doctrine bars tort claims that merely restate CC&R breaches; but the plaintiff’s negligence and gross-negligence claims tied to common-area maintenance and management duties, and her § 33-1805 records theory, survive for further litigation.

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package	219 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	5 roadmap entries
Video overview	Rodriguez v. Gardens-Gilbert HOA: Fair Housing and Reinstated Tort Claims
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	3 questions
Curated download aliases	3 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

CURRENT STATUS (June 2026): NOT FINAL — this is an active, heavily litigated Maricopa County Superior Court case on remand from the Court of Appeals; no final judgment has been entered. Sandra Rodriguez, a homeowner in the Gardens-Gilbert community, sued the association, its management company (Focus HOA Management, LLC), and three individual agents, alleging the defendants failed to maintain common areas and address health-and-safety hazards, obstructed remediation of water-intrusion damage at her property, denied her access to records and meetings under A.R.S. § 33-1805, and retaliated against her. The trial court initially dismissed several defendants, but in August 2025 the Court of Appeals (1 CA-CV 24-0790/25-0040, memorandum decision) reinstated her negligence, gross-negligence, and intentional-tort claims and remanded. On remand, the latest substantive ruling is Judge Coury’s May 27, 2026 omnibus order, which narrowed the case to surviving negligence and CC&R-based contract claims, dismissed the discrimination, retaliation, and conspiracy theories, sanctioned the plaintiff for a missed deposition, and imposed a filing restriction; a summary-judgment motion remains pending and a third appeal was filed June 1, 2026.

Key Issues & Findings

Taking the well-pleaded allegations as admitted, the court held that several counts failed as a matter of law: breach of contract requires a contract, so claims against the management entity and individuals failed and the association claim was limited to the recorded CC&Rs; the implied covenant cannot exist without a contract; Arizona does not recognize a tort of retaliation, and to the extent the retaliation theory rested on CC&R duties the economic-loss doctrine barred it; and the discrimination count failed for lack of any protected-characteristic facts. The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the appellate remand was narrow, reviewing each claim de novo because the earlier dismissal had been without prejudice. Applying the four-factor injunction test, it denied the plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order and harassment injunction, finding no likelihood of success or irreparable harm and noting the request appeared aimed at avoiding a deposition; it also denied her motion to declare defense counsel vexatious, imposed an intermediate sanction for the missed deposition, and restricted further motion practice pending decision on summary judgment.

Why It Matters

For Arizona HOA disputes, the case reinforces that CC&Rs are the contract between owner and association — breach-of-contract claims are confined to specific recorded CC&R terms and generally cannot be brought against a management company that is not a party to that contract. It confirms that Arizona recognizes no standalone tort of HOA ‘retaliation’ and that the economic-loss doctrine can bar tort claims that simply restate CC&R breaches, while showing that records-access claims under A.R.S. § 33-1805 and common-area maintenance failures can still proceed as negligence theories. It is also a cautionary example of how a sprawling pro se HOA case can draw sanctions, filing restrictions, and repeated appeals. Because the case is ongoing, nothing here is a final ruling.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Gayer v. Willo Neighborhood Association: Challenging an HOA Bylaw-Amendment Vote for Lack of Quorum

Posted on June 19, 2026 by [email protected]

Arizona HOA Bylaws & Quorum | A.R.S. §§ 10-3722, 10-11023 | CV2008-029900

Gayer is a practical, non-precedential illustration of a member challenging an Arizona nonprofit community association’s bylaw-amendment election for lack of statutory quorum and improper meeting notice. The court dismissed the claims against the association president individually but let the quorum claim against the association proceed past the pleading stage; the plaintiff then voluntarily dismissed the case.

Last updated June 19, 2026. Case: Richard Gayer v. Willo Neighborhood Association, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2008-029900 (Hon. A. Craig Blakey II).

Download dismissal ruling Download complaint Source-file index FAQ

Scope note: This is a trial-level matter that ended on the plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal without prejudice, so it set no binding precedent. This page summarizes the pleadings and the court’s motion-to-dismiss ruling from the uploaded record and is educational, not legal advice.

The takeaway

On a motion to dismiss, a member’s allegation that a bylaw-amendment election lacked the statutory quorum and was held at an improperly noticed meeting (A.R.S. §§ 10-3722 and 10-11023(A)) was legally sufficient to proceed against the association; claims against the association president individually were dismissed because the complaint alleged no personal wrongdoing by him and sought relief that ran against the corporation.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Richard Gayer (Plaintiff)
Self-represented member who challenged the bylaw vote.

Respondent Side

Willo Neighborhood Association (Defendant)
Association party defending the bylaw-amendment vote.
Jon D. Schneider (Counsel)
Schneider & Onofry, P.C.
Counsel for Willo Neighborhood Association and Bradley Brauer.
Luane Rosen (Counsel)
Schneider & Onofry, P.C.
Counsel for Willo Neighborhood Association and Bradley Brauer.
Bradley Brauer (Association President)
Willo Neighborhood Association
Individual defendant dismissed from the complaint.

Neutral Parties

A. Craig Blakey II (Judge)
Superior Court judge who ruled on the motion to dismiss.

What happened

In June 2008 the Willo Neighborhood Association held an election that amended its bylaws — redrawing the eastern service-area boundary and shifting from automatic membership to an opt-in model with a lower voting quorum. Richard Gayer, a member appearing pro se, alleged the meeting was improperly noticed as a ‘board meeting’ rather than the required membership meeting and that only about 143 votes were cast against a statutory minimum near 270. He sought a declaratory judgment invalidating the election and an injunction restoring the prior bylaws.

The association and its president moved to dismiss. On July 8, 2009, the court dismissed the claims against the president but denied dismissal of the quorum/notice claim against the association, observing it might not survive summary judgment but passed the motion-to-dismiss standard. Because Gayer had already filed a Rule 41(a)(1) voluntary dismissal without prejudice on June 19, 2009, the case ended without a merits decision.

Video overview: standing to challenge an HOA bylaw vote

Watch this overview of Gayer v. Willo Neighborhood Association, a challenge to a neighborhood association’s bylaw-amendment vote that raised questions about member standing and the Volunteer Protection Act before the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action.

Procedural timeline

Step 2008-11-24 Gayer files complaint challenging the bylaw-amendment election (CV2008-029900)

Step 2009-03-13 Association and president move to dismiss

Type: Court/source PDF

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file

2009-07-16_016_letter-to-court.pdf

Source 17 Undated

Summons

Type: Procedural/service filing

Service document used to notify a defendant or respondent that the case has been filed.

Download source file

undated_017_summons.pdf

FAQ

Case Dossier

Case Summary

Case ID / citation	Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2008-029900
Court / tribunal	Superior Court
Decision / key date	July 8, 2009
Judge / panel	Hon. A. Craig Blakey II
Parties	A neighborhood-association member, appearing pro se, sued the association and its president to invalidate a bylaw-amendment election he alleged was held without the statutory quorum and proper meeting notice.
Governing law	A.R.S. § 10-3722 A.R.S. § 10-11023
Topics	bylaw-amendmentquorum-requirementnonprofit-corporationdeclaratory-judgmentboard-governance
Outcome / holding	On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the member’s bylaw-amendment quorum and notice claim against the association stated a claim and survived dismissal, while the claims against the association president individually were dismissed for failure to allege any wrongful conduct by him personally; the action ultimately terminated on the plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal without prejudice, so no merits ruling was entered.

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package	17 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	4 roadmap entries
Video overview	Gayer v. Willo Neighborhood Association: Challenging an HOA Bylaw Vote
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	3 questions
Curated download aliases	3 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

This Maricopa County Superior Court matter is a useful, if non-precedential, illustration of how an Arizona nonprofit community-association member can challenge a bylaw-amendment vote for lack of quorum and improper meeting procedure. In June 2008 the Willo Neighborhood Association held an election that amended its bylaws — redrawing the eastern service-area boundary and shifting from automatic membership to an opt-in model with a lower voting quorum. Gayer, a member, alleged the meeting was improperly noticed as a ‘board meeting’ rather than the required membership meeting and that only about 143 votes were cast against a statutory minimum near 270 (ten percent of roughly 2,700 voting-age residents). He sought a declaratory judgment invalidating the election and an injunction restoring the prior bylaws. The association and its president moved to dismiss. The court dismissed the claims against the president individually but allowed the quorum/notice claim against the association to proceed past the pleading stage. Because Gayer had already filed a voluntary dismissal without prejudice, the case ended without a merits judgment.

Key Issues & Findings

Applying the motion-to-dismiss standard and accepting the well-pleaded allegations as true, the court concluded that Gayer’s allegations under A.R.S. §§ 10-3722 and 10-11023(A) — that the amendment vote lacked the required quorum and was conducted at an improperly noticed meeting — were legally sufficient to state a claim against the corporation, even while observing that the claim might not survive summary judgment on a fuller record. As to the president, the court held the complaint alleged nothing he personally did wrong and sought relief that ran against the corporation rather than against him, so the individual claims were dismissed. Because a Rule 41(a)(1) voluntary dismissal without prejudice is effective on filing, the case ended without a decision on the merits, leaving the member free to refile.

Why It Matters

For homeowners and members of Arizona nonprofit community associations, the ruling illustrates that a member has standing to challenge a bylaw-amendment election for failure to meet statutory quorum and meeting-notice requirements, and that such a challenge can survive a motion to dismiss. For boards, it is a reminder that volunteer officers generally cannot be held individually liable for governance disputes absent specific personal wrongdoing — the proper defendant is the association. Because the case ended in a voluntary dismissal, it sets no binding precedent, but it remains a practical example of quorum-based bylaw-amendment challenges and officer-immunity pleading in the HOA context.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Zwicky v. Premiere Vacation Collection: Arizona Timeshare Owners’ Right to Inspect Records

Posted on June 19, 2026 by [email protected]

Arizona Timeshare & HOA Records | A.R.S. § 33-2209 | 1 CA-CV 16-0659

Zwicky is the leading published Arizona decision on a timeshare member’s statutory right to inspect association financial books and records. The Court of Appeals affirmed an order compelling production, adopted a member-friendly ‘proper purpose’ standard, and held the business judgment rule cannot defeat the statutory right — while protecting genuinely confidential financial data and barring litigation-recruitment notices.

Last updated June 19, 2026. Case: Norman Zwicky v. Premiere Vacation Collection Owners Association, Arizona Court of Appeals No. 1 CA-CV 16-0659, 244 Ariz. 309, 418 P.3d 1108 (App. 2018); Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2015-051911.

Download appellate opinion Download final judgment Source-file index FAQ

Scope note: This page covers the published Court of Appeals opinion (1 CA-CV 16-0659) and the uploaded trial and appellate record. The complete source-document index below is generated from the local raw source folder. This page is an educational summary, not legal advice.

The rule

A timeshare owner who follows the statutory request procedure and has a ‘proper purpose’ — a desire to obtain information that reasonably relates to protecting the owner’s interest as a member — may compel inspection of the association’s financial and other records under A.R.S. § 33-2209, and the board’s discretion and the business judgment rule are no defense. But an association cannot be ordered under A.R.S. § 33-2210 to circulate member notices whose real purpose is recruiting plaintiffs rather than legitimate association business, and genuinely confidential or proprietary financial data may be protected by a properly supported protective order.

What happened

Norman Zwicky paid about $26,000 for his timeshare interest in 2004 and watched his annual assessments climb to roughly $2,162 by 2015. Suspecting that the developer-affiliated manager (tied to Diamond Resorts) was shifting hotel-operation and unsold-inventory costs onto members, he made a written statutory request to inspect the association’s financial books and records so he could investigate whether assessments were calculated in good faith.

The association refused. The trial court (Judge John R. Hannah, Jr.) granted Zwicky summary judgment compelling production of twelve categories of financial records. The association appealed. On January 23, 2018, the Court of Appeals affirmed the core inspection right, vacated a member-notice order and a protective-order modification, and remanded; the parties then entered a stipulated final order on remand keeping certain documents confidential.

Video overview: a timeshare owner’s right to inspect records

Watch this overview of Zwicky v. Premiere Vacation Collection Owners Association, where an Arizona court enforced a timeshare member’s statutory right to inspect association financial and management records, with the appellate court largely affirming that right.

Procedural timeline

Step 2015-05-13 Zwicky files verified complaint to compel records inspection (CV2015-051911)

Step 2016-03-11 Superior court grants Zwicky summary judgment; denies association’s cross-motion

Step 2016-09-16 Final judgment ordering production; attorneys’ fees denied (not an action ‘arising out of contract’)

Type: Court order/minute entry

Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.

Download source file

2018-08-21_076_stipulated-order.pdf

Source 77 2018-11-30

Notice Of Change Of Firm Address

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file

2018-11-30_077_notice-of-change-of-firm-address.pdf

Why it matters

Statutory records-inspection rights are court-enforceable.
No board permission needed.
‘Proper purpose’ is read in the member’s favor.

Board discretion and the business judgment rule do not defeat the statutory right.
Confidential or proprietary financials can still be protected by a proper protective order.

An association cannot be forced to mail member notices that really serve class-action recruitment.
Inspection still runs through the statutory request procedure.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Norman Zwicky (Plaintiff/Appellee)
Timeshare member who sought to inspect association records.
Jon L. Phelps (Counsel)
Law Offices Phelps & Moore PLLC
Counsel for Zwicky in the verified complaint.
Edward L. Barry (Co-Counsel)
Law Office of Edward L. Barry
Appeared as co-counsel for Zwicky.

Respondent Side

Premiere Vacation Collection Owners Association (Defendant/Appellant)
Association party defending the records-inspection case.
John E. DeWulf (Counsel)
Coppersmith Brockelman PLC
Counsel for Premiere Vacation Collection Owners Association.
Katherine DeStefano (Counsel)
Coppersmith Brockelman PLC
Counsel for PVCOA; later filings use Katherine Hyde.
Brandon T. Crossland (Counsel)
Baker Hostetler LLP
Associated pro hac vice as counsel for PVCOA.
Kathy Wheeler (Director/Declarant)
Premiere Vacation Collection Owners Association
PVCOA director who submitted a declaration about confidential records.

Neutral Parties

John R. Hannah Jr. (Judge)
Superior Court judge assigned to the case.
Patricia A. Orozco (Judge)
Authored the Court of Appeals opinion.
Kenton D. Jones (Presiding Judge)
Joined the Court of Appeals opinion.
Jon W. Thompson (Judge)
Joined the Court of Appeals opinion.

FAQ

Case Dossier

Case Summary

Case ID / citation	244 Ariz. 309, 418 P.3d 1108 (App. 2018), 1 CA-CV 16-0659
Court / tribunal	Court of Appeals
Decision / key date	January 23, 2018
Judge / panel	Judge Patricia A. Orozco, Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones, Judge Jon W. Thompson
Parties	A timeshare member sued his owners’ association to enforce his statutory right to inspect the association’s financial books and records after his annual assessments roughly tripled.
Governing law	A.R.S. § 33-2209 A.R.S. § 33-2210 A.R.S. § 12-341.01
Topics	records-inspectiontimeshareassessmentsboard-governanceattorneys-fees
Outcome / holding	A timeshare owner who follows the statutory request procedure and has a ‘proper purpose’ — a desire to obtain information that reasonably relates to protecting his interest as a member — may compel inspection of the association’s financial records under A.R.S. § 33-2209, and the business judgment rule is no defense; but an association cannot be ordered under A.R.S. § 33-2210 to circulate member notices whose real purpose is recruiting plaintiffs rather than legitimate association business.

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package	77 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	5 roadmap entries
Video overview	Zwicky v. Premiere Vacation Collection: Timeshare Owners’ Right to Inspect Records
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	3 questions
Curated download aliases	4 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

This is the leading published Arizona opinion on a timeshare owner’s right to inspect association records under A.R.S. § 33-2209. Norman Zwicky paid about $26,000 for his interest in 2004 and watched his annual assessments climb to roughly $2,162 by 2015. Suspecting that the developer-affiliated manager (tied to Diamond Resorts) was shifting hotel-operation and unsold-inventory costs onto members, he made a statutory written request to inspect the association’s financial books and records so he could investigate whether assessments were calculated in good faith. The association refused, and Zwicky sued. The trial court granted him summary judgment compelling production, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the core inspection right. The court borrowed the ‘proper purpose’ standard from shareholder-inspection law and defined it broadly in the owner’s favor, while separately protecting the association’s genuinely confidential financial data through a protective order and striking a trial-court order that would have forced the association to mail a member notice serving the owner’s class-action recruitment.

Key Issues & Findings

The court treated the statutory inspection right as analogous to a shareholder’s right to inspect corporate books, adopting the rule that ‘proper purpose’ means a desire to derive information that will enable the owner to protect his interest and that reasonably relates to his membership. Investigating a tripling of assessments easily satisfied that test, and the records sought — ADRE filings, management agreements, profit-and-loss statements, budgets, and occupancy and revenue data — fell within ‘financial and other records’ directly related to the timeshare plan. The court rejected the association’s argument that the board’s discretion under § 33-2209(C) and the business judgment rule could defeat the statutory right; an owner may judicially challenge the board’s records determination.

The court then balanced that access against confidentiality. It vacated the trial court’s modification of the protective order because the court had loosened confidentiality protections without reviewing the documents or letting the association show why proprietary financial data should stay protected, and it remanded for that evaluation. It also vacated the order forcing the association to mail a § 33-2210 notice, holding that the notice did not advance ‘legitimate association business’ because its real purpose was to help the owner and his lawyer assemble a group of plaintiffs for a proposed class action.

Why It Matters

For Arizona homeowners and timeshare owners, Zwicky is a strong, citable precedent that statutory records-inspection rights are enforceable in court, that an owner does not need the board’s blessing, and that ‘proper purpose’ is read in the member’s favor. For associations and managers, it confirms two things at once: members cannot be stonewalled on financial records by invoking board discretion or the business judgment rule, but associations retain the ability to protect truly confidential or proprietary financial information through a properly supported protective order, and they cannot be conscripted into circulating litigation-recruitment notices. The decision is frequently cited in Arizona disputes over member access to association financial records.

← Back to Court of Appeals cases

Village of Oakcreek v. Bonham: Kalway and Arizona HOA Short-Term Rental Amendments

Posted on June 2, 2026 by

Arizona HOA Rental Restrictions | Kalway | 1 CA-CV 22-0780

Bonham is a practical short-term-rental amendment case. The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of an HOA enforcement suit because the original declaration did not give fair notice that the HOA could later ban short-term rentals by majority amendment.

Last updated June 3, 2026. Case: Village of Oakcreek Association v. Lance E. Bonham, Arizona Court of Appeals No. 1 CA-CV 22-0780; Yavapai County Superior Court No. V1300CV202280081.

Download appellate decision Download trial ruling Watch video overview Source-file index FAQ

Scope note: This page covers the nonprecedential Court of Appeals decision and the uploaded appellate/trial record. The complete uploaded source-document index below is generated from the local raw source folder, including court PDFs, court DOC/DOCX notices, and AI/source CSVs where present. AI-generated CSV summaries were reviewed only as orientation and are not treated as court authority.

The rule in one sentence

A general business-use restriction in original CC&Rs does not necessarily give homeowners fair notice that the HOA may later ban short-term rentals by majority amendment.

Case snapshot

Court result

Dismissal for homeowner Bonham was affirmed.

Core doctrine

Kalway reasonable-and-foreseeable notice for CC&R amendments.

Rental issue

2016 and 2017 amendments banned short-term rentals.

Fee result

Bonham received appellate fees and costs subject to ARCAP 21.

Case Dossier

Case Summary

Case ID / citation	1 CA-CV 22-0780
Court / tribunal	Court of Appeals
Decision / key date	October 3, 2023
Judge / panel	David D. Weinzweig, Michael S. Catlett, Maria Elena Cruz
Parties	A planned-community association sued a homeowner to stop short-term rentals after majority-approved CC&R amendments banned short-term rentals.
Governing law	A.R.S. § 12-120.21 A.R.S. § 12-2101 A.R.S. § 12-341 A.R.S. § 12-341.01
Topics	rental-restrictionscc-and-rsprocedureattorneys-fees
Outcome / holding	The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal for Bonham and held the challenged short-term-rental amendments were not enforceable against him because they were not reasonably foreseeable from the original declaration.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package	70 PDFs, 1 other source file
Step-by-step docket roadmap	5 roadmap entries
Video overview	Village of Oakcreek v. Bonham: HOA Short-Term Rental Restrictions After Kalway
Study / briefing material	2 sections
FAQ / homeowner questions	3 questions
Curated download aliases	4 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Village of Oakcreek Association sued Lance Bonham to enforce 2016 and 2017 CC&R amendments that banned short-term rentals. Bonham moved to dismiss under Kalway, arguing the original declaration did not provide fair notice that a majority could later impose that kind of rental restriction. The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal. It rejected the association’s argument that a generic no-business covenant made short-term-rental restrictions foreseeable, because the original declaration did not address residential rentals or lease duration.

Key Issues & Findings

The court applied Kalway and asked whether the original declaration gave objective notice of a future rental restriction. The declaration broadly barred business operations on lots, but it did not mention residential rentals. A business-use restriction was not enough to warn owners that a later majority amendment could ban short-term rentals. The court also treated Bonham as an owner with title before the relevant amendments based on the declaration’s broad definition of ownership and his trustee status.

Why It Matters

Bonham is a practical short-term-rental amendment case for Arizona HOAs and homeowners. It shows that an association cannot rely on generic business-use language as a substitute for a real leasing covenant when trying to enforce a later rental ban. It also pairs well with Gross: both cases apply Kalway to rental amendments and both warn boards to tie new rental restrictions to language already present in the original CC&Rs.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Village of Oakcreek Association (Plaintiff/Appellant)
Association party seeking to enforce short-term-rental restrictions.
Alexis G. Firehawk (Counsel)
Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen, LLP
Counsel for Village of Oakcreek Association.
Tessa Knueppel (Counsel)
Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen, LLP
Counsel for Village of Oakcreek Association.

Respondent Side

Lance E. Bonham (Defendant/Appellee)
Homeowner defendant in the short-term-rental dispute.
Mark J. Bainbridge (Counsel)
The Bainbridge Law Firm, LLC
Counsel for Bonham.

Neutral Parties

Linda Wallace (Judge Pro Tempore)
Superior Court judge listed in the memorandum decision.
David D. Weinzweig (Presiding Judge)
Authored the Court of Appeals memorandum decision.
Michael S. Catlett (Judge)
Joined the Court of Appeals memorandum decision.
Maria Elena Cruz (Judge)
Joined the Court of Appeals memorandum decision.

Why this case matters

Bonham is useful because it applies Kalway to the most common HOA amendment fight: short-term rentals. The association argued the original declaration barred business activity, so a later rental ban was foreseeable. The Court of Appeals disagreed because the business-use covenant did not say anything about residential rentals.

The decision gives homeowners a concrete argument when an HOA tries to convert a general residential-use or business-use clause into a later rental prohibition. It also gives boards a drafting warning: if rental restrictions are intended, the original declaration needs a clearer tether than a broad no-business provision.

Video overview: HOA short-term rental amendments after Kalway

Watch this overview for Village of Oakcreek v. Bonham, where the Court of Appeals held that a general business-use restriction did not give fair notice that the HOA could later ban short-term rentals by amendment.

Homeowner study guide: short-term rental enforcement questions

Homeowner question	Study-guide answer	Bonham-specific caution
What did the amended Village of Oakcreek leasing restriction define as a lease?	The study materials describe a broad definition covering any agreement, contract, grant, or arrangement giving a non-owner access to or use of a lot or unit.	That rule was part of the association’s enforcement theory; the appellate issue was whether the later restriction was valid and foreseeable.
Did the amended rule require at least a 30-day lease term?	Yes, the association relied on Section 4.23 language requiring lease terms of at least 30 days.	Bonham affirmed dismissal because the original declaration did not give fair notice that this later short-term-rental ban could be imposed by amendment.
What owner obligations did the association allege for allowed leases?	The study guide identifies whole-lot leasing, single-family use, no subleasing, owner responsibility for occupants, and a tenant registration form within five days.	Those are enforcement allegations and governing-document requirements to verify against the current declaration before relying on them.
What progressive enforcement steps did the association use?	The record describes a courtesy notice, notices of non-compliance, monetary penalties, and then litigation for injunction and money judgment relief.	The association alleged ongoing Airbnb activity, but the legal result turned on amendment validity, not just whether short stays occurred.
What penalty balance did the complaint allege?	The study materials identify an alleged $16,500.00 monetary penalty balance as of February 28, 2022.	An alleged account balance is not the same as a final judgment; always check the ruling and judgment.
Is a hearing required before fines?	A.R.S. 33-1803(B) requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before monetary penalties are imposed.	Procedural fine compliance is a separate issue from whether the underlying amended rental restriction is enforceable.
Can unpaid fines become a lien?	The study guide flags a distinction between fines themselves and enforcement costs such as attorney fees under the declaration.	Do not assume every fine is lienable; check A.R.S. 33-1803, the declaration language, and the specific account charge.
What is the homeowner takeaway?	A later rental restriction needs both procedural adoption and substantive foreseeability under Kalway.	Bonham is strongest as a fair-notice case, not as a general permission slip to ignore every rental rule.

Briefing notes from the review packet

Subject property

The enforcement action concerned Lot 75, Cathedral View, identified in the briefing as 40 Rio Verde Circle in Sedona.

Amended restriction

The association relied on a leasing restriction adopted in 2016 and re-recorded in 2017 that barred leases shorter than 30 days.

Owner status

Bonham acquired title by quitclaim deed recorded in January 2017, which placed him inside the association’s enforcement theory.

Association allegations

The association alleged ongoing Airbnb rentals, including advertised and reviewed stays shorter than 30 days.

Fines alleged

The complaint sought to collect a penalty balance the association alleged had reached $16,500.00 by February 28, 2022.

Why allegations did not decide it

Even assuming the alleged rentals, the dispositive issue was whether the later rental ban was valid and foreseeable under Kalway.

Enforcement history summarized from the briefing

Date or period	Association action or allegation	Relevance
June 22, 2021	Courtesy notice reportedly warned Bonham about alleged short-term-rental violations.	Shows the beginning of the association’s progressive enforcement record.
October-November 2021	The association alleged Airbnb reviews and short stays, then issued notices of non-compliance and fines.	Documents the alleged factual basis for enforcement, separate from the legal validity of the amendment.
December 2021-February 2022	Additional notices and alleged rentals increased the claimed penalty balance.	Frames the monetary judgment request in the complaint.
April 2022	The association sued for injunction, personal judgment, and implied-covenant relief.	Moves the dispute into the court system where Kalway controlled the amendment-validity question.
October 3, 2023	The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal for Bonham.	The appellate court focused on the original declaration’s lack of fair notice for a short-term-rental ban.

Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.

Download source file

2023-11-28_000_order-awarding-attorneys-fees-and.pdf

Source 71 2024-04-24

Civil Mandate

Type: Decision or judgment

Decision document; read it to understand the controlling result before moving to later filings.

Download source file

2024-04-24_000_civil-mandate.pdf

For homeowners using this case

Compare the original declaration to the new rental restriction line by line.
Do not stop at the amendment-vote percentage; Kalway asks whether the new burden was fairly foreseeable.
Look for older language that actually mentions leasing, occupancy, rental duration, transient use, or business use.
Use Bonham with Gross to separate invalid rental bans from narrower occupancy refinements.

For boards and managers

A majority vote alone may not save an amendment that creates a new rental burden.
Generic no-business language is a weak foundation for a short-term-rental ban.
Before enforcement, audit the original CC&Rs and any earlier leasing provisions against Kalway, Gross, and Bonham.
Fee exposure can follow if the association litigates an amendment that lacks a clear covenant tether.

FAQ

Did the HOA win in Bonham?

No. The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of the association’s suit against Bonham.

Is Bonham published precedent?

No. It is a memorandum decision, but it is still useful as a practical Kalway example and was cited in the later published Gross opinion.

What was missing from the original declaration?

The court found the original declaration generally barred business operations but did not provide fair notice of a future short-term-rental restriction.

← Back to Court of Appeals cases

Dreamland Villa v. Raimey: Mandatory Assessments and New HOA Obligations

Posted on June 2, 2026 by

Arizona HOA Assessments | Deed Restrictions | 1 CA-CV 08-0388

Dreamland explains why a generic amendment clause cannot always turn a voluntary community club into a mandatory assessment regime. The Court of Appeals reversed and held the Second Amended Declarations unenforceable against the homeowners.

Last updated June 3, 2026. Case: Dreamland Villa Community Club, Inc. v. Daryle G. Raimey, et al., Arizona Court of Appeals No. 1 CA-CV 08-0388.

Download appellate opinion Download mandate package Watch video overview Source-file index FAQ

Scope note: This page covers the appellate opinion and uploaded appellate docket notices. The complete uploaded source-document index below is generated from the local raw source folder, including court PDFs, court DOC/DOCX notices, and AI/source CSVs where present. AI-generated CSV summaries were reviewed only as orientation and are not treated as court authority.

The rule in one sentence

A generic deed-restriction amendment power did not authorize a majority to impose new mandatory club membership, assessments, and liens on owners in a community with no common areas and historically voluntary club participation.

Case snapshot

Court result

Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Community structure

Age-restricted residential community with no common areas.

Disputed amendment

Second Amended Declarations created mandatory association obligations and assessments.

Fee result

Homeowners were awarded reasonable appellate fees subject to ARCAP 21.

Case Dossier

Case Summary

Case ID / citation	1 CA-CV 08-0388
Court / tribunal	Court of Appeals
Decision / key date	March 16, 2010
Judge / panel	Jon W. Thompson
Parties	A voluntary community club tried to enforce amended deed restrictions requiring mandatory membership, assessments, and lien rights against homeowners in an older age-restricted community.
Governing law	A.R.S. § 10-3601 A.R.S. § 33-1803 A.R.S. § 12-341.01
Topics	assessmentscc-and-rsboard-governanceattorneys-fees
Outcome / holding	The Court of Appeals held the Second Amended Declarations were invalid and unenforceable against the homeowners, reversed the judgment, and remanded. It awarded the homeowners reasonable appellate attorney fees subject to ARCAP 21.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package	1 PDF, 19 other source files
Step-by-step docket roadmap	3 roadmap entries
Video overview	Dreamland Villa v. Raimey: Can an HOA Create Mandatory Assessments Later?
Study / briefing material	2 sections
FAQ / homeowner questions	3 questions
Curated download aliases	3 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Dreamland Villa Community Club involved an older residential community with no common areas and historically voluntary club participation. The club relied on Second Amended Declarations that attempted to require association membership, assessments, and lien rights. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment for the club and held the new declarations could not be enforced against the homeowners. A generic amendment clause did not give owners adequate notice that a majority could later impose new mandatory club and assessment obligations.

Key Issues & Findings

The court emphasized that Dreamland Villa had no common areas, that homeowners had no appurtenant right to use the club facilities by virtue of lot ownership, and that participation had long been voluntary. Because the original restrictions did not alert owners that mandatory assessments, liens, or club membership could later be imposed, a majority could not use a generic amendment power to create those new affirmative burdens.

Why It Matters

Dreamland is an important Arizona foundation for later Kalway-style amendment limits. It is especially useful for older subdivisions, recreation clubs, and hybrid HOA-like entities that try to convert voluntary participation into mandatory assessments. For homeowners, it supports the argument that a new economic burden must be tethered to the original covenant scheme, not simply approved by majority vote.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Dreamland Villa Community Club, Inc. (Plaintiff/Appellant)
Community-club party seeking mandatory assessments from homeowners.
Charles E. Maxwell (Counsel)
Maxwell & Morgan, PC
Counsel for Dreamland Villa Community Club on appeal.
Brian W. Morgan (Counsel)
Maxwell & Morgan, PC
Counsel for Dreamland Villa Community Club on appeal.

Respondent Side

Steven W. Cheifetz (Counsel)
Cheifetz Iannitelli Marcolini, PC
Counsel for the homeowner appellees/cross-appellants.
Stewart F. Gross (Counsel)
Cheifetz Iannitelli Marcolini, PC
Counsel for the homeowner appellees/cross-appellants.
Matthew A. Klopp (Counsel)
Cheifetz Iannitelli Marcolini, PC
Counsel for the homeowner appellees/cross-appellants.
Daryle G. Raimey (Defendant/Appellee)
Homeowner defendant/counterclaimant named in the appellate caption.
Carolyn E. Raimey (Defendant/Appellee)
Homeowner defendant/counterclaimant named in the appellate caption.

Neutral Parties

Christopher Whitten (Judge)
Superior Court judge listed in the opinion.
Jon W. Thompson (Presiding Judge)
Authored the Court of Appeals opinion.

Why this case matters

Dreamland is a pre-Kalway building block for Arizona amendment-limit doctrine. It rejected the idea that a broad amendment clause could create an entirely new economic regime where owners had not been fairly warned that mandatory assessments and liens could be imposed later.

The opinion is especially useful for older Arizona communities, recreation clubs, and hybrid entities that try to move from voluntary participation to mandatory membership or mandatory assessments without a clear original covenant basis.

Video overview: mandatory assessments and new HOA obligations

Watch this overview for the central holding in Dreamland Villa v. Raimey: a majority amendment power did not give fair notice that a voluntary recreation club could later impose mandatory membership, assessments, and liens on objecting homeowners.

Homeowner study guide: amendment and assessment questions

Homeowner question	Short answer	Case lesson
Can a majority vote require everyone to join a private recreation club and pay annual fees?	Not through a generic amendment clause when that mandatory club structure was not part of the original recorded bargain.	Dreamland treats mandatory club membership, assessments, and lien exposure as a substantial new burden that requires fair notice in the original covenants.
Why did the lack of common areas matter?	The court emphasized that Dreamland Villa had no common areas owned for all lot owners’ use.	Without shared common property appurtenant to the lots, the club could not justify the new fees as ordinary common-area maintenance assessments.
Does broad language allowing restrictions to be changed mean owners accepted any future obligation?	No. Amendment power has limits even when owners bought subject to a change clause.	The key question is whether the later burden was reasonable and foreseeable from the recorded restrictions.
What happened to Section 18, where some fees already appeared in the original documents?	The court still did not treat Section 18 as proof of mandatory club membership.	The Section 18 language recognized non-member status and did not create a running covenant that guaranteed club rights in exchange for mandatory dues.
What happened to the Second Amended Declarations?	They were held invalid and unenforceable against the objecting homeowners.	The Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment that had favored DVCC.
Who received appellate fee relief?	The homeowners prevailed on the appeal and cross-appeal fee issue.	The mandate reflected appellate costs and attorney fees awarded to the homeowners.

Briefing notes from the review packet

Community structure

Dreamland Villa was developed in 18 sections between 1958 and 1972, with separate recorded restrictions for the sections and an age-restricted residential profile.

Club history

DVCC was incorporated in 1961 as a nonprofit recreational club with clubhouses, pools, shuffleboard courts, and a ballroom. Participation had historically been voluntary.

No common-area hook

The appellate opinion treated the absence of common areas as central. The club facilities were not common property appurtenant to every lot.

Amendment target

The 2003-2004 Second Amended Declarations attempted to require membership, annual and special assessments, and liens to fund club operations.

Section 18 argument

The court rejected DVCC’s separate Section 18 theory because the original language did not create a running covenant for mandatory club membership.

Final financial result

The mandate reflected appellate costs of $805.30 and attorney fees of $33,477.50 awarded to the homeowners.

Procedural highlights from the briefing

Date	Event	What changed
September 2007	Superior Court summary judgment	The trial court accepted DVCC’s amendment theory and entered judgment in favor of the club.
May 12, 2009	Appeal taken under advisement	The Court of Appeals took the case under advisement after the appellate proceedings.
March 16, 2010	Opinion filed	The Court of Appeals reversed and held the Second Amended Declarations unenforceable against the objecting homeowners.
June 30, 2010	Mandate issued	The appellate mandate finalized the reversal, remand, costs, and fee award.

Upload/source spreadsheet that helps cross-check filing order, source names, or AI review notes.

Download source file

undated_900_dreamland-villa-community-club-legal-documents-summary-table-1.csv

For homeowners

Ask whether the original deed restrictions warned owners about mandatory assessments or association membership.
Look for common areas or shared property obligations; Dreamland emphasized their absence.
Use Dreamland with Kalway when an amendment creates new affirmative obligations rather than refining existing restrictions.

For boards and clubs

Do not assume a majority amendment clause can create mandatory assessments in an older voluntary community.
Before imposing liens or assessments, identify the original covenant that authorizes that burden.
Expect fee exposure if the amendment materially changes the owners’ original bargain.

FAQ

Did Dreamland have common areas?

No. The opinion emphasized that Dreamland Villa had no common areas and that club membership had historically been voluntary.

What did the court do with the Second Amended Declarations?

The Court of Appeals held they could not be enforced against the homeowners and reversed/remanded.

How does Dreamland relate to Kalway?

Kalway later cited Dreamland as part of Arizona’s rule that amendments must be reasonable and foreseeable from the original declaration.

← Back to Court of Appeals cases

Bocchino v. Fountain Shadows HOA: Unawarded Attorney Fees and Assessments

Posted on June 2, 2026 by

Arizona HOA Attorney Fees | Assessments | 1 CA-CV 16-0710

Bocchino limits an HOA’s ability to put litigation attorney fees directly on a homeowner’s account. The Court of Appeals held the association could not assess fees from a justice-court harassment injunction when no court had awarded those fees.

Last updated June 3, 2026. Case: Patricia Bocchino v. Fountain Shadows Homeowners Association, Arizona Court of Appeals No. 1 CA-CV 16-0710; Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2015-012434.

Download appellate opinion Download trial ruling Watch video overview Source-file index FAQ

Scope note: This page covers the Court of Appeals opinion and the uploaded superior/appellate record. The complete uploaded source-document index below is generated from the local raw source folder, including court PDFs, court DOC/DOCX notices, and AI/source CSVs where present. AI-generated CSV summaries were reviewed only as orientation and are not treated as court authority.

The rule in one sentence

An HOA cannot simply assess a homeowner for attorney fees incurred in a judicial proceeding when the tribunal did not award those fees and the governing documents do not expressly authorize that unilateral charge.

Case snapshot

Court result

Summary judgment for Bocchino was affirmed.

Fee source

Fees came from a justice-court workplace-harassment injunction proceeding.

Key statute

A.R.S. 12-1810 requires court handling of harassment-injunction fee awards.

Practical use

Account charges for litigation fees need a real award or clear authority.

Case Dossier

Case Summary

Case ID / citation	1 CA-CV 16-0710
Court / tribunal	Court of Appeals
Decision / key date	April 3, 2018
Judge / panel	John C. Gemmill, Michael J. Brown, Maria Elena Cruz
Parties	A former homeowner challenged an HOA account charge for attorney fees the association incurred in a justice-court harassment-injunction proceeding but never obtained as a court award.
Governing law	A.R.S. § 12-1810 A.R.S. § 12-341.01 A.R.S. § 12-120.21 A.R.S. § 12-2101
Topics	attorneys-feesassessmentscc-and-rsprocedure
Outcome / holding	The Court of Appeals affirmed judgment for Bocchino and held the HOA improperly assessed attorney fees against her when no court had awarded those fees in the underlying injunction proceeding.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package	86 PDFs, 4 other source files
Step-by-step docket roadmap	6 roadmap entries
Video overview	Bocchino v. Fountain Shadows HOA: Wrongful HOA Escrow Charges
Study / briefing material	2 sections
FAQ / homeowner questions	3 questions
Curated download aliases	4 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Fountain Shadows obtained a workplace-harassment injunction against Patricia Bocchino in justice court but did not ask that court to award attorney fees. The association later charged those unawarded fees to Bocchino’s HOA account. Bocchino sued, and the Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment requiring repayment. The court held the association waived any fee claim in the injunction proceeding by not requesting fees there and that the declaration did not expressly allow the HOA to assess unawarded litigation fees directly against a homeowner.

Key Issues & Findings

A.R.S. § 12-1810 governs workplace-harassment injunctions and allows the court, after notice and hearing, to award costs and fees. Because the association did not request a fee award from the justice court, it could not later bypass that court by charging the fees directly to the owner. The declaration did not expressly authorize direct assessment of attorney fees incurred in judicial proceedings but not awarded by a tribunal.

Why It Matters

Bocchino is a practical limit on HOA fee accounting. It warns associations not to self-award litigation fees by placing them on an owner account after a separate court proceeding. For homeowners, it is a useful authority when an HOA account ledger includes attorney fees that were never awarded by the court or tribunal handling the underlying dispute.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Patricia Bocchino (Plaintiff/Appellee)
Former homeowner who challenged the fee assessment.

Respondent Side

Fountain Shadows Homeowners Association (Defendant/Appellant)
Association party challenging the fee ruling.
Chad P. Miesen (Counsel)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
Counsel for Fountain Shadows Homeowners Association.
Charlene Cruz (Counsel)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
Counsel for Fountain Shadows Homeowners Association.

Neutral Parties

Douglas Gerlach (Judge)
Superior Court judge listed in the appellate opinion.
John C. Gemmill (Judge)
Authored the Court of Appeals opinion.
Michael J. Brown (Presiding Judge)
Joined the Court of Appeals opinion.
Maria Elena Cruz (Judge)
Joined the Court of Appeals opinion.

Why this case matters

Bocchino is a practical fee-assessment case. The association obtained an injunction against Bocchino but did not ask the justice court to award fees. It later placed those attorney fees on her HOA account, and the Court of Appeals affirmed that the charge was improper.

The opinion matters because many governing documents contain broad enforcement-fee language. Bocchino shows that broad language does not automatically let an HOA bypass the court that handled the litigation and unilaterally convert unawarded fees into an owner-account debt.

Video overview: unawarded HOA attorney fees and owner accounts

Watch this overview for Bocchino v. Fountain Shadows HOA, where the court rejected an association’s attempt to place litigation fees on a homeowner’s account when the tribunal handling the injunction had not awarded those fees.

Homeowner study guide: escrow charges and fee recovery

Homeowner question	Study-guide answer	Why it matters
Can an HOA demand payment from escrow during a home sale?	An HOA may make a demand, but Bocchino shows the homeowner can sue to recover funds if the demand was not legally authorized.	The trial court awarded Bocchino the $3,887.28 collected from escrow.
Why did the escrow demand create practical pressure?	The homeowner argued she faced a Hobson’s choice: pay the disputed amount to close the sale or challenge the demand and risk the transaction.	Escrow timing can turn a disputed account charge into immediate leverage over a sale.
Can a homeowner recover attorney fees after successfully suing an HOA?	Potentially yes. A.R.S. 12-341.01 allows fee awards to a successful party in a contested action arising out of contract.	HOA disputes based on CC&Rs and assessment account rights often become contract-fee fights.
Can requested attorney fees exceed the disputed principal?	Yes. Bocchino’s fee application sought $22,937.50 after recovering $3,887.28.	Small account disputes can become expensive when an HOA refuses reimbursement and litigation proceeds through summary judgment and appeal.
What do courts consider when deciding whether to award fees?	Arizona courts may consider the Warner factors, including merits, avoidability, hardship, success, novelty, and deterrence.	The question is not just who won, but whether a fee award is appropriate under the circumstances.
How does the court evaluate whether a fee bill is reasonable?	Fee applications are tested under China Doll principles, including the work performed, rates, lawyer experience, difficulty, and result achieved.	A homeowner seeking fees should preserve detailed billing records and connect the work to the litigation result.
Does an HOA have to pay immediately if it appeals?	Not necessarily. The association may post a supersedeas bond to stay execution while the appeal is pending.	Fountain Shadows filed a bond for $4,149.67 during the appeal.

Briefing notes from the review packet

Escrow pressure point

The dispute arose during Bocchino’s property sale, when the association demanded payment through escrow and the homeowner completed the sale before suing to recover the funds.

Principal recovery

The Superior Court awarded Bocchino $3,887.28, the amount the court found had been wrongfully collected.

Trial-court fee request

After prevailing, Bocchino requested $22,937.50 in attorney fees under A.R.S. 12-341.01, supported by a China Doll-style billing submission.

Fee-application theory

The fee papers argued the association forced avoidable litigation by refusing to reimburse the charge before suit.

Supersedeas bond

During the appeal, the association filed a supersedeas bond for $4,149.67 to stay execution of the judgment while review was pending.

Appellate costs

After the appellate decision, the Court of Appeals awarded Bocchino $173.50 in costs.

Attorney-fee briefing context

Issue	Briefing position	Why it matters
Merits	Bocchino argued the association lacked a legal basis to self-assess fees that no tribunal had awarded.	This is the same practical point the appellate opinion later confirmed.
Avoidability	The fee application argued litigation could have been avoided if the association returned the escrowed funds before suit.	Shows why settlement posture became part of the fee dispute.
Degree of success	Bocchino sought to recover the full amount collected and obtained judgment for the principal recovery.	Explains why the requested fee award was much larger than the principal amount.
Deterrence	The briefing framed fee recovery as necessary for homeowners to challenge improper account charges.	Useful context for readers comparing litigation economics to the amount at stake.

Upload/source spreadsheet that helps cross-check filing order, source names, or AI review notes.

Download source file

undated_900_bocchino-v-fountain-shadows-hoa-case-documents-summary-table-1.csv

For homeowners

Check whether the fees on your account were actually awarded by the court or tribunal that handled the proceeding.
Ask whether the invoice is for assessment collection, covenant enforcement, or a separate judicial proceeding.
Preserve closing statements, account ledgers, demand letters, and the order from the underlying proceeding.

For boards and managers

Ask the tribunal for fees when the statute or rules require a fee award there.
Do not assume a broad CC&R fee clause lets the association self-award litigation fees after the fact.
Separate ordinary assessment collection costs from fees incurred in separate court proceedings.

FAQ

Did the HOA have an injunction against Bocchino?

Yes, but the problem was that the justice court did not award the association attorney fees in that injunction proceeding.

Could the HOA rely on its declaration instead?

Not on this record. The Court of Appeals held the declaration did not expressly allow the association to assess unawarded litigation fees directly against Bocchino.

Does Bocchino ban all HOA fee recovery?

No. It addresses unilateral assessment of fees that were incurred in a judicial proceeding but not awarded by the court.

← Back to Court of Appeals cases

Lisa Marx v. Tara Condominiums: Open Meetings, Records, Insurance, and Direct-versus-Derivative Claims

Posted on May 30, 2026 by

Arizona Condo Governance | Open Meetings | Direct Claims

This page organizes the uploaded Superior Court record in Marx v. Tara, including the June 2025 preliminary-injunction and derivative-claim rulings, Tara’s May 2026 Rule 12(c) motion, and Marx’s June 2026 response packet.

Last updated June 3, 2026. Case: Lisa Marx v. Tara Condominiums Association, Inc., Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2025-012980; Hon. Randall H. Warner and Hon. Adele Ponce.

Download June 26 order Download complaint June 2026 briefing Document roadmap Source index FAQ

Posture note: This is a pending Superior Court record guide, not a final merits summary. The uploaded packet includes important interim rulings, but it does not include a final judgment resolving every claim.

The posture in one sentence

Marx v. Tara is a pending Arizona condominium governance case where the central practical question is whether alleged open-meeting, records, insurance, voting, and declaration violations are enforceable as a member’s direct rights or must be handled as derivative association claims.

Case snapshot

Core dispute

A Tara condominium owner alleges the association acted without proper board votes, notice, records access, statutory compliance, and member approval.

Interim rulings

The court denied a preliminary injunction, denied Tara’s first derivative-claim dismissal motion against the association, and dismissed individual board members.

Current fight

Tara’s May 27, 2026 Rule 12(c) motion renews the derivative-claim issue after newer appellate authority; Marx’s June 2 response argues those claims remain direct member-right claims.

Source packet

The public source set preserves 168 uploaded PDFs; the generated index deduplicates them to 164 public PDF entries plus a normalized filing roadmap.

Case Dossier

Case Summary

Case ID / citation	CV2025-012980
Court / tribunal	Superior Court
Decision / key date	April 14, 2025
Judge / panel	Hon. Randall H. Warner, Hon. Adele Ponce
Parties	Lisa Marx, a Tara condominium owner, sued Tara Condominiums Association over alleged open-meeting, records, insurance, common-element, voting, and declaration/bylaw violations.
Governing law	A.R.S. § 33-1248 A.R.S. § 33-1250 A.R.S. § 33-1258 A.R.S. § 33-1212 A.R.S. § 33-1247 A.R.S. § 33-1253 A.R.S. § 10-11601 A.R.S. § 12-1831
Topics	meetings-and-recordsboard-governancecc-and-rsrecords-requestsprocedureattorneys-fees
Outcome / holding	No final merits ruling appears in the uploaded public court-source file set. The June 2025 record denied preliminary injunctive relief, treated Marx’s association claims as member-right claims rather than derivative claims for that motion, and the July 2025 record dismissed individual board members. Tara’s May 27, 2026 motion for judgment on the pleadings was pending in the uploaded public court-source packet.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package	164 PDFs, 1 other source file
Step-by-step docket roadmap	No separate litigation roadmap table on this page
Video overview	No video embed currently configured
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	5 questions
Curated download aliases	12 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Lisa Marx filed Maricopa County Superior Court case CV2025-012980 against Tara Condominiums Association after disputes over board votes, open meetings, records inspection, landscaping/common-element decisions, insurance changes, amendments, expenditures, and alleged governance defects. The uploaded record shows a mixed pending posture: the court denied a preliminary injunction in June 2025, denied Tara’s first partial derivative-claims dismissal motion as to the association, dismissed individual board members Mark Gottmann and Dennis Anderson, and Tara’s May 2026 motion for judgment on the pleadings renewed the direct-versus-derivative issue after newer Arizona appellate authority.

Key Issues & Findings

The June 2025 preliminary-injunction ruling found that some alleged board-action defects could be addressed through later ratification or records handling and did not show irreparable harm warranting immediate injunctive relief. The June 26, 2025 derivative-claims ruling treated claims against the association as attempts to enforce Marx’s own membership rights under the declaration, bylaws, and statutes, with damages limited to her own proven harm. The July 31, 2025 dismissal ruling distinguished claims against the association from personal liability claims against individual directors.

Why It Matters

This pending condo case is useful because it places Arizona Condominium Act open-meeting, records, insurance, common-element, amendment, and direct-versus-derivative arguments in one source packet. It is especially relevant after Iqtunheimr and the Sunland Springs appellate decision because Tara’s May 2026 motion asks how those authorities apply when a homeowner frames governance defects as direct statutory and contractual injuries.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Lisa Marx (Plaintiff)
Self-represented condominium owner plaintiff.

Respondent Side

Tara Condominiums Association, Inc. (Defendant)
Association party named in Marx’s condominium-governance claims.
Mark Gottmann (Defendant)
Tara Condominiums Association
Individual defendant named in the amended complaint.
Dennis Anderson (Defendant)
Tara Condominiums Association
Individual defendant named in the amended complaint.
Charles H. Oldham (Counsel)
CHDB Law LLP
Counsel served by Marx in the case filings.
Ari Bowhay (Counsel)
CHDB Law LLP
Counsel served by Marx in the case filings.

Neutral Parties

Randall H. Warner (Judge)
Superior Court judge listed in the amended complaint and orders.
Adele Ponce (Judge)
Later Superior Court judge listed in the case metadata.

What the record shows

The Second Amended Complaint frames the case as breach of contract, Arizona Condominium Act, corporate-records, and declaratory-judgment claims against Tara Condominiums Association. Marx alleges that board actions were taken without proper notice, agenda, discussion, vote, or approval and that she was denied statutory inspection rights.

The early motion practice produced several important but limited rulings. The court denied preliminary injunctive relief in June 2025 because the record did not show irreparable harm requiring immediate intervention, even while noting that some board actions allegedly should have been voted on in an open meeting.

The court then denied Tara’s first partial motion to dismiss claims as derivative, treating the claims against the association as attempts to enforce Marx’s own membership rights under the declaration, bylaws, and law. A later ruling dismissed individual board members Mark Gottmann and Dennis Anderson from the case.

What the court has already done

Preliminary injunction denied

The June 2025 preliminary-injunction ruling did not give emergency relief on insurance, meeting, or records issues because the court did not find irreparable harm on that record.

Association derivative motion denied

The June 26, 2025 minute entry denied Tara’s first partial motion to dismiss, explaining that member-right claims against the association were not derivative as framed.

Individual directors dismissed

The July 31, 2025 ruling dismissed Mark Gottmann and Dennis Anderson, distinguishing association obligations from personal liability claims against board members.

Later derivative fight remains pending

Tara’s May 2026 Rule 12(c) motion asks the court to revisit parts of the direct-versus-derivative dispute after Iqtunheimr; Marx’s June 2026 opposition asks the court to deny the motion or narrow relief rather than dismiss claims with prejudice.

The May 2026 direct-versus-derivative motion

Tara’s May 27, 2026 motion for judgment on the pleadings argues that community-wide claims over common property, association funds, insurance, and governance belong to the association and must satisfy derivative-action requirements.

Marx’s June 2, 2026 opposition accepts that Iqtunheimr is published Arizona authority, but argues it decided only a common-area maintenance derivative claim and does not convert open-meeting, notice, voting, records, insurance-accounting, or declaration-amendment claims into derivative claims.

The same June 2 packet also opposes Tara’s request to stay the pending Colby Management discovery dispute. Marx argues the subpoenaed Colby materials go to direct claims already recognized by the June 26, 2025 ruling and that the motion to compel should be decided before discovery deadlines and trial preparation overtake the issue.

The uploaded packet includes two proposed orders. Those proposed forms are not court rulings; they show the relief Marx asked the court to enter.

What the June 2026 response packet adds

Rule 12(c) opposition

Marx argues her claims seek direct relief for her own Condominium Act, declaration, voting, inspection, and fair-administration rights, not recovery of association funds or generalized damages for all units.

Colby discovery stay opposition

Marx argues the court should not pause her motion to compel Colby Management records about the February 2024 insurance claim, board directives, communications, checks, and accounting treatment.

Claim organization exhibit

Exhibit D is Marx’s organizational aid. It asserts that 89 of 103 listed claim paragraphs are open-meeting violations and that Tara’s motion targets 60 open-meeting items.

Proposed orders

The proposed orders ask the court to deny the Rule 12(c) motion and deny the discovery stay. They should be read as requested relief, not as decisions entered by the judge.

June 2026 filings added to the record guide

Date	Document	What it adds	Download
June 2, 2026	Plaintiff’s response opposing stay of Colby Management production	Argues the Colby subpoena remains relevant to direct claims and should not be paused while Tara’s Rule 12(c) motion is pending.	Response opposing Colby stay
June 2, 2026	Plaintiff’s opposition to Tara’s Rule 12(c) motion	Argues Iqtunheimr does not eliminate direct member-right claims over open meetings, voting, records, insurance accounting, declaration amendments, or individualized statutory relief.	Rule 12(c) opposition
June 2, 2026	Exhibit D – Organization of Claims for Presentation	Organizes 103 claim paragraphs for presentation. Treat this as plaintiff’s categorization aid, not an independent court finding.	Claim organization exhibit
June 2, 2026	Proposed order denying Tara’s Rule 12(c) motion	Proposed form of relief that would deny judgment on the pleadings or, alternatively, narrow relief/allow amendment rather than dismiss with prejudice.	Proposed Rule 12(c) order
June 2, 2026	Proposed order denying Tara’s motion to stay Colby discovery ruling	Proposed form of relief that would deny the stay and leave the pending Colby motion to compel for ordinary-course decision.	Proposed Colby stay order

Timeline highlights

Date	Event	Why it matters
April 2025	Original complaint packet begins the CV2025-012980 record.	The initial claims focused heavily on open meetings, board authority, records, committee action, and association governance.
June 23, 2025	The court held an evidentiary hearing on preliminary injunctive relief.	The hearing created the record for the June 2025 emergency-relief ruling.
June 25, 2025	The court denied the motion for preliminary injunction.	The ruling matters because it separates alleged procedural defects from the emergency showing needed for immediate injunctive relief.
June 26, 2025	The court denied Tara’s partial motion to dismiss association claims as derivative.	This is the key early ruling treating the claims against the association as member-right claims rather than derivative claims, at least for that motion.
July 31, 2025	The court dismissed Mark Gottmann and Dennis Anderson.	The ruling draws a line between claims against the association and personal liability theories against individual directors.
October 2025	The record includes emergency TRO filings over master insurance, amendments, and owner insurance obligations.	The case expanded from meeting and records issues into insurance/amendment governance disputes.
March 2026	The uploaded record indicates related insurance/amendment litigation was treated as a supplemental pleading in this case.	That procedural move matters because later Rule 12(c) briefing addresses both the original and supplemental dispute.
May 27, 2026	Tara filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.	The motion asks the court to treat many community-wide claims as derivative after newer Arizona appellate authority.
June 2, 2026	Marx filed opposition papers and proposed orders addressing the Rule 12(c) motion and the Colby discovery stay.	This moves the live briefing posture from Tara’s motion alone to a disputed pending motion, with Marx asking the court to preserve direct claims or narrow relief rather than dismiss.

Curated document roadmap

After comparing the page against the AI-agent CSV, the missing piece was not the raw source coverage; it was a document-by-document narrative roadmap. The generated source index below already lists the public files, but the table here preserves the CSV’s chronology, document type, and stated case relevance so readers can understand how each filed or public-source item fits into the dispute.

This roadmap intentionally excludes unfiled draft materials that have not been confirmed as part of the court record.

The source-reference numbers in the final column are the CSV’s own reference numbers. They are not separate legal findings by this site, and the underlying PDFs remain the controlling source record.

Document roadmap from uploaded AI CSV

Date	Document	Type	How it fits the case	CSV refs
February 19, 1970	Declaration of Restrictions, Establishment of Board of Management and Lien Rights	CC&Rs	Foundational governing document defining common elements, board authority, maintenance, lien, and insurance duties. Marx uses it as the contract source for alleged breaches involving board authority, maintenance, and building-structure insurance.	1-7
March 29, 2022	CC&R Amendment Update from the Arizona Supreme Court – CHDB Law	Article / news	Kalway-related legal analysis used by Marx to argue that the 2025 insurance amendments were not reasonable or foreseeable enough to bind owners.	8
July 31, 2023	Homeowner Tara COA July 2023 Financials	Financial statement	Historical association financial record used as a comparison point for later disputed budget, insurance, and expense decisions.	7
January 11, 2024	Organizational Meeting Minutes	Meeting minutes	Board organizational minutes. Marx cites them to show board-position decisions, knowledge of meeting requirements, and alleged inaccuracies about leadership and procedure.	9, 10
January 20, 2024	January 20, 2024 Board Meeting Minutes	Meeting minutes	Documents committee-volunteer discussion and the Landscaping Committee, which Marx later uses to challenge the committee’s dissolution and her removal.	7, 9
January 30, 2024	Trench on Newcastle done by Mark and Dennis	Evidence / report	Maintenance-work documentation used to support claims that individual board members acted unilaterally or performed unauthorized maintenance work.	7
February 1, 2024	Email removing Lisa from committees and dissolving them	Email	Evidence that Marx was removed from the Landscaping Committee and committees were dissolved, supporting alleged open-meeting violations and selective targeting.	7, 10
February 5, 2024	Email announcing new board member	Email	Announcement of a new board member without a recorded open board vote, supporting the A.R.S. § 33-1248 board-action theory.	7, 11
February 5, 2024	Gmail – Claim Message from USAA – 13601 N Newcastle Drive	Email	Insurance-claim correspondence used to support allegations about improper insurance handling and board-member maintenance involvement.	7
February 17, 2024	February 17, 2024 Board Meeting Minutes	Meeting minutes	Minutes reflecting discussion and speaking limits. Marx alleges those rules were used selectively and that board-membership status was misdocumented.	7, 9
March 16, 2024	March 16, 2024 Board Meeting Minutes	Meeting minutes	Minutes referencing a workers-comp policy and Bermuda-grass plan, cited as examples of alleged unilateral chair action without open meeting votes.	7, 9
March 17, 2024	Spring newsletter 3-17-24	Newsletter	Association communication to residents, used as evidence of public board statements and owner-facing messaging.	7
May 27, 2024	Dennis working on the shutters	Evidence / report	Documentation of Dennis Anderson performing maintenance work, supporting allegations that board members acted outside authorized roles.	7
June 15, 2024	June 15, 2024 Tara Board Meeting Minutes	Meeting minutes	Procedural record of board actions during summer 2024.	7
July 2, 2024	DAnderson 07 02 24 Expense Voucher	Expense voucher	Financial record used to test whether board-member reimbursement and expenditures were properly authorized.	7
July 16, 2024	07 16 24 Letter to Lisa Marx re Petition Response	Letter	Association correspondence to Marx about a petition, part of the pre-litigation governance-dispute history.	7
July 23, 2024	American Family Master Insurance Policy Invoice Voucher 2024 2025	Financial document	Shows prior master-insurance cost and coverage before the disputed 2025 insurance amendments and policy changes.	7
July 27, 2024	July 27 2024 Tara Board Meeting Minutes	Meeting minutes	Procedural record of board actions and decisions.	7
July 31, 2024	Travis Law Firm July Inv Voucher	Invoice voucher	Legal-fee invoice used to support claims about association legal spending and approval procedure.	7
August 29, 2024	Travis Law Firm August 2024 Invoice Voucher	Invoice voucher	Additional legal-fee record used in the unauthorized-expenditure and approval-procedure theory.	7
November 1, 2024	2025 Tara Condominiums Budget Letter	Budget letter	Board letter recommending a $50 assessment increase due to insurance, sewer, and legal-fee increases; part of the financial buildup to the insurance dispute.	12
November 3, 2024	Issues regarding the 2025 Budget Vote	Email	Marx email arguing that the budget-vote process violated statute, used to show an earlier voting-procedure objection.	13
April 11, 2025	Civil Complaint for Breach of Contract	Complaint	Original filing against the association and individual board members, opening the litigation and asserting governance and CC&R breach theories.	14-16
April 14, 2025	Minute Entry Denying TRO	Court order	Early ruling denying temporary restraining relief because emergency TRO requirements were not met.	17
April 16, 2025	Amended Emergency Orders: TRO and Temporary Injunctive Relief	Motion for injunctive relief	Request to preserve declaration and insurance status quo while the case proceeded.	18, 19
May 28, 2025	Association’s Partial Motion to Dismiss	Motion	Association argued many claims were derivative and Marx lacked individual standing to pursue community-wide harms.	20
June 4, 2025	Responsive Memorandum to Association’s Partial Motion to Dismiss	Responsive memorandum	Marx opposed dismissal by arguing the claims asserted direct individual harms and member-right violations.	14-16
June 6, 2025	Reply to Response to Request for TRO and Injunctive Relief	Reply memorandum	Reply supporting emergency relief and addressing alleged service-delay and response-timing issues.	18
June 26, 2025	Minute Entry – Claim not Derivative	Court order	Key early ruling treating Marx’s claims against the association as direct member-right claims rather than derivative claims for that motion.	21, 22
July 15, 2025	Motion to Dismiss Defendants Mark Gottmann and Dennis Anderson	Motion	Individual board members sought dismissal based on director protections and lack of personal liability.	23
July 20, 2025	Response Memorandum to Motion to Dismiss Individual Defendants	Responsive memorandum	Marx opposed dismissal by arguing Gottmann and Anderson acted in bad faith and outside their authority.	14, 24, 25
July 25, 2025	Minute entry order to file amended complaint	Court order	Order requiring a more definite statement, leading to amended pleadings.	26
July 31, 2025	Ruling dismissing Mark and Dennis	Court order	Dismissed individual defendants, creating a major procedural setback for the personal-liability claims.	27, 28
August 6, 2025	Travis Law Firm Budget Letter / Proposing Amendments	Budget letter / letter	Counsel letter explaining proposed amendments to shift insurance responsibilities to owners, initiating the core insurance-amendment dispute.	4-6, 29-31
August 10, 2025	Motion for Partial Reconsideration of July 31, 2025 Ruling	Motion	Marx sought reconsideration of the dismissal of the individual board members.	32
August 11, 2025	Exhibit N Cert of Ins for 25 26	Certificate of liability insurance	Insurance certificate showing property coverage effective August 1, 2025 to August 1, 2026, used to contrast later claimed coverage changes.	6, 33
August 12, 2025	Order Denying Motion for reconsideration	Court order	Maintained dismissal of Gottmann and Anderson.	34
August 15, 2025	First Amended Complaint (FAC)	Amended complaint	Updated pleading reasserting claims and refining the legal counts against the association and directors.	2, 14
September 6, 2025	Plaintiff’s Initial Rule 26.1 Disclosure Statement	Discovery disclosure	Mandatory disclosure identifying factual bases, witnesses, and evidence Marx expected to use.	35, 36
September 11, 2025	Stipulation for Extension of Time	Legal stipulation	Agreement extending Marx’s deadline to respond to fee applications; later relevant to arguments about premature fee rulings.	28, 37
September 15, 2025	Order Denying Motion to Strike Reply	Court order	Denied Marx’s request to strike Tara’s reply regarding the amended complaint.	38
September 15, 2025	Second Amended Complaint (SAC)	Amended complaint	Operative complaint against the association after dismissal of the individual defendants.	28, 39-41
September 15, 2025	Order on Stipulation to Extend Time	Court order	Granted an extension to respond to attorney-fee requests.	42
September 20, 2025	Minutes for a Board Meeting of the Tara Condominiums Association	Meeting minutes	Board minutes covering approval of the plan to present CC&R amendments for owner vote.	43
September 22, 2025	Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint	Motion	Marx sought to reinstate direct claims against individual board members and add alleged post-filing violations.	14, 44, 45
September 24, 2025	Urgent Concerns on Proposed CC&R Amendments	Email / letter	Marx letter to owners identifying claimed risks of the proposed amendments, including costs, title, loan, and insurance issues.	4, 46
September 25, 2025	Meeting needs to be called to turn in ballots	Email	Marx demanded an open meeting for the amendment vote, preserving her objection to the voting process.	6, 47
September 27, 2025	Proposed Insurance amendments (Board/Owner Emails)	Email	Correspondence framing the association’s justification for the insurance shift and Marx’s objections under statutory and declaration duties.	5, 6, 30, 48
September 30, 2025	Minute Entry Denying Motion to Vacate	Court order	Denied Marx’s request to vacate a fee-related order before the fee award was entered.	49
October 1, 2025	Order Granting Application for Attorney’s Fees	Court order	Awarded individual defendants $5,957.70 in fees after dismissal; Marx contends the award was premature.	28, 49, 50
October 5, 2025	Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction	Motion	Attempt to block implementation of proposed amendments based on alleged statutory and declaration violations.	6, 51
October 9, 2025	Motion for Expedited Hearing	Motion	Request for a hearing within five days before the amendment-vote deadline.	31, 52, 53
October 14, 2025	Scheduling Order	Court order	Set discovery tiers, litigation deadlines, and a September 14, 2026 trial date.	54
October 15, 2025	Action by Written Consent	Voting form	Owner written-consent form used for three proposed declaration amendments.	55
October 17, 2025	Amendment to Declaration of Restrictions	Recorded amendment	Recorded amendment No. 2025-0605584 shifting insurance responsibility to owners; Marx challenges its validity.	31, 56, 57
October 18, 2025	Results of Tara CC&R amendment vote	Email	Announcement that amendments passed and owners had to obtain insurance by November 15, 2025.	58, 59
October 22, 2025	Stipulation to Continue Case Deadlines	Legal stipulation	Joint extension of deadlines due to Marx’s medical hospitalization.	60
October 26, 2025	Meeting to view ballots (Transcript)	Transcript	Transcript in which Gottmann allegedly refused to show owner signatures or vote choices, supporting A.R.S. § 33-1258 inspection-right claims.	61, 62
October 29, 2025	Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order	Motion	Emergency request to stop cancellation of master insurance and implementation of recorded amendments.	31, 63
October 30, 2025	2025 Budget	Financial document	Association budget showing a $50 assessment increase for insurance premiums, part of the financial basis for the amendment dispute.	64
October 30, 2025	Order Granting Leave to File Reply Out of Time	Court order	Procedural relief allowing Marx to file a late reply related to the third amended complaint.	65
November 6, 2025	Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Set Evidentiary Hearing	Motion	Request for an evidentiary hearing on the voting process and alleged harm from insurance lapse.	66, 67
November 10, 2025	Reminder to obtain homeowner insurance	Email	Board email setting a December 1, 2025 proof-of-structural-insurance deadline.	68
November 12, 2025	Notice of Appeal	Legal notice	Notice concerning dismissal of individual defendants and cost/fee issues.	69, 70
November 13, 2025	Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant’s Consolidated Response	Motion / reply	Reply supporting preliminary-injunction relief based on claimed individualized harm and flawed amendment process.	71
November 17, 2025	Minute Entry (Dismissing TAC and Injunction)	Court order	Denied leave to file the Third Amended Complaint and denied injunction relief, prompting later judge-change efforts.	70, 72
November 21, 2025	Official Ballot 2026 Budget Ratification	Ballot	Budget ballot showing a proposed $15 assessment decrease after removing association insurance duties.	73, 74
November 21, 2025	Civil Complaint for Declaratory Judgment	Complaint	New action CV2025-062973 challenging the October 2025 amendments and potential master-policy cancellation.	75
November 23, 2025	Motion for Change of Judge for Cause	Motion	Marx sought to remove Judge Warner, leading to reassignment to Judge Adele Ponce.	72, 76
November 24, 2025	Request for Answers to Interrogatories	Discovery request	Interrogatories targeting board decisions and maintenance work to develop the ultra vires theory.	11
November 25, 2025	Case Reassignment / First Amended Civil Complaint	Court order / complaint	Case reassignment to Judge Ponce and amended pleading in the second insurance-shift action.	70, 75, 77-79
December 1, 2025	Motion for Reconsideration of Nov 17 Minute Entry	Motion	Marx asked Judge Ponce to reconsider denial of the third amended complaint and injunction relief.	70, 80
December 3, 2025	Minute Entry Case Consolidation	Court order	Consolidated CV2025-062973 with CV2025-012980, folding the insurance-amendment dispute into the main litigation path.	81
December 3, 2025	Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Consolidation	Motion	Marx opposed consolidation, arguing the actions involved distinct facts and emergency concerns.	82
December 4, 2025	Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification and Expedited Hearing	Motion	Challenge to characterization of the complaint and request for expedited hearing on insurance risk.	75
December 5, 2025	Joint Notice of Outstanding Motions and Hearings	Legal notice	Catalog of pending matters for Judge Ponce after reassignment.	70
January 4, 2026	Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss	Response memorandum	Opposition to dismissal of the second action, arguing insurance termination was a new occurrence requiring separate attention.	19
January 20, 2026	Certificate of Liability Insurance (Master Policy 2025-2026)	Insurance certificate	Certificate showing liability and D&O coverage but no building property insurance, used as key evidence that buildings became uninsured.	83, 84
January 20, 2026	Notice of Intent to Serve Amended Subpoena	Discovery notice	Notice for records subpoena to Colby Management, part of the discovery fight over association records.	85
January 30, 2026	Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Reconsideration	Legal memorandum	Filing using the January 20 insurance certificate as new evidence of claimed statutory insurance violations.	83
February 26, 2026	Notice of Withdrawal of Motion to Compel	Legal notice	Procedural withdrawal of a discovery motion.	86
March 16, 2026	Minute Entry (Oral Argument and Rule 15d conversion)	Court order	Converted the second lawsuit into a Rule 15(d) supplemental-pleading path in the main case.	41, 87
May 27, 2026	Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings	Motion	Tara’s attempt to dismiss asserted community-wide claims as derivative after newer appellate authority.	88
June 2, 2026	Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Motion to Stay Colby Management Discovery	Response memorandum	Marx opposes Tara’s request to stay a ruling on the Colby Management subpoena dispute, arguing the requested insurance-claim accounting, communications, checks, and board-directive materials remain relevant to direct claims and that discovery deadlines were approaching.	166
June 2, 2026	Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings	Response memorandum	Marx argues Iqtunheimr does not convert her open-meeting, notice, voting, records, insurance-accounting, amendment-validity, and individualized statutory-right claims into derivative claims, and asks the court to deny dismissal or narrow relief/allow amendment.	167
June 2, 2026	Exhibit D – Organization of Claims for Presentation	Exhibit / organizational aid	Marx’s exhibit groups 103 claim paragraphs for presentation, including her assertion that 89 are open-meeting violations and that Tara’s motion targets 60 open-meeting items.	168
June 2, 2026	Proposed Order Denying Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings	Proposed order	Proposed form of order submitted by Marx. It is not a ruling unless and until the court signs or enters an order.	169
June 2, 2026	Proposed Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Stay Ruling on Colby Production	Proposed order	Proposed form of order submitted by Marx to deny Tara’s requested stay of the Colby discovery ruling. It is not a court ruling.	170
Not dated in CSV	Plaintiff’s First Requests for Production of Documents	Discovery request	Formal request for insurance, financial, and related records, aimed at evidence about the 2024 insurance claim and policy-rate increases.	90
September 10, 2020	Marx Warranty Deed	Deed	Warranty deed conveying Unit 5 to Lisa Marx, establishing her standing as unit owner and association member.	2, 91, 92

How to read this case without overclaiming it

Treat interim rulings as interim rulings. The June and July 2025 orders are important, but they do not equal a final merits judgment on every later claim.
Separate association claims from individual-director claims. The uploaded record shows the court was willing to let some claims proceed against the association while dismissing individual board members.
Track the exact injury theory. The direct-versus-derivative question turns on whether the claim seeks to remedy a member’s individual statutory/contractual injury or a generalized association injury.
Do not skip the procedural posture. Preliminary injunction, motion to dismiss, judgment on the pleadings, and final judgment apply different standards.
Use the source index. The upload is large. The normalized roadmap and complete source-document index are the safest way to follow the record in order.

Practical lessons for condo disputes

For owners

Tie each claim to the specific statute, declaration section, bylaw, vote, notice, record request, or personal harm.
Preserve agendas, minutes, emails, insurance notices, amendment materials, ballots, and records-request correspondence.
Do not assume that proving a board process defect automatically proves irreparable harm.
Keep direct personal injury theories separate from generalized association harm.

For boards and counsel

Document board authorization, open-meeting votes, executive-session limits, and ratification steps.
Handle records requests with clear statutory deadlines, production logs, and written explanations.
Treat insurance and amendment changes as high-risk governance events requiring clean notices, votes, and member communications.
Do not rely on derivative-action arguments without addressing member-right statutes and declaration enforcement language.

Complete source set

Download the filing roadmap

The source files were normalized into the standard court-case download layout. Use the roadmap CSV to cross-check original filenames against public filenames, then use the generated source-document index below for direct downloads.

Download roadmap CSV

FAQ

Is this case finally decided?

No. The uploaded packet includes important interim rulings and May/June 2026 briefing, but it does not include a final judgment resolving the full case.

Did the court say all of Marx’s claims are direct claims?

No. The June 26, 2025 minute entry denied Tara’s first partial derivative-claims motion as to the association and described the claims as member-right claims as framed. Tara’s May 2026 Rule 12(c) motion asks the court to revisit direct-versus-derivative treatment for asserted community-wide claims, and Marx’s June 2026 opposition disputes that characterization.

Were the individual board members kept in the case?

No. The uploaded July 31, 2025 ruling dismissed Mark Gottmann and Dennis Anderson, while distinguishing those personal-liability theories from claims against the association.

Why does insurance appear in an open-meeting case?

The record expanded beyond early open-meeting and records allegations. Later filings challenged master-insurance changes, declaration amendments, owner insurance obligations, and related voting/notice procedures.

Type: Court order/minute entry

Starts or reframes the case and identifies the claims or relief requested.

Download source file

2025-09-15_015_10-order-9-15-25-denying-motion-to-strike-reply-in-support-of-motion-to-strike-portions-of-amended-complaint.pdf

Source 165 No docket date in filename

Source File Roadmap 2026 05 31

Type: Source roadmap CSV

Upload/source spreadsheet that helps cross-check filing order, source names, or AI review notes.

Download source file

source-file-roadmap-2026-05-31.csv

Primary sources

Reviewed against the uploaded Superior Court filings through June 2, 2026 and the normalized source-file roadmap. Proposed orders are identified as proposed forms of relief, not signed court rulings. Unfiled draft materials are not treated as court sources. This page is educational information for Arizona HOA and condominium governance research. It is not legal advice for any specific dispute.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Gusich v. Sun City Grand: Arizona HOA Board Removal, Title 10, and Fee Exposure

Posted on May 25, 2026 by

Arizona HOA Board Removal | Superior Court CV2025-002634 | Court of Appeals 1 CA-CV 25-0929

Gusich is a useful Arizona HOA governance case because it separates several issues that often get blended together: recall petitions under A.R.S. § 33-1813, nonprofit-corporation removal authority under Title 10, standing after a director has been removed, director indemnification, and how a court can slash an oversized fee request even after the HOA wins.

Last updated May 25, 2026. Case: Thomas J. Gusich v. Sun City Grand Community Association, Inc., Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2025-002634; Court of Appeals No. 1 CA-CV 25-0929; Hon. Jennifer Ryan-Touhill.

Download dismissal ruling Download fee judgment Appeal docket Homeowner guide Board guide Filing roadmap FAQ Primary sources

Scope note: This page covers Superior Court rulings in CV2025-002634 and the pending Court of Appeals docket 1 CA-CV 25-0929. The Superior Court rulings are trial-court decisions and the appeal remains pending in the uploaded docket. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The rule in one sentence

An Arizona planned-community board-removal dispute may involve both Title 33 recall procedure and Title 10 nonprofit-corporation authority, but a removed director still must show a live justiciable controversy, and even a winning HOA must prove that requested attorney fees are reasonable and tied to the litigation.

Case snapshot

Case name

Thomas J. Gusich v. Sun City Grand Community Association, Inc.

Superior Court docket

Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2025-002634.

Trial-court result

Motion to dismiss granted; final judgment entered for the association with reduced fees and taxable costs.

Appeal status

Court of Appeals No. 1 CA-CV 25-0929 was pending in the uploaded May 22, 2026 docket, with reply/cross-answer briefing due June 30, 2026.

Case Dossier

Case Summary

Case ID / citation	CV2025-002634 / 1 CA-CV 25-0929
Court / tribunal	Superior Court
Decision / key date	September 23, 2025
Judge / panel	Hon. Jennifer Ryan-Touhill
Parties	A former Sun City Grand board member challenged his removal, the association’s board conduct standards, meeting exclusions, indemnification position, and later fee request.
Governing law	A.R.S. § 33-1813 A.R.S. § 10-3808 A.R.S. § 10-3810 A.R.S. § 12-1831 A.R.S. § 10-3851 A.R.S. § 10-3852 A.R.S. § 12-341.01 A.R.S. § 33-1805
Topics	board-governanceprocedureattorneys-feesrecords-requests
Outcome / holding	The Superior Court dismissed the claims, entered final judgment for Sun City Grand, awarded reduced attorney fees and costs, and the matter was pending on appeal in 1 CA-CV 25-0929 in the uploaded docket.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package	50 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	3 roadmap entries
Video overview	Gusich v. Sun City Grand: Arizona HOA Board Removal, Title 10, and Fee Exposure
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	4 questions
Curated download aliases	3 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

CURRENT STATUS (June 2026): NOT FINAL — this trial-court matter is on appeal (1 CA-CV 25-0929); both sides appealed and briefing is ongoing. Thomas J. Gusich sued Sun City Grand Community Association after a board-removal dispute involving conduct standards, a special membership meeting, recall/petition procedure, executive-session exclusion allegations, and indemnification. The Superior Court granted the association’s motion to dismiss, reasoning that A.R.S. § 33-1813 did not eliminate Title 10 and bylaw-based director-removal paths, that claims about board-only conduct standards lacked a live controversy after removal, and that indemnification did not require the HOA to fund a former director’s affirmative lawsuit against the association. The court later awarded fees and costs to the association but reduced a $353,388 fee request to $44,619 plus $355.85 in taxable costs. The uploaded Court of Appeals docket showed the appeal and cross-appeal pending as of May 22, 2026.

Key Issues & Findings

The court distinguished petition-based removal procedure under A.R.S. § 33-1813 from other removal mechanisms under Title 10 and the association’s bylaws. Because the bylaws allowed a special membership meeting and member vote after notice, the court did not need to issue advisory rulings on disputed petition format or electronic-signature questions. The court also held that Gusich lacked standing to challenge board-only standards after he was no longer a director, and that indemnification language protects directors against liability to others rather than funding a director’s own lawsuit against the association. On fees, the court found entitlement but reduced rates, duplicative work, pre-suit work, and work tied to statutory records issues.

Why It Matters

Gusich is a practical roadmap for Arizona HOA board-removal litigation. It warns homeowners and boards not to assume Title 33 is the only authority source, shows why declaratory claims need a live controversy, limits director-indemnification theories when a director sues the HOA, and demonstrates that even a prevailing HOA’s fee request can be aggressively reduced when the bills are not reasonable or properly tied to the litigation.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Thomas J. Gusich (Plaintiff/Appellant)
Former Sun City Grand board member who challenged his removal.
Jonathan A. Dessaules (Counsel)
Dessaules Law Group
Counsel for Gusich.
David E. Wood (Counsel)
Dessaules Law Group
Counsel for Gusich.
Joseph D. Halow (Counsel)
Dessaules Law Group
Appellate counsel listed for Gusich.

Respondent Side

Sun City Grand Community Association, Inc. (Defendant/Appellee)
Association party defending Gusich’s board-removal claims.
Lauren Elliott Stine (Counsel)
Quarles & Brady LLP
Counsel for Sun City Grand Community Association.
Daniel G. Roberts (Counsel)
Quarles & Brady LLP
Counsel for Sun City Grand Community Association.

Neutral Parties

Nancy M. Collins (Witness)
Filed a motion to quash a witness subpoena.
Jennifer Ryan-Touhill (Judge)
Superior Court judge assigned to the case.

Why this case matters

The dispute started after Thomas Gusich, an elected Sun City Grand board member, challenged the association’s board conduct standards, recall/removal process, meeting exclusions, and indemnification position. The Superior Court treated the case as a pleading-stage question: assuming the alleged facts, did the amended complaint state claims the court could decide?

The July 2025 ruling is important because it rejected a narrow reading of A.R.S. § 33-1813. The court reasoned that Title 33 recall-petition procedure did not eliminate other removal paths available under the association’s bylaws and Title 10 nonprofit-corporation statutes.

The September 2025 fee ruling is just as useful. The association won dismissal and was entitled to fees, but the court reduced a $353,388 request to $44,619 plus $355.85 in taxable costs after finding rates, duplicated work, pre-suit work, and record-request-related work were not fully shiftable.

Video overview: HOA board recall, Title 10, and fee exposure

Watch this overview of Gusich v. Sun City Grand Community Association, a dispute over a board member’s recall, the validity of electronically signed recall petitions, and whether a director can challenge the association’s ‘Grand Standards’ code of conduct.

What Judge Ryan-Touhill decided

1. A.R.S. § 33-1813 did not displace Title 10

The court held that the HOA-removal statute governs petition-based removal procedure but does not eliminate other director-removal mechanisms available under Title 10 and the association bylaws.

2. The removal vote survived the motion to dismiss challenge

Because the bylaws allowed a special membership meeting and a member vote after notice, the court did not need to decide whether the disputed petition format or electronic signatures satisfied A.R.S. § 33-1813.

3. The Grand Standards claim lacked a live controversy

Once Gusich was no longer on the board, the court found he was not subject to the board-only conduct standards and therefore lacked standing for declaratory relief about those standards.

4. Indemnification did not fund a director’s lawsuit against the HOA

The court read the indemnification language as protection against liability to others, not as a promise that the association would finance a former director’s affirmative lawsuit against the association.

5. The HOA was entitled to fees

The court found fee entitlement under the governing documents, A.R.S. § 33-1813(A)(4)(f), and A.R.S. § 12-341.01, then moved to reasonableness.

6. The fee award was heavily reduced

The court reduced requested fees from $353,388 to $44,619, plus $355.85 in taxable costs, after reviewing rates, duplication, pre-suit work, record-request issues, and excessive staffing.

For homeowners and board members

If you are challenging a board removal, separate the removal mechanism from the political facts. This ruling turned on the governing documents and statutes, not on whether the recall campaign was wise, fair, or popular.

Do not assume A.R.S. § 33-1813 is the only removal statute in play. If the association is a nonprofit corporation, Title 10 and the bylaws may matter. A strong filing should explain why the specific statutory path used is exclusive, conflicting, or unavailable.

If you seek declaratory relief, preserve a live controversy. A claim about board-only conduct rules can become moot if you are no longer a director and cannot show a present legal effect.

Fee exposure is real, but this record also shows that a court may scrutinize HOA defense bills. The court declined to shift fees for statutory records issues, duplicative work, excessive rates, and work not clearly tied to the litigation.

For HOA boards and managers

This case supports a practical compliance point: before removing a director, identify every authority source being used. That means the declaration, bylaws, Title 10 nonprofit-corporation statutes, and A.R.S. § 33-1813 when removal by petition is involved.

Document notice, quorum, eligible voters, and the vote result. The court emphasized that the membership received notice and voted at a special meeting.

Do not assume every dollar of defense spend will be shifted to the opposing member. If the HOA hires multiple firms or high-rate counsel, a later fee application still has to show reasonable rates and reasonable work tied to recoverable claims.

Keep statutory records requests separate from litigation strategy. The fee ruling expressly noted that the court would not order the homeowner to pay fees related to records to which he was statutorily entitled.

Suggested workflow for similar disputes

Map the authority source. Identify whether the challenged action was taken under the bylaws, Title 10, A.R.S. § 33-1813, or a combination.
Preserve the meeting record. Keep the petition or request, notices, agenda, quorum proof, voting materials, minutes, and result certification together.
Define the live controversy. For declaratory relief, state exactly what current legal relationship the court needs to resolve.
Separate records rights from recall politics. A homeowner may have statutory records rights even when other claims fail.
Audit fee requests line by line. Compare rates, staffing, pre-suit work, duplicative work, and work tied to non-shiftable issues.

A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.

Download source file

undated_050_motion.pdf

Current posture

Superior Court

Dismissed in the association’s favor with final judgment entered September 26, 2025.

Court of Appeals

Appeal and cross-appeal pending as 1 CA-CV 25-0929 in the uploaded May 22, 2026 docket.

Next listed date

Reply/cross-answer brief due June 30, 2026, according to the uploaded docket snapshot.

FAQ

Is this a published appellate precedent?

No. The uploaded merits and fee rulings are Superior Court rulings. The Court of Appeals case was pending in the uploaded docket, so the final appellate result may change the practical significance.

Did the court decide that every electronic recall signature is valid?

No. The court said it did not need to decide the disputed petition-signature issue because the membership-removal path under the bylaws and Title 10 was enough for the motion-to-dismiss ruling.

Does this mean an HOA can recover all fees whenever it beats a board-removal lawsuit?

No. The court found fee entitlement, but then reduced the requested fees sharply after reviewing reasonableness, duplication, hourly rates, and work not properly shifted to the homeowner.

Why does indemnification matter here?

Gusich argued the bylaws required the association to fund or reimburse his own lawsuit. The court rejected that theory, reading indemnification as protection against liability to others, not affirmative financing for a director’s suit against the HOA.

Primary sources

← Back to Superior Court cases