Category Archives: Superior Court

Trial-level Arizona Superior Court rulings

Janisch & Creed v. Scottsdale Mountain Community Association: An HOA Dispute That Keeps Expanding

Posted on by

Arizona HOA Governance | Litigation | Pending Case

This pending-case guide covers three consolidated Maricopa County Superior Court lawsuits between a Scottsdale Mountain homeowner and her community association and its board. The court has denied every request for emergency or injunctive relief so far and appointed a special discovery master, but it has not decided the merits. Nothing here is a finding of wrongdoing.

Last updated October 25, 2026. Case: Sheila Janisch v. Scottsdale Mountain Community Association, et al., Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2024-005545 (consolidated with CV2026-002331 and CV2026-002480); Hon. David McDowell presiding. Most recent reviewed ruling: July 22, 2026, denying a preliminary injunction.

Download July 22, 2026 injunction ruling Download consolidation order Download TRO denial Litigation timeline In the news Source documents FAQ

Posture note: This is a guide to a pending set of Superior Court cases, not a final ruling or a finding of wrongdoing. As of the most recent reviewed order (July 22, 2026), the case is active and the court has not decided the merits. Along the way the court denied the homeowners’ requests for a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and removal of the board members. The claims in the complaints are the plaintiffs’ unproven allegations; no defendant has been found liable.

Current case status

Three related lawsuits were consolidated under CV2024-005545 and remain pending before Hon. David McDowell. A retired judge has been appointed to referee discovery. The court has repeatedly denied the homeowners’ requests for emergency and injunctive relief, and has twice described the escalating filings in pointed terms, but it has not resolved the underlying claims.

Case snapshot

Core dispute

A Scottsdale Mountain homeowner says the Association and several board members enforced the rules unfairly and circulated a letter she calls defamatory. The board members deny it. The dispute has grown into three lawsuits.

Three consolidated cases

CV2024-005545 (against the Association), plus CV2026-002331 and CV2026-002480 (against four board members over the same letter), now joined under one case number.

What the court has done

Denied an emergency restraining order, denied a preliminary injunction, denied a motion to remove the directors, appointed a discovery master, and allowed a Third Amended Complaint. No merits ruling yet.

Source packet

This guide links all 55 public minute entries and orders downloaded from the Maricopa County Superior Court docket, plus a chronological timeline.

Case Dossier

This dossier combines the case metadata, linked court sources, and the explanatory sections below. It distinguishes court rulings from party filings, allegations, and requested relief.

Case Summary

Case ID / citationCV2024-005545 (consolidated with CV2026-002331 and CV2026-002480)
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateJuly 22, 2026
Judge / panelHon. David McDowell, Hon. Frank W. Moskowitz, Hon. Michael D. Gordon, Hon. Susanna C. Pineda
PartiesSheila Janisch and David Creed (Plaintiffs) v. Scottsdale Mountain Community Association and board members Lonnie Muto, Bill Dube, Yuri Ellis, and Tom McVay (Defendants).
Governing law
Topics
Board GovernanceCC&RsCovenantsDefamationSelective EnforcementMeetings & RecordsProcedure
Outcome / holding

No merits decision has been entered; the case remains pending. In a series of interim rulings the Superior Court denied the homeowners' emergency temporary restraining order (Jan. 23, 2026), denied their combined motion to remove four directors and disqualify counsel without prejudice (Feb. 18, 2026), consolidated the three related cases (Apr. 20, 2026), granted leave to file a Third Amended Complaint (June 26, 2026), and denied plaintiff David Creed's application for a preliminary injunction to restore gate access for lack of standing as a non-owner and want of admissible proof of irreparable harm (July 22, 2026).

Primary public sourceView hosted source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package55 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmapNo separate litigation roadmap table on this page
Video overviewNo video embed currently configured
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links11 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

A Scottsdale Mountain homeowner, Sheila Janisch, sued her community association in 2024 (Maricopa County Superior Court CV2024-005545) over alleged rule violations and unfair enforcement. The case expanded through amendments to add claims including breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, emotional distress, discrimination, tortious interference, libel and defamation, and a records-statute violation. In early 2026 Janisch and her significant other, David Creed, filed two more suits (CV2026-002331 and CV2026-002480) against four individual board members over a letter sent to Association members. The court consolidated all three cases under CV2024-005545 and appointed a retired judge as special discovery master. As of the July 22, 2026 ruling the case is still pending; the court has denied the homeowners' emergency restraining order, their motion to remove the directors, and their application for a preliminary injunction, finding the supporting allegations unsupported by admissible evidence. No defendant has been found liable.

Key Issues & Findings

The court applied Arizona's four-part preliminary-injunction standard (Fann v. State; Shoen v. Shoen), requiring a strong likelihood of success, a possibility of irreparable harm not compensable by money, a favorable balance of hardships, and advancement of the public interest. It repeatedly held that the homeowners' motions rested on unsupported assertions rather than admissible evidence: the January 2026 TRO motion asserted a defamatory "attack letter" and "stolen corporate data" without a factual basis; the February 2026 removal motion dumped 600-plus pages without proper foundation, and removing directors requires an evidentiary final hearing rather than a motion. In July 2026 the court found David Creed lacked standing as a non-owner to challenge Association decisions and that his medical-harm evidence (unsigned letters, an unsworn report, unsworn necessity forms) was inadmissible and not stated to a reasonable degree of medical probability. The court consolidated the cases because they share common facts arising from the same member letter, while reserving the right to try the Association and individual-defendant claims separately.

Why It Matters

This is a vivid, still-open example of how an Arizona HOA dispute can escalate into multiple overlapping lawsuits without ever reaching a decision on the merits. It shows the evidentiary discipline Arizona courts demand before granting extraordinary relief: emergency restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, and removal of sitting directors all require admissible evidence and, for removal, a full evidentiary hearing, not allegations in a motion. It also illustrates a recurring standing problem for non-owner residents who try to challenge association decisions, and the tools courts use to manage a runaway docket, including appointing a special discovery master, consolidating related cases, barring multi-issue motions, and enforcing page limits. Because the case is pending and no defendant has been found liable, nothing here is a final outcome.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Sheila Janisch (Plaintiff)
    Homeowner and lead plaintiff in the first-filed case.
  • David Creed (Plaintiff)
    Co-plaintiff; per the court's rulings, Ms. Janisch's significant other and a non-owner resident.
  • Frank M. Fox (Counsel)
    Counsel for the plaintiffs.

Respondent Side

  • Scottsdale Mountain Community Association (Defendant)
    The homeowners association named in the first-filed case.
  • Lonnie Muto (Defendant)
    Association board
    Named individual defendant and board member.
  • Bill Dube (Defendant)
    Association board
    Named individual defendant and board member.
  • Yuri Ellis (Defendant)
    Association board
    Named individual defendant and board member.
  • Tom McVay (Defendant)
    Association board
    Named individual defendant; a board member who is also an attorney. The homeowners repeatedly sought to disqualify him; the court declined.
  • Eden Cohen (Counsel)
    Defense counsel.
  • Charles H. Oldham (Counsel)
    CHDB Law
    Defense counsel.

Neutral Parties

  • Hon. David McDowell (Judge)
    Presiding Superior Court judge over the consolidated case.
  • Hon. Frank W. Moskowitz (Judge)
    Earlier assigned Superior Court judge in the first-filed case.
  • Hon. Michael D. Gordon (Judge)
    Presided over the second-filed case before consolidation.
  • Hon. Susanna C. Pineda (Judge)
    Presided over the third-filed case before consolidation.
  • Hon. (ret.) Kenneth Fields (Special Master)
    Retired judge appointed as special discovery master under Rule 53.

What the record shows

The first case, CV2024-005545, began in 2024 when homeowner Sheila Janisch sued the Scottsdale Mountain Community Association. According to the court’s consolidation order, it started with claims for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and breach of contract over alleged rule violations and alleged unfair enforcement, and through later amendments grew to include claims for injunctive and declaratory relief, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, emotional distress, discrimination, tortious interference, libel and defamation, misappropriation of assets, disclosure of confidential information, and a records-statute violation under A.R.S. § 33-1805.

In early 2026 two more suits were filed over a single letter sent to Association members. In CV2026-002331 Ms. Janisch sued four individual board members — Lonnie Muto, Tom McVay, Bill Dube, and Yuri Ellis — alleging the letter defamed her and interfered with her business expectancy. In CV2026-002480 David Creed sued the same four, alleging the letter defamed him and placed him in a false light. These are the plaintiffs’ allegations; the board members dispute them, and no court has ruled on whether the letter was unlawful.

The court has so far declined every request for emergency or injunctive relief. On January 23, 2026 it denied an emergency temporary restraining order, writing that the motion’s central claims — including that the defendants mailed a defamatory “attack letter” using “stolen corporate data” and canceled a meeting to avoid a vote — were not supported by the evidence submitted. On February 18, 2026 it denied, without prejudice, a combined motion to remove the four directors, disqualify counsel, strike the answer, and grant an injunction, explaining that removing directors requires an evidentiary hearing rather than a motion and that the 600-plus pages submitted were not properly presented as admissible evidence. The court added that some of the alleged conduct, “if proven to be true, is highly suspect,” but that the plaintiff had not met the legal standard.

To manage the growing discovery fights, the court appointed retired Judge Kenneth Fields as a special discovery master on January 26, 2026, limited to resolving discovery and disclosure disputes. On April 20, 2026 the court consolidated all three cases under CV2024-005545, finding they share common facts, and reserved the option of separate trials for the Association and the individual board members.

On June 26, 2026 the court granted leave to file a Third Amended Complaint, while cautioning the plaintiffs to keep their pleadings short and to include only causes of action with a legal basis. On July 22, 2026 the court denied Mr. Creed’s application for a preliminary injunction to restore resident gate access, finding he lacked standing as a non-owner to challenge Association decisions and had not supplied admissible evidence of irreparable harm.

What the court has already decided

2024 dismissal motion denied

On May 22, 2024 the court denied the Association’s early motion for partial dismissal and a more definite statement, noting that such motions are not favored and the record was undeveloped.

Emergency restraining order denied

On January 23, 2026 the court denied the homeowners’ emergency TRO without prejudice, finding the supporting allegations were not backed by admissible evidence.

Special discovery master appointed

On January 26, 2026 the court appointed retired Judge Kenneth Fields to referee discovery disputes, with costs split between the parties.

Director-removal motion denied

On February 18, 2026 the court denied, without prejudice, the combined motion to remove the four directors, disqualify counsel, strike the answer, and grant an injunction.

Three cases consolidated

On April 20, 2026 the court joined all three suits under CV2024-005545, finding common facts and reserving the possibility of separate trials.

Preliminary injunction denied

On July 22, 2026 the court denied Mr. Creed’s request to restore gate access, citing his lack of standing as a non-owner and a failure of admissible proof of irreparable harm.

Litigation timeline

DateEventWhy it matters
2024Sheila Janisch sues the Scottsdale Mountain Community Association (CV2024-005545).Opens the dispute with claims over alleged rule violations and unfair enforcement.
May 22, 2024Court denies the Association’s motion for partial dismissal and a more definite statement.The case proceeds past the Association’s first attempt to narrow it.
2025A year of discovery disputes, status conferences, and scheduling fights.The record shows the case bogging down in procedural conflict rather than moving to the merits.
Dec. 2025The case is reassigned to the presiding civil judge, Hon. David McDowell.Hon. Frank W. Moskowitz had handled it earlier; McDowell takes over the growing docket.
Jan. 23, 2026Court denies the homeowners’ emergency temporary restraining order.The court finds key allegations — a defamatory “attack letter,” “stolen” data, a canceled meeting — unsupported by evidence.
Jan. 26, 2026Court appoints retired Judge Kenneth Fields as special discovery master.An outside referee is brought in to manage the discovery disputes.
Feb. 2026Janisch (CV2026-002331) and Creed (CV2026-002480) file separate suits against four board members over a letter sent to members.The fight widens from the Association to the individual board members.
Feb. 18, 2026Court denies the motion to remove directors Muto, McVay, Ellis and Dube (and related requests), without prejudice.Removal needs an evidentiary hearing; the court calls some alleged conduct “highly suspect” but unproven.
Apr. 20, 2026Court consolidates all three cases under CV2024-005545.One judge will now manage the whole dispute and may hold separate trials.
June 26, 2026Court grants leave to file a Third Amended Complaint.The court calls it “disheartening” that amendments continue in a 2024 case, but allows it.
July 22, 2026Court denies David Creed’s preliminary injunction to restore gate access.The court finds Creed lacks standing as a non-owner and lacked admissible proof of harm.

A dispute the judge has called “disheartening”

The court record itself charts how far the conflict has escalated. In roughly two years the matter has produced three separate lawsuits, more than fifty minute entries and orders, an outside discovery master, and repeated emergency motions — yet no ruling on the merits.

The judges have been unusually candid about the tenor of the filings. In appointing the discovery master the court wrote that it was “unimpressed and unpersuaded by hyperbole, disparaging the other party or counsel, and sweeping generalizations.” In allowing the Third Amended Complaint the court said it was “disheartening that amendments to pleadings are still being made in a case filed in 2024.” The court also had to bar motions that bundle multiple issues together and to enforce page limits on the filings.

None of that is a ruling for or against either side. It is included here because it is part of the public record and it shows why neighbors, homeowners, and the association have watched this dispute keep expanding.

In the news: a reported August 2026 pepper-spray incident

Reported news, not a court finding. The account in this section is drawn from news reporting — the Arizona Republic, republished through the Sacramento Bee and the local outlet Hoodline in October 2026 — which in turn cites police. It is not part of the civil court record summarized above. As reported, no criminal charge was filed and no arrest was made; a protective order is a civil order, not a finding of guilt; and every person involved is presumed innocent. We summarize what was reported and take no position on what actually happened.

According to that reporting, the long-running neighborhood dispute spilled off the court docket on August 6, 2026. News accounts say that a board member — identified in the reporting as Lonnie Muto — got out of his vehicle during a roadside encounter with pepper spray, a physical altercation followed, and both David Creed and Sheila Janisch were sprayed. The reporting says the board member was taken to a hospital and treated for minor injuries.

The reporting further states that police recommended an assault charge against the board member, that he was not arrested, and that, as of the reporting, no charge had been filed. A Scottsdale municipal court is reported to have issued a protective order on August 10, 2026. These are news reports about an out-of-court event; they were not adjudicated in the civil case described on this page, and the people named in them have not been convicted of anything.

Complete source-document index

This index contains 55 PDFs from the reviewed public source packet. Byte-identical copies are listed once. Files are ordered by the date and sequence in the public filename, and party filings or research materials are labeled separately from court rulings.

Source 26 2026-01-23

Minute Entry Denying Emergency Motion For Temporary Restraining Order

Type: Court order/minute entry

January 23, 2026 minute entry (Hon. David McDowell) denying the homeowners' emergency motion for a temporary restraining order without prejudice, finding the supporting allegations unsupported by admissible evidence.

Download source file
2026-01-23_026_minute-entry-denying-emergency-motion-for-temporary-restraining-order.pdf
Source 27 2026-01-26

Order Appointing Special Discovery Master

Type: Court order/minute entry

January 26, 2026 order appointing retired Judge Kenneth Fields as special discovery master under Rule 53, with authority limited to discovery and disclosure disputes.

Download source file
2026-01-26_027_order-appointing-special-discovery-master.pdf
Source 32 2026-02-18

Ruling Denying Motion To Remove Directors

Type: Court order/minute entry

February 18, 2026 ruling denying, without prejudice, the plaintiff's combined motion to remove directors Muto, McVay, Ellis and Dube, to disqualify counsel, to strike the answer, and for a preliminary injunction.

Download source file
2026-02-18_032_ruling-denying-motion-to-remove-directors.pdf
Source 34 2026-02-23

Minute Entry On Application For Default

Type: Court order/minute entry

February 23, 2026 minute entry in the second-filed case (CV2026-002331) routing an application for default to a commissioner; no default judgment was entered by this division.

Download source file
2026-02-23_034_minute-entry-on-application-for-default.pdf
Source 36 2026-02-24

Minute Entry On Application For Default Against Tom Mcvay

Type: Court order/minute entry

February 24, 2026 minute entry in the third-filed case (CV2026-002480) routing an application for default against Tom McVay to a commissioner; no default judgment was entered by this division.

Download source file
2026-02-24_036_minute-entry-on-application-for-default-against-tom-mcvay.pdf
Source 40 2026-04-16

Minute Entry Rejecting Motion

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
2026-04-16_040_minute-entry-rejecting-motion.pdf
Source 41 2026-04-20

Order Granting Motion To Consolidate

Type: Court order/minute entry

April 20, 2026 order consolidating the three related cases under CV2024-005545 before Hon. David McDowell and reserving the possibility of separate trials for the Association and individual-defendant claims.

Download source file
2026-04-20_041_order-granting-motion-to-consolidate.pdf
Source 53 2026-06-26

Ruling Granting Leave To File Third Amended Complaint

Type: Court order/minute entry

June 26, 2026 ruling granting leave to file a Third Amended Complaint while cautioning the plaintiffs about pleading length and causes of action lacking a legal basis.

Download source file
2026-06-26_053_ruling-granting-leave-to-file-third-amended-complaint.pdf
Source 55 2026-07-22

Ruling Denying Application For Preliminary Injunction

Type: Court order/minute entry

July 22, 2026 ruling (Hon. David McDowell) denying plaintiff David Creed's application for a preliminary injunction to restore resident gate access, citing his lack of standing as a non-owner and a failure to supply admissible evidence of irreparable harm.

Download source file
2026-07-22_055_ruling-denying-application-for-preliminary-injunction.pdf

Frequently asked questions

Has any court found the board members or the Association liable?

No. As of the most recent reviewed ruling (July 22, 2026), the consolidated case is still pending. The court has not decided the merits, and it denied the homeowners’ requests for a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and removal of the directors. The claims are unproven allegations.

What is the case actually about?

A Scottsdale Mountain homeowner alleges the Association and several board members enforced the community rules unfairly and circulated a letter she says was defamatory. The board members dispute the claims. The dispute has grown into three lawsuits now consolidated under one case number.

Is the pepper-spray incident part of this lawsuit?

No. That is a separate event reported by the news media in 2026, not part of the civil court record documented here. As reported, no criminal charge or conviction has resulted. See the “In the news” note above.

Where do these documents come from?

Every document linked here is a public minute entry or order from the Maricopa County Superior Court, downloaded from the Clerk of the Court’s online docket. The full set is listed in the source-document index below.

Is this legal advice?

No. This is a plain-language, educational summary of public court filings. It is not legal advice, and the court’s own orders are the controlling record.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Jason Komorowski v. Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association Case Overview

Posted on by

HOA Drainage Easement Dispute (CV2018-014261)

The Maricopa County Superior Court addressed whether a homeowners association breached its contractual duties under subdivision covenants to maintain a drainage easement. After a bench trial, the court found the association failed to prevent sediment buildup from flooding a homeowner’s property. The court awarded repair costs and established strict engineering inspection and sediment removal guidelines.

Last updated July 17, 2026. Case: Jason Komorowski, et al. v. Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association, Maricopa County Superior Court, Docket No. CV2018-014261; Judgment for Plaintiffs.

Source-file index FAQ

Scope note: This page provides an educational summary of the superior court’s nonprecedential decision in Maricopa County Superior Court case CV2018-014261. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

An association’s failure to maintain a drainage easement in accordance with subdivision covenants and approved plans constitutes a breach of contract. When such a failure results in repeated flooding and physical property damage that cannot be remedied by money damages alone, the affected homeowners are entitled to compensatory damages for repairs and permanent injunctive relief establishing specific maintenance, inspection, and sediment clearing requirements.

Fact-checkers differed on whether “Fees awarded” best labels this holding. This page uses only the ruling labels both fact-checkers agreed on.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Jason Komorowski (Plaintiff)
    Owner of Lot 52 in the Whisper Mountain subdivision who sued the HOA for breach of contract and water flooding damage.
  • Melissa Komorowski (Plaintiff)
    Owner of Lot 52 in the Whisper Mountain subdivision who was granted leave to appear at trial virtually.

Respondent Side

  • Greg Wingert (Board President)
    Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association
    President of the HOA who testified during the trial regarding drainage maintenance and the difficulty of securing timely sediment clearing contractors.

Neutral Parties

  • Curt R. Peterson (Expert Witness)
    Arizona-licensed civil engineer who testified as an expert witness for the plaintiffs regarding the drainage ditch defects, sediment dams, and repair costs.
  • James Deatherage (Expert Witness)
    Geotechnical engineer who designed the remedial plan implemented by Tennyson Construction on behalf of the HOA.
  • Matthew Potter (Expert Witness)
    Arizona-licensed real estate agent who testified as an expert witness for the plaintiffs regarding speculative property value diminution.

What happened

In August 2013, Jason and Melissa Komorowski purchased Lot 52 in the Whisper Mountain subdivision in Mesa, Arizona, situated at the base of Whisper Mountain’s north slope.

The developer, VIP Construction, Inc., failed to build the planned drainage channel to the specifications set forth in the 2004 approved engineering plans.

In 2014, a major storm caused floodwaters to run down the mountain, across the drainage easement, and inundate the Komorowskis’ property.

In February 2015, homeowners assumed control of the HOA and filed a lawsuit against the developer, which they settled in October 2016; under the settlement, the developer cleared a shallow ditch but did not construct the planned engineering channel, and the HOA assumed sole responsibility for drainage maintenance.

Subsequent heavy rain events on July 24, 2017, and August 9, 2018, washed massive amounts of sediment down the mountain, forming a dam at a ditch chokepoint that backed up water and flooded the Komorowskis’ yard, coming within a foot or two of their home.

The Komorowskis made repeated requests for improvements starting in September 2017, and ultimately filed a lawsuit against the HOA in November 2018.

During the pendency of the litigation, in early September 2020, the HOA hired Tennyson Construction to grade the ditch and add a concrete curb under a plan designed by geotechnical engineer James Deatherage, completing the work on October 26, 2020.

Following a bench trial in November and December 2020, the court issued its decision on March 8, 2021, finding the HOA in breach of contract and awarding $17,800.01 in damages along with a permanent maintenance injunction.

On June 16, 2021, the court signed and entered a formal written judgment settling all claims and the plaintiffs’ application for attorneys’ fees and costs.

Video overview of the case record

An AI-generated video overview of Jason Komorowski, et al. v. Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association (CV2018-014261 (Maricopa Cnty. Super. Ct.)). Court ordered HOA to pay $17,800 in damages and permanently maintain a drainage ditch to prevent flooding. This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own records control.

Listen: audio deep dive on the case record

An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the case record in Jason Komorowski, et al. v. Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked records below.

Audio overview generated with Google NotebookLM from the case’s court filings.

Procedural timeline

2013-08-01

Jason and Melissa Komorowski purchase Lot 52 in the Whisper Mountain subdivision.

2014-09-01

A major storm causes runoff to flood the subdivision and the Komorowskis' property.

2015-02-01

Homeowners take control of Whisper Mountain HOA from the developer.

2016-10-01

The HOA settles defect litigation with developer VIP Construction, assuming drainage maintenance duties.

2017-07-24

A storm washes mountain sediment into the drainage ditch, flooding the Komorowskis' backyard.

2018-08-09

A second severe flood event occurs on Lot 52 due to a sediment dam in the unlined ditch.

2018-11-01

The Komorowskis file their lawsuit against the HOA for breach of contract and equitable relief.

2020-10-26

Contractor Tennyson Construction completes drainage improvements under the Deatherage Plan.

View all 38 source documents for this case ↓

Complete source-document index

This index contains 38 PDFs from the reviewed public source packet. Byte-identical copies are listed once. Files are ordered by the date and sequence in the public filename, and party filings or research materials are labeled separately from court rulings.

FAQ

What was the core dispute in Komorowski v. Whisper Mountain HOA?

Homeowners Jason and Melissa Komorowski sued the Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association, alleging that the association failed to maintain, repair, and replace drainage facilities in a drainage easement behind their lot, resulting in sediment dams and flooding on their property.

Did the court find that the HOA breached the CC&Rs?

Yes. The court concluded that the Amended and Restated Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) formed a binding contract, and the HOA breached Section 10.1 by failing to maintain the drainage ditch to prevent flooding of the homeowners’ property.

What damages were awarded to the homeowners?

The court awarded the Komorowskis $17,800.01 in compensatory damages, consisting of $16,000 to regrade their yard and repair a dry-stack wall, and $1,800.01 for out-of-pocket sandbag installation costs. Speculative damages for diminished property value were denied.

What injunctive relief did the court order?

The court issued a permanent injunction requiring the HOA to properly maintain the drainage ditch. This includes professional engineering inspections annually, after major rain events of 0.5 inches or more, or if flooding is documented, and sediment removal under specific capacity thresholds.

Is this superior court decision precedential?

No. This is a Maricopa County Superior Court case, which is an Arizona trial-level court decision and is nonprecedential.

Case Dossier

This dossier combines the case metadata, linked court sources, and the explanatory sections below. It distinguishes court rulings from party filings, allegations, and requested relief.

Case Summary

Case ID / citationCV2018-014261 (Maricopa Cnty. Super. Ct.)
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateJune 16, 2021
Judge / panelConnie Contes, Joseph P. Mikitish, Pamela Gates
PartiesPlaintiffs Jason and Melissa Komorowski v. Defendant Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association
Topics
CC&RsProcedureAttorney Fees
Outcome / holding

An association's failure to maintain a drainage easement in accordance with subdivision covenants and approved plans constitutes a breach of contract. When such a failure results in repeated flooding and physical property damage that cannot be remedied by money damages alone, the affected homeowners are entitled to compensatory damages for repairs and permanent injunctive relief establishing specific maintenance, inspection, and sediment clearing requirements.

Primary public sourceView hosted source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package38 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap12 roadmap entries
Video overviewJason Komorowski, et al. v. Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links0 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

This case arose from a dispute between homeowners Jason and Melissa Komorowski (owners of Lot 52) and the Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association (WMHOA) over a drainage easement. Heavy rainfall in 2014, 2017, and 2018 washed sediment down Whisper Mountain, creating dams in the unlined drainage ditch, which caused flooding on the Komorowskis' property. Although the CC&Rs obligated the HOA to maintain all drainage facilities in accordance with approved plans, the HOA failed to construct the planned channel or make necessary improvements. The Komorowskis filed suit in November 2018 seeking damages and equitable relief. After a four-day bench trial, the court found the HOA in breach of the CC&Rs. The court awarded the plaintiffs $17,800.01 in compensatory damages for yard regrading, wall repair, and sandbag costs, but denied property diminution damages as speculative. The court also issued a permanent injunction requiring the HOA to perform regular inspections and clear sediment from the ditch under specific, engineering-backed guidelines.

Key Issues & Findings

The court interpreted the CC&Rs as a valid, binding contract between the HOA and individual homeowners. Under CC&Rs Section 10.1, the HOA was contractually obligated to maintain, repair, and replace all drainage facilities in the subdivision. The evidence established that the developer had failed to construct the channel to the specifications of the approved engineering plans, and the HOA assumed responsibility for these facilities following a 2016 settlement. Although the HOA undertook some remedial grading work in late 2020 via a contractor, the expert testimony showed that the property would remain at risk of future flooding unless the HOA adhered to a rigorous maintenance schedule. Because ongoing flooding would cause irreparable harm and deprive the owners of the use of their property, the balance of equities favored a permanent injunction. Compensatory damages for yard repairs and sandbags were awarded as they were directly caused by the breach and supported by credible, uncontradicted evidence, whereas claimed property value diminution was rejected as speculative due to the successful completion of the remedial drainage works.

Why It Matters

This case highlights the enforceability of CC&Rs against homeowners associations regarding common area and easement maintenance. It demonstrates that courts will hold HOAs strictly to their contractual obligations to maintain infrastructure, particularly when failure to do so results in physical damage to private lots. Additionally, the ruling outlines how courts may craft detailed, ongoing injunctive remedies—including specific engineering inspection triggers and cleaning thresholds—to ensure future compliance, rather than relying solely on speculative monetary awards for property depreciation.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Toepke v. Pioneer Condominium Association: Unanimous Consent for New Use Restrictions

Posted on by

Condominium amendments | A.R.S. § 33-1227(D) | CV2019-010791

Pioneer Condominium Association obtained a 25-8 vote for an amended declaration that added a 30-day minimum rental term and raised an occupancy age threshold. The court held those provisions changed the uses to which units were restricted and therefore required unanimous consent under Arizona’s Condominium Act. The ruling was a case-specific Superior Court judgment, not a published appellate opinion.

Last updated July 13, 2026. Case: Toepke v. Pioneer Condominium Association, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2019-010791; final judgment entered February 8, 2021.

Download the summary-judgment ruling Download the final-judgment order Download the compliance order Source-file index FAQ

Scope note: This page summarizes an unpublished Maricopa County Superior Court ruling based on the court’s minute entries. It is a case-specific trial-court decision, not binding appellate precedent. The later compliance order did not decide whether the association could restore language from its original declaration. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

A condominium declaration amendment that adds or changes rental-duration and occupancy-age restrictions changes the uses to which units are restricted. Under A.R.S. § 33-1227(D), those changes required unanimous unit-owner consent, so Sections 2 and 15 could not be enforced after only a 25-8 vote.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Mardy C. Toepke (Plaintiff)
    Condominium unit owner and association member.
  • Kate E. Toepke (Plaintiff)
    Condominium unit owner and association member.

Respondent Side

  • Pioneer Condominium Association of Sun City West (Defendant)
    Condominium association that adopted and recorded the amended declaration.

Neutral Parties

  • Hon. Rosa Mroz (Judge)
    Maricopa County Superior Court
    Issued the September 24, 2019 preliminary-injunction ruling.
  • Hon. Randall H. Warner (Judge)
    Maricopa County Superior Court
    Issued the summary-judgment, fee, finality, and compliance rulings.

What happened

Pioneer Condominium Association proposed an amended declaration in late 2018 and submitted it to unit owners. The amendment passed 25-8 and was recorded in January 2019. The Toepkes challenged Section 2, which imposed a 30-day minimum rental term, and Section 15, which raised and modified occupancy-age requirements.

On September 24, 2019, Judge Rosa Mroz preliminarily enjoined enforcement of Section 2. The court found that adding a rental-duration restriction changed a unit-use restriction and that the owners showed a strong likelihood of success under A.R.S. § 33-1227(D).

On September 14, 2020, Judge Randall H. Warner granted each side’s summary-judgment motion in part. He held Sections 2 and 15 invalid for lack of unanimous consent and ordered declaratory and injunctive relief, but rejected the owners’ damages and other contract, tort, Condominium Act, and false-recording claims.

The court awarded the owners $25,000 in attorneys’ fees and $386.30 in costs, then made the judgment final under Rule 54(c) on February 8, 2021. In May 2021, the court found that the association had complied by recording a declaration without Sections 2 and 15. It did not decide whether restoring language from the original declaration was independently authorized.

Video overview of the case record

An AI-generated video overview of Toepke v. Pioneer Condominium Association (CV2019-010791 (Maricopa Cnty. Super. Ct.)). A condo association needed unanimous owner consent to add rental and occupancy use restrictions. This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own records control.

Listen: audio deep dive on the case record

An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the case record in Toepke v. Pioneer Condominium Association. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked records below.

Audio overview generated with Google NotebookLM from the case’s court filings.

Procedural timeline

2019-07-17

The case and application for preliminary injunction were filed in Maricopa County Superior Court.

2020-09-14

The court granted cross-motions for summary judgment in part, invalidating Sections 2 and 15 but entering judgment for the association on the remaining claims.

Download source
Summary Judgment Ruling
2021-02-08

The court modified the judgment to state that no matters remained pending and entered final judgment under Rule 54(c).

Download source
Rule 54 C Final Judgment Order
2021-03-19

The association recorded a declaration that removed Sections 2 and 15, as later described in the compliance order.

2021-05-12

The court found the association had complied, denied the motion to enforce, and left the restored-original-language issue undecided.

Download source
Enforcement And Compliance Order

View all 15 source documents for this case ↓

Complete source-document index

This index contains 15 PDFs from the reviewed public source packet. Byte-identical copies are listed once. Files are ordered by the date and sequence in the public filename, and party filings or research materials are labeled separately from court rulings.

Source 2 2019-09-18

Evidentiary Hearing Confirmed

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
2019-09-18_002_evidentiary-hearing-confirmed.pdf
Source 4 2019-09-24

Preliminary Injunction Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2019-09-24_004_preliminary-injunction-ruling.pdf
Source 5 2020-03-11

Adr Referral And Trial Setting

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
2020-03-11_005_adr-referral-and-trial-setting.pdf
Source 7 2020-08-03

Remote Trial Setting Order

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2020-08-03_007_remote-trial-setting-order.pdf
Source 8 2020-08-18

Trial Setting Conference

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
2020-08-18_008_trial-setting-conference.pdf
Source 10 2020-09-14

Summary Judgment Ruling

Type: Decision or judgment

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

Download source file
2020-09-14_010_summary-judgment-ruling.pdf
Source 11 2020-09-16

Attorneys Fees Request Denied

Type: Motion/application

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

Download source file
2020-09-16_011_attorneys-fees-request-denied.pdf
Source 12 2020-10-21

Trial Setting Conference Vacated

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
2020-10-21_012_trial-setting-conference-vacated.pdf
Source 14 2021-02-08

Rule 54 C Final Judgment Order

Type: Decision or judgment

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

Download source file
2021-02-08_014_rule-54c-final-judgment-order.pdf

FAQ

What did the court decide in Toepke v. Pioneer Condominium Association?

The court held that Sections 2 and 15 of the association’s amended declaration changed unit-use restrictions and were invalid because they lacked unanimous unit-owner approval under A.R.S. § 33-1227(D). It granted declaratory and injunctive relief to the owners but entered judgment for the association on the owners’ damages and other contract, tort, and statutory claims.

Why did the 25-8 owner vote not suffice?

The court read A.R.S. § 33-1227(D) to require unanimous consent when an amendment changes the uses to which a condominium unit is restricted. Section 2 newly prohibited rentals shorter than 30 days, and Section 15 raised and modified occupancy-age requirements, so the court treated both as changed use restrictions.

Did the owners win every claim?

No. They obtained declaratory and injunctive relief against Sections 2 and 15. The association received summary judgment on the claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant, breach of the association’s duty of care, a damages claim under the Condominium Act, and a false-recording claim under A.R.S. § 33-420.

Did the association comply with the judgment?

Yes, according to the May 12, 2021 minute entry. The association recorded a March 19, 2021 declaration that removed Sections 2 and 15. The court therefore denied the owners’ motion to enforce the judgment.

Did the court approve the age language restored from the original declaration?

No. The compliance order expressly said the judgment neither prohibited nor authorized restoring language from the original declaration. The court found that question was not part of the case and was not sufficiently briefed, so it did not decide it.

Is this decision binding precedent?

No. This is an unpublished Maricopa County Superior Court ruling, not a published appellate opinion. It may be informative about how one trial court applied A.R.S. § 33-1227(D), but it is not binding appellate precedent.

Case Dossier

This dossier combines the case metadata, linked court sources, and the explanatory sections below. It distinguishes court rulings from party filings, allegations, and requested relief.

Case Summary

Case ID / citationCV2019-010791 (Maricopa Cnty. Super. Ct.)
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateFebruary 8, 2021
Judge / panelHon. Rosa Mroz, Hon. Randall H. Warner
PartiesMardy C. Toepke and Kate E. Toepke (plaintiff unit owners) v. Pioneer Condominium Association of Sun City West (defendant association)
Governing law
Topics
CC&RsBoard GovernanceVoting And ElectionsProcedure
Outcome / holding

A condominium declaration amendment that adds or changes rental-duration and occupancy-age restrictions changes the uses to which units are restricted. Under A.R.S. § 33-1227(D), those changes required unanimous unit-owner consent, so Sections 2 and 15 could not be enforced after only a 25-8 vote.

Primary public sourceView hosted source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package15 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap7 roadmap entries
Video overviewToepke v. Pioneer Condominium Association
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions6 questions
Featured download links3 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Mardy and Kate Toepke challenged two provisions in Pioneer Condominium Association's amended declaration after the association obtained a 25-8 owner vote. Section 2 newly prohibited rentals shorter than 30 days, while Section 15 raised and modified occupancy-age requirements. The Maricopa County Superior Court held that both provisions changed the uses to which units were restricted and therefore required unanimous unit-owner consent under A.R.S. § 33-1227(D). The court granted the owners declaratory and injunctive relief against enforcement of those sections. It granted the association summary judgment on the owners' claims for damages, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant, breach of the association's duty of care, violation of the Condominium Act, and false recording under A.R.S. § 33-420. The court entered final judgment under Rule 54(c), awarded the owners $25,000 in attorneys' fees and $386.30 in costs, and later found that the association complied by recording a declaration without Sections 2 and 15.

Key Issues & Findings

The court began with the text of A.R.S. § 33-1227(D), which requires unanimous owner consent for an amendment that changes "the uses to which any unit is restricted." Section 2 imposed a new 30-day minimum rental term where the prior declaration had no rental-duration limit. The court rejected the association's reliance on A.R.S. § 33-1260.01(A): that statute permits declarations to contain rental-time restrictions, but it does not change the voting requirement for adding one.

Why It Matters

The ruling illustrates a distinction boards and owners should examine before amending condominium declarations: the ordinary amendment threshold may not be enough when a proposal changes how a unit may be used. Rental-duration and occupancy-age provisions can trigger the unanimous-consent rule in A.R.S. § 33-1227(D).

← Back to Superior Court cases

Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corp. v. Gary Tibshraeny: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on by

HOA Summary Judgment | CV2004-092611

A short minute entry records summary judgment for Tempe Gardens and a reasonable-fee finding.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corp. v. Gary Tibshraeny, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2004-092611.

Download ruling

Current-status note: This page is published as a litigation record based on the source files available through 2005-03-10. Later filings, appeals, mandates, settlements, or dismissal orders may change the posture; the linked court records control.

Scope note: This page covers Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corp. v. Gary Tibshraeny (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2004-092611) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s collected minute entries through 2005-03-10; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: later filings, satisfaction history, appeals, and the formal written orders referenced by the minutes may not be included in these records. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The sourced disposition is limited: summary judgment was granted and fees were found reasonable, with no substantive analysis in the collected entries.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corp. (Plaintiff)
    Association party in the HOA-related dispute. Court party records list counsel as Charles Maxwell.

Respondent Side

  • Carole Fischer (Defendant)
    Listed in the court party records as defendant.
  • Florence Hanna (Defendant)
    Listed in the court party records as defendant.
  • Gary Tibshraeny (Defendant)
    Opposing homeowner or property-side party identified in the case caption. Court party records list counsel as Roger Decker.
  • Lisa J Tibshraeny (Defendant)
    Listed in the court party records as defendant. Court party records list counsel as Roger Decker.

Neutral Parties

  • Hon. Barbara (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.

What happened

The collected record has only two minute entries. The first set oral argument on Tempe Gardens’ motion for summary judgment.

The second entry records oral argument with counsel present for the association and the Tibshraeny defendants.

The court granted the association’s motion for summary judgment and found the attorney fees incurred were reasonable.

No collected minute entry states the amount, the claim details, or the CC&R provisions at issue.

Video overview of the case record

An AI-generated video overview of Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corp. v. Gary Tibshraeny (CV2004-092611 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). Tempe Gardens obtained summary judgment and a reasonable-fee finding in a thin minute-entry record. This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own ruling controls.

Listen: audio deep dive on the case record

An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the court record and procedural posture in Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corp. v. Gary Tibshraeny. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked case records below.

Audio overview generated with Google NotebookLM from the case’s court filings.

Procedural timeline

2005-01-05

IT IS ORDERED setting oral argument on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment for 02/11/2005 at 8:30 a.

Download source
Oral Argument Set
2005-03-10

IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

Download source
Oral Argument

View all 2 source documents for this case ↓

Complete source-document index

This index contains 2 PDFs from the reviewed public source packet. Byte-identical copies are listed once. Files are ordered by the date and sequence in the public filename, and party filings or research materials are labeled separately from court rulings.

Source 1 2005-01-05

Oral Argument Set

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2005-01-05_001_oral-argument-set.pdf
Source 2 2005-03-10

Oral Argument

Type: Court/source PDF

Minute entry granting Tempe Gardens’ motion for summary judgment and finding attorney fees reasonable.

Download source file
2005-03-10_002_oral-argument.pdf

FAQ

What did the superior court decide?

It granted the association’s motion for summary judgment.

Is this superior-court ruling precedent?

No. It binds the parties in this case but is useful only as a public record of how this dispute was handled.

Does the page summarize addresses or unit numbers?

No. Residential addresses and unit identifiers from the minute entries are intentionally omitted.

Who was the association party?

The association party identified in the collected court records was Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corp..

Does this replace legal advice?

No. This is an educational case guide based on public minute entries, not legal advice.

Case Dossier

This dossier combines the case metadata, linked court sources, and the explanatory sections below. It distinguishes court rulings from party filings, allegations, and requested relief.

Case Summary

Case ID / citationCV2004-092611 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateMarch 10, 2005
Judge / panelHon. Barbara
PartiesTempe Gardens Townhouse Corp. (Plaintiff) v. Gary Tibshraeny and other defendants
Topics
AssessmentsAttorney FeesProcedure
Outcome / holding

The court granted Tempe Gardens’ motion for summary judgment and found the requested attorney fees reasonable.

Primary public sourceView hosted source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package2 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap2 roadmap entries
Video overviewTempe Gardens Townhouse Corp. v. Gary Tibshraeny
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

The collected record contains a setting order and a short oral-argument minute entry. After oral argument, the court granted Tempe Gardens’ motion for summary judgment and found the attorney fees incurred were reasonable.

Key Issues & Findings

The available minute text is brief. It shows oral argument on the association’s summary-judgment motion, appearances by counsel for both sides, and the court’s order granting the motion.

The same entry states that the court found the attorney fees incurred were reasonable, but it does not describe the claim, the amount of judgment, or the governing documents.

Why It Matters

This is a narrow record of a summary-judgment outcome for an association. Because the entry contains no legal analysis or amount, it should not be used as authority on assessment validity or fee entitlement.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Tatum Highlands Community Association v. Michael R Burns: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on by

HOA Judgment | CV2002-002028

The court granted judgment for Tatum Highlands against the named defendants.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Tatum Highlands Community Association v. Michael R Burns, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2002-002028.

Download ruling

Current-status note: Allegations, settlements, procedural dismissals, and notices are not findings of liability unless a cited court order expressly makes that finding.

Scope note: This page covers Tatum Highlands Community Association v. Michael R Burns (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2002-002028) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s collected minute entries through 2002-04-03; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: later filings, satisfaction history, appeals, and the formal written orders referenced by the minutes may not be included in these records. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The court granted judgment for Tatum Highlands against the named defendants.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Tatum Highlands Community Association (Plaintiff)
    Association party in the HOA-related dispute. Court party records list counsel as James Hazlewood.

Respondent Side

  • Michael R Burns (Defendant)
    Opposing homeowner or property-side party identified in the case caption.
  • Midland Credit Management INC (Defendant)
    Listed in the court party records as defendant.
  • Sheri Sprague Burns (Defendant)
    Listed in the court party records as defendant.

Neutral Parties

  • Hon. Toby Maureen Gerst (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.

What happened

The court granted judgment against Michael R. Burns and related defendants for Tatum Highlands in a one-entry record.

The minute entries identify the association and opposing property-side parties, then record the court’s disposition.

The collected record does not state a detailed legal analysis or full judgment terms, so this guide does not infer them.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Tatum Highlands Community Association v. Michael R Burns (CV2002-002028 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). Tatum Highlands obtained judgment in a one-entry record with no merits analysis. This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own ruling controls.

Listen: audio deep dive on the ruling

An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the court’s reasoning and disposition in Tatum Highlands Community Association v. Michael R Burns. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

Audio overview generated with Google NotebookLM from the case’s court filings.

Procedural timeline

2002-04-03

IT IS ORDERED granting judgment against Defendants Michael R.

Download source
Judgment Entered

View all 1 source document for this case ↓

Complete source-document index

This index contains 1 PDF from the reviewed public source packet. Byte-identical copies are listed once. Files are ordered by the date and sequence in the public filename, and party filings or research materials are labeled separately from court rulings.

Source 1 2002-04-03

Judgment Entered

Type: Decision or judgment

Judgment-entry minute entering or approving judgment for the association.

Download source file
2002-04-03_001_judgment-entered.pdf

FAQ

What did the superior court decide?

The court granted judgment for Tatum Highlands against the named defendants.

Is this superior-court ruling precedent?

No. It binds the parties in this case but is useful only as a public record of how this dispute was handled.

Does the page summarize addresses or unit numbers?

No. Residential addresses and unit identifiers from the minute entries are intentionally omitted.

Who was the association party?

The association party identified in the collected court records was Tatum Highlands Community Association.

Does this replace legal advice?

No. This is an educational case guide based on public minute entries, not legal advice.

Case Dossier

This dossier combines the case metadata, linked court sources, and the explanatory sections below. It distinguishes court rulings from party filings, allegations, and requested relief.

Case Summary

Case ID / citationCV2002-002028 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateApril 3, 2002
Judge / panelHon. Toby Maureen Gerst
PartiesTatum Highlands Community Association (Plaintiff) v. Michael R Burns (Defendant)
Topics
AssessmentsLiensProcedure
Outcome / holding

After a civil default hearing, the superior court granted judgment against Michael R. Burns, Sheri Sprague-Burns, and Midland Credit Management, Inc. in accordance with the formal written default judgment entered April 3, 2002.

Primary public sourceView hosted source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package1 PDF
Step-by-step docket roadmap1 roadmap entry
Video overviewTatum Highlands Community Association v. Michael R Burns
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

The court granted judgment against Michael R. Burns and related defendants for Tatum Highlands in a one-entry record.

Key Issues & Findings

The court granted judgment against Michael R. Burns and related defendants for Tatum Highlands in a one-entry record.

The collected entries do not include substantive analysis of assessment calculations, lien priority, or CC&R interpretation. The page therefore treats the ruling as a procedural judgment record only.

Why It Matters

This case is useful as a public record of an HOA judgment or foreclosure disposition, but the collected minute entries are too thin to serve as guidance on contested HOA law.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Suntrails III Homeowners Association v. John Ward: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on by

HOA Judgment | CV2021-094264

The court approved and settled the formal written judgment for Suntrails III.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Suntrails III Homeowners Association v. John Ward, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2021-094264.

Download ruling

Current-status note: Allegations, settlements, procedural dismissals, and notices are not findings of liability unless a cited court order expressly makes that finding.

Scope note: This page covers Suntrails III Homeowners Association v. John Ward (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2021-094264) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s collected minute entries through 2021-12-01; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: later filings, satisfaction history, appeals, and the formal written orders referenced by the minutes may not be included in these records. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The court approved and settled the formal written judgment for Suntrails III.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Suntrails III Homeowners Association (Plaintiff)
    Listed in the court party records as plaintiff. Court party records list counsel as Kristopher Amundsen.

Respondent Side

  • John Ward (Defendant)
    Opposing homeowner or property-side party identified in the case caption.

Neutral Parties

  • Hon. Rodrick Coffey (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.

What happened

The court approved and settled a formal written judgment for Suntrails III Homeowners Association after placing the case on a dismissal calendar unless judgment or dismissal papers were filed.

The minute entries identify the association and opposing property-side parties, then record the court’s disposition.

The collected record does not state a detailed legal analysis or full judgment terms, so this guide does not infer them.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Suntrails III Homeowners Association v. John Ward (CV2021-094264 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). Suntrails III obtained a formal judgment in a thin minute-entry record. This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own ruling controls.

Listen: audio deep dive on the ruling

An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the court’s reasoning and disposition in Suntrails III Homeowners Association v. John Ward. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

Audio overview generated with Google NotebookLM from the case’s court filings.

Procedural timeline

2021-09-22

IT IS ORDERED continuing the Telephonic Order to Show Cause Return Hearing to October 22, 2021 at 4:30 p.

Download source
Minute Entry
2021-10-22

IT IS ORDERED placing this case on the Court’s Dismissal calendar for dismissal, without further notice, on February 20, 2022.

Download source
Minute Entry
2021-12-01

IT IS ORDERED approving and settling the formal written judgment signed by the Court on November 29, 2021 and filed [entered] by the clerk on December 1, 2021.

Download source
Judgment Entered

View all 3 source documents for this case ↓

Complete source-document index

This index contains 3 PDFs from the reviewed public source packet. Byte-identical copies are listed once. Files are ordered by the date and sequence in the public filename, and party filings or research materials are labeled separately from court rulings.

Source 1 2021-09-22

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2021-09-22_001_minute-entry.pdf
Source 2 2021-10-22

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2021-10-22_002_minute-entry.pdf
Source 3 2021-12-01

Judgment Entered

Type: Decision or judgment

Judgment-entry minute entering or approving judgment for the association.

Download source file
2021-12-01_003_judgment-entered.pdf

FAQ

What did the superior court decide?

The court approved and settled the formal written judgment for Suntrails III.

Is this superior-court ruling precedent?

No. It binds the parties in this case but is useful only as a public record of how this dispute was handled.

Does the page summarize addresses or unit numbers?

No. Residential addresses and unit identifiers from the minute entries are intentionally omitted.

Who was the association party?

The association party identified in the collected court records was Suntrails III Homeowners Association.

Does this replace legal advice?

No. This is an educational case guide based on public minute entries, not legal advice.

Case Dossier

This dossier combines the case metadata, linked court sources, and the explanatory sections below. It distinguishes court rulings from party filings, allegations, and requested relief.

Case Summary

Case ID / citationCV2021-094264 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateDecember 1, 2021
Judge / panelHon. Rodrick Coffey
PartiesSuntrails III Homeowners Association (Plaintiff) v. John Ward (Defendant)
Topics
AssessmentsLiensProcedure
Outcome / holding

The superior court approved and settled the formal written judgment for Suntrails III Homeowners Association, signed November 29, 2021 and entered December 1, 2021. The minute entry contains no substantive analysis of the assessment, lien, or foreclosure merits.

Primary public sourceView hosted source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package3 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap3 roadmap entries
Video overviewSuntrails III Homeowners Association v. John Ward
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

The court approved and settled a formal written judgment for Suntrails III Homeowners Association after placing the case on a dismissal calendar unless judgment or dismissal papers were filed.

Key Issues & Findings

The court approved and settled a formal written judgment for Suntrails III Homeowners Association after placing the case on a dismissal calendar unless judgment or dismissal papers were filed.

The collected entries do not include substantive analysis of assessment calculations, lien priority, or CC&R interpretation. The page therefore treats the ruling as a procedural judgment record only.

Why It Matters

This case is useful as a public record of an HOA judgment or foreclosure disposition, but the collected minute entries are too thin to serve as guidance on contested HOA law.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Summer Place Terrace Homeowners Association v. Sundance Unlimited: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on by

HOA Judgment | CV2005-091216

The court granted judgment for Summer Place Terrace Homeowners Association.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Summer Place Terrace Homeowners Association v. Sundance Unlimited, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2005-091216.

Download ruling

Scope note: This page covers Summer Place Terrace Homeowners Association v. Sundance Unlimited (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2005-091216) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s collected minute entries through 2005-10-25; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: later filings, satisfaction history, appeals, and the formal written orders referenced by the minutes may not be included in these records. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The court granted judgment for Summer Place Terrace Homeowners Association.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Summer Place Terrace Homeowners Association (Plaintiff)
    Association party in the HOA-related dispute. Court party records list counsel as Taz Evans.

Respondent Side

  • Pacific Scene Incorporated (Defendant)
    Listed in the court party records as defendant.
  • Silvergate Corporation (Defendant)
    Listed in the court party records as defendant.
  • Sundance Unlimited (Defendant)
    Opposing homeowner or property-side party identified in the case caption.

Neutral Parties

  • Hon. Maricopa County Superior Court (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.

What happened

The court granted judgment in favor of Summer Place Terrace Homeowners Association against Sundance Unlimited, Silvergate Corporation, and/or Pacific Scene Corporation.

The minute entries identify the association and opposing property-side parties, then record the court’s disposition.

The collected record does not state a detailed legal analysis or full judgment terms, so this guide does not infer them.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Summer Place Terrace Homeowners Association v. Sundance Unlimited (CV2005-091216 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). Summer Place Terrace obtained judgment against corporate defendants in a thin record. This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own ruling controls.

Listen: audio deep dive on the ruling

An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the court’s reasoning and disposition in Summer Place Terrace Homeowners Association v. Sundance Unlimited. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

Audio overview generated with Google NotebookLM from the case’s court filings.

Procedural timeline

2005-10-25

IT IS ORDERED granting the judgment in favor of Summer Place Terrace Homeowners Association and against Sundance Unlimited, Silvergate Corporation and/or Pacific Scene Corporation.

Download source
Default Judgment

View all 1 source document for this case ↓

Complete source-document index

This index contains 1 PDF from the reviewed public source packet. Byte-identical copies are listed once. Files are ordered by the date and sequence in the public filename, and party filings or research materials are labeled separately from court rulings.

Source 1 2005-10-25

Default Judgment

Type: Decision or judgment

Judgment-entry minute entering or approving judgment for the association.

Download source file
2005-10-25_001_default-judgment.pdf

FAQ

What did the superior court decide?

The court granted judgment for Summer Place Terrace Homeowners Association.

Is this superior-court ruling precedent?

No. It binds the parties in this case but is useful only as a public record of how this dispute was handled.

Does the page summarize addresses or unit numbers?

No. Residential addresses and unit identifiers from the minute entries are intentionally omitted.

Who was the association party?

The association party identified in the collected court records was Summer Place Terrace Homeowners Association.

Does this replace legal advice?

No. This is an educational case guide based on public minute entries, not legal advice.

Case Dossier

This dossier combines the case metadata, linked court sources, and the explanatory sections below. It distinguishes court rulings from party filings, allegations, and requested relief.

Case Summary

Case ID / citationCV2005-091216 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateOctober 25, 2005
Judge / panelHon. Maricopa County Superior Court
PartiesSummer Place Terrace Homeowners Association (Plaintiff) v. Sundance Unlimited (Defendant)
Topics
Quiet TitleProcedure
Outcome / holding

The court granted a default judgment quieting title for Summer Place Terrace Homeowners Association.

Primary public sourceView hosted source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package1 PDF
Step-by-step docket roadmap1 roadmap entry
Video overviewSummer Place Terrace Homeowners Association v. Sundance Unlimited
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

The court entered a default judgment quieting title in favor of Summer Place Terrace Homeowners Association against Sundance Unlimited, Silvergate Corporation, and/or Pacific Scene Corporation.

Key Issues & Findings

The court entered a default judgment quieting title in favor of Summer Place Terrace Homeowners Association against Sundance Unlimited, Silvergate Corporation, and/or Pacific Scene Corporation.

This was a quiet title action resolved by default, not an assessment or lien dispute; the collected entries do not include contested substantive analysis, so the page treats the ruling as a procedural quiet-title judgment record only.

Why It Matters

This case is useful as a public record of an HOA quiet-title default judgment, but the collected minute entries are too thin to serve as guidance on contested HOA law.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Russell Ranch Homeowners Association v. Gregory T Heard: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on by

HOA Foreclosure Judgment | CV2025-010660

The court approved the formal foreclosure judgment and order of sale for Russell Ranch.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Russell Ranch Homeowners Association v. Gregory T Heard, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2025-010660.

Download ruling

Scope note: This page covers Russell Ranch Homeowners Association v. Gregory T Heard (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2025-010660) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s collected minute entries through 2025-08-19; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: later filings, satisfaction history, appeals, and the formal written orders referenced by the minutes may not be included in these records. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The court approved the formal foreclosure judgment and order of sale for Russell Ranch.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Russell Ranch Homeowners Association (Plaintiff)
    Association party in the HOA-related dispute. Court party records list counsel as Charlene Cruz.

Respondent Side

  • Gregory T Heard (Defendant)
    Opposing homeowner or property-side party identified in the case caption.

Neutral Parties

  • Hon. Christopher Whitten (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.
  • Hon. Jason Easterday (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.

What happened

The court approved and settled a formal written Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure and Order of Sale for Russell Ranch Homeowners Association.

The minute entries identify the association and opposing property-side parties, then record the court’s disposition.

The collected record does not state a detailed legal analysis or full judgment terms, so this guide does not infer them.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Russell Ranch Homeowners Association v. Gregory T Heard (CV2025-010660 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). Russell Ranch obtained a foreclosure judgment and order of sale after default proceedings. This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own ruling controls.

Listen: audio deep dive on the ruling

An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the court’s reasoning and disposition in Russell Ranch Homeowners Association v. Gregory T Heard. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

Audio overview generated with Google NotebookLM from the case’s court filings.

Procedural timeline

2025-05-19

IT IS ORDERED that no action will be taken by this division on the above-referenced document(s).

Download source
Default Judgment
2025-08-12

IT IS ORDERED that Counsel for Plaintiff to submit a proposed form of order no later than August 15, 2025.

Download source
Default Judgment
2025-08-19

IT IS ORDERED approving and settling the formal written Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure and Order of Sale signed by the Court on August 14, 2025 and filed (entered) by the Clerk on August 19, 2025.

Download source
Judgment Entered

View all 3 source documents for this case ↓

Complete source-document index

This index contains 3 PDFs from the reviewed public source packet. Byte-identical copies are listed once. Files are ordered by the date and sequence in the public filename, and party filings or research materials are labeled separately from court rulings.

Source 1 2025-05-19

Default Judgment

Type: Decision or judgment

Shows the filer trying to move the case forward because the opposing party had not timely appeared.

Download source file
2025-05-19_001_default-judgment.pdf
Source 2 2025-08-12

Default Judgment

Type: Decision or judgment

Shows the filer trying to move the case forward because the opposing party had not timely appeared.

Download source file
2025-08-12_002_default-judgment.pdf
Source 3 2025-08-19

Judgment Entered

Type: Decision or judgment

Judgment-entry minute entering or approving the formal written Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure and Order of Sale.

Download source file
2025-08-19_003_judgment-entered.pdf

FAQ

What did the superior court decide?

The court approved the formal foreclosure judgment and order of sale for Russell Ranch.

Is this superior-court ruling precedent?

No. It binds the parties in this case but is useful only as a public record of how this dispute was handled.

Does the page summarize addresses or unit numbers?

No. Residential addresses and unit identifiers from the minute entries are intentionally omitted.

Who was the association party?

The association party identified in the collected court records was Russell Ranch Homeowners Association.

Does this replace legal advice?

No. This is an educational case guide based on public minute entries, not legal advice.

Case Dossier

This dossier combines the case metadata, linked court sources, and the explanatory sections below. It distinguishes court rulings from party filings, allegations, and requested relief.

Case Summary

Case ID / citationCV2025-010660 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateAugust 19, 2025
Judge / panelHon. Christopher Whitten, Hon. Jason Easterday
PartiesRussell Ranch Homeowners Association (Plaintiff) v. Gregory T Heard (Defendant)
Topics
AssessmentsLiensProcedureForeclosure
Outcome / holding

The court approved the formal foreclosure judgment and order of sale for Russell Ranch.

Primary public sourceView hosted source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package3 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap3 roadmap entries
Video overviewRussell Ranch Homeowners Association v. Gregory T Heard
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

The court approved and settled a formal written Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure and Order of Sale for Russell Ranch Homeowners Association.

Key Issues & Findings

The court approved and settled a formal written Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure and Order of Sale for Russell Ranch Homeowners Association.

The collected entries do not include substantive analysis of assessment calculations, lien priority, or CC&R interpretation. The page therefore treats the ruling as a procedural judgment record only.

Why It Matters

This case is useful as a public record of an HOA judgment or foreclosure disposition, but the collected minute entries are too thin to serve as guidance on contested HOA law.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Hilton Casitas Council Of Co-owners v. R L Whitmer: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on by

Receivership & Post-Judgment Motions | CV2015-053091

The collected entries show dismissal of a Hilton Casitas receivership case and later denial of Rule 60 efforts to unwind judgments.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Hilton Casitas Council Of Co-owners v. R L Whitmer, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2015-053091.

Download ruling

Current-status note: This page is published as a litigation record based on the source files available through 2026-03-30. Later filings, appeals, mandates, settlements, or dismissal orders may change the posture; the linked court records control.

Pipeline note: the public raw-source folder contains source files that were not in the last staged NotebookLM source set. The page remains a source-linked record, but generated media should be rebuilt or rechecked after the staged source manifest catches up.

Allegations, settlements, procedural dismissals, and notices are not findings of liability unless a cited court order expressly makes that finding.

Video/audio is held from this page until a fresh media package is generated from the approved source record.

Scope note: This page covers Hilton Casitas Council Of Co-owners v. R L Whitmer (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2015-053091) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s collected minute entries through 2026-03-30; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: later filings, satisfaction history, appeals, and the formal written orders referenced by the minutes may not be included in these records. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The sourced record is procedural: dismissal and post-judgment denial, not a detailed interpretation of HOA governing documents.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Procaccianti Az Ii, L P (Intervenor)
    Listed in the court party records as intervenor. Court party records list counsel as Dina Aouad.
  • Colleen London (Plaintiff)
    Listed in the court party records as plaintiff. Court party records list counsel as Ross Meyer.
  • Diana R Shaffer (Plaintiff)
    Listed in the court party records as plaintiff. Court party records list counsel as Robert Porter.
  • R L Whitmer (Plaintiff)
    Opposing homeowner or property-side party identified in the case caption. Court party records list counsel as Ross Meyer.

Respondent Side

  • Zadok Eli (Consolidated)
    Listed in the court party records as consolidated.
  • Hilton Casitas Council Of Co-owners (Defendant)
    Association party in the HOA-related dispute.
  • Hilton Casitas Council Of Homeowners (Defendant)
    Listed in the court party records as defendant. Court party records list counsel as R Hill.
  • City Of Scottsdale (Garnishee Defendant)
    Listed in the court party records as garnishee defendant.
  • Jpmorgan Chase Bank N A (Garnishee Defendant)
    Listed in the court party records as garnishee defendant.

Neutral Parties

  • Hon. Susan M. Brnovich (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.
  • Hon. John R. Hannah Jr (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.
  • Hon. Theodore Campagnolo (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.
  • Hon. Melissa Iyer Julian (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.

What happened

The case involved a request for receivership relief against Hilton Casitas and related defendants.

After oral argument in January 2016, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, denied the request for an evidentiary hearing, and found in favor of the defendants on the receivership application.

The post-judgment docket later became part of consolidated Rule 60 proceedings. In August 2019, the court denied Rule 60(d)(3) and Rule 60(b)(6) relief, denied motions to vacate judgments, and found attorneys’ fees under A.R.S. § 12-349 appropriate.

Later entries reflect additional post-judgment requests and record-correction issues, but the collected minutes do not supply a fresh merits ruling on association governance.

Procedural timeline

2015-09-09

IT IS ORDERED granting Intervenor Procaccianti AZ II, L.

Download source
Ruling
2015-09-28

IT IS ORDERED granting the Motion to Intervene.

Download source
Minute Entry
2015-10-05

IT IS ORDERED Procaccianti AZ II, L.

Download source
Minute Entry
2016-01-12

IT IS ORDERED setting Oral Argument on Plaintiff’s Request for Evidentiary Hearing on Receivership Application and Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on January 15, 2016 at 1:30 p.

Download source
Oral Argument Set
2016-01-15

IT IS ORDERED the motion for new trial is denied.

Download source
Oral Argument
2016-07-25

IT IS ORDERED Plaintiffs' Motion to Vacate Judgment is denied.

Download source
Minute Entry
2016-12-05

the Court finds that they are not entitled to such an order so long as the amount of the bond remains at issue.

Download source
Minute Entry
2019-06-10

IT IS ORDERED granting the Motion, all in accordance with the formal written Order Discharging Garnishee (Non-Earnings) signed by the court on June 7, 2019 and entered (filed) by the clerk on June 10, 2019.

Download source
Minute Entry
2019-06-13

IT IS ORDERED denying the Motion to Consolidate Cases, without prejudice to Plaintiff re-filing a motion to consolidate that contains sufficient bases for the Court to determine if consolidation is appropriate.

Download source
Minute Entry
2019-07-17

IT IS ORDERED setting a telephonic Scheduling Conference for the purpose of setting briefing deadlines and an oral argument date regarding Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b)(6) and (d)(3) Motions to Vacate Judgment and Request for a New Trial on August 7, 2019 at 10:45 a.

Download source
Oral Argument
2019-08-07

IT IS ORDERED setting Oral Argument on Plaintiffs’ Rule 60 (b)(6) and (d)(3) Motions to Vacate Judgment and Request for New Trial on August 22, 2019 at 10:00 a.

Download source
Oral Argument

View all 26 source documents for this case ↓

Complete source-document index

This index contains 26 PDFs from the reviewed public source packet. Byte-identical copies are listed once. Files are ordered by the date and sequence in the public filename, and party filings or research materials are labeled separately from court rulings.

Source 1 2015-09-09

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2015-09-09_001_ruling.pdf
Source 2 2015-09-28

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2015-09-28_002_minute-entry.pdf
Source 3 2015-10-05

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2015-10-05_003_minute-entry.pdf
Source 4 2016-01-12

Oral Argument Set

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2016-01-12_004_oral-argument-set.pdf
Source 5 2016-01-15

Oral Argument

Type: Court/source PDF

Minute entry granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss, denying a receivership evidentiary hearing, and finding for Hilton Casitas and Procaccianti on the receivership application.

Download source file
2016-01-15_005_oral-argument.pdf
Source 6 2016-06-06

Oral Argument

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2016-06-06_006_oral-argument.pdf
Source 7 2016-07-25

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2016-07-25_007_minute-entry.pdf
Source 8 2016-12-05

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2016-12-05_008_minute-entry.pdf
Source 9 2019-06-10

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2019-06-10_009_minute-entry.pdf
Source 10 2019-06-13

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2019-06-13_010_minute-entry.pdf
Source 11 2019-07-17

Oral Argument

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2019-07-17_011_oral-argument.pdf
Source 12 2019-08-07

Oral Argument

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2019-08-07_012_oral-argument.pdf
Source 13 2019-08-22

Oral Argument

Type: Court/source PDF

Minute entry denying Rule 60(d)(3) and Rule 60(b)(6) relief and finding attorneys’ fees under A.R.S. § 12-349 appropriate.

Download source file
2019-08-22_013_oral-argument.pdf
Source 14 2022-08-17

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2022-08-17_014_minute-entry.pdf
Source 15 2022-08-17

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2022-08-17_015_minute-entry.pdf
Source 16 2023-01-25

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2023-01-25_016_minute-entry.pdf
Source 17 2023-02-03

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2023-02-03_017_minute-entry.pdf
Source 18 2023-05-11

Oral Argument

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2023-05-11_018_oral-argument.pdf
Source 19 2023-08-07

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2023-08-07_019_minute-entry.pdf
Source 20 2023-10-11

Oral Argument

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2023-10-11_020_oral-argument.pdf
Source 21 2023-10-11

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2023-10-11_021_minute-entry.pdf
Source 22 2023-10-20

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2023-10-20_022_minute-entry.pdf
Source 23 2024-01-04

Status Conference

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2024-01-04_023_status-conference.pdf
Source 24 2024-06-03

Status Conference

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2024-06-03_024_status-conference.pdf
Source 25 2026-01-26

Oral Argument

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2026-01-26_025_oral-argument.pdf
Source 26 2026-03-30

Oral Argument

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2026-03-30_026_oral-argument.pdf

FAQ

What did the superior court decide?

It dismissed the receivership case and later denied Rule 60 relief.

Is this superior-court ruling precedent?

No. It binds the parties in this case but is useful only as a public record of how this dispute was handled.

Does the page summarize addresses or unit numbers?

No. Residential addresses and unit identifiers from the minute entries are intentionally omitted.

Who was the association party?

The association party identified in the collected court records was Hilton Casitas Council Of Co-owners.

Does this replace legal advice?

No. This is an educational case guide based on public minute entries, not legal advice.

Case Dossier

This dossier combines the case metadata, linked court sources, and the explanatory sections below. It distinguishes court rulings from party filings, allegations, and requested relief.

Case Summary

Case ID / citationCV2015-053091 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateJanuary 15, 2016
Judge / panelHon. Melissa Iyer Julian, Hon. John R. Hannah Jr, Hon. Theodore Campagnolo, Hon. Susan M. Brnovich
PartiesR.L. Whitmer and other plaintiffs v. Hilton Casitas Council of Co-Owners and other defendants
Governing law
  • A.R.S. § 12-349
Topics
ProcedureAttorney FeesBoard Governance
Outcome / holding

The court dismissed the receivership case, denied the receivership hearing request, denied later Rule 60 efforts to vacate judgments, and awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees rather than double damages or other sanctions.

Primary public sourceView hosted source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package26 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap12 roadmap entries
Video overviewTemporarily unavailable while the expanded case record is reviewed
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, denied an evidentiary hearing on a receivership application, and found in favor of Procaccianti and Hilton Casitas on the receivership application. Later, in consolidated post-judgment proceedings, the court denied Rule 60 relief and found an award of attorneys’ fees under A.R.S. § 12-349 appropriate.

Key Issues & Findings

The January 2016 minute entry records oral argument on the defendants’ motion to dismiss and the plaintiffs’ request for an evidentiary hearing on a receivership application. The court granted dismissal, denied the hearing request, and found in favor of the defendants on the receivership application.

The later post-judgment record shows repeated attempts to vacate judgments across related cases. In August 2019, after consolidated briefing and argument, the court denied Rule 60(d)(3) and Rule 60(b)(6) relief, denied the motion to vacate judgments and request to vacate trial, and found attorneys’ fees under A.R.S. § 12-349 appropriate.

Later entries continued to reject attempts to reopen or expand post-judgment proceedings. The collected entries do not provide a full merits explanation for the original dismissal ruling.

Why It Matters

This is a standard procedural record of an HOA-adjacent receivership and post-judgment attack. It is useful for tracking litigation history, but not a must-read HOA merits ruling because the core dismissal reasoning is mostly on the oral record rather than in the minute text.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Paloma Paseo Homeowners Association v. David Falk: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on by

HOA Fees on Appeal | A.R.S. § 33-1807(H) | LC2018-000421

The superior court vacated a later fee award to Paloma Paseo because the association did not timely include or amend those fees into the final judgment.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Paloma Paseo Homeowners Association v. David Falk, Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2018-000421.

Download ruling

Current-status note: This page is published as a litigation record based on the source files available through 2019-01-14. Later filings, appeals, mandates, settlements, or dismissal orders may change the posture; the linked court records control.

Scope note: This page covers Paloma Paseo Homeowners Association v. David Falk (Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2018-000421) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s collected minute entries through 2019-01-14; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: later filings, satisfaction history, appeals, and the formal written orders referenced by the minutes may not be included in these records. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

HOA fee entitlement does not eliminate judgment-timing rules. A later fee application after final judgment can be waived or unsupported if the judgment did not reserve or include the amounts.

Case Participants

Respondent Side

  • David Falk (DEFT/Appellant)
    Opposing homeowner or property-side party identified in the case caption. Court party records list counsel as Gary Henman.
  • Melody Falk (DEFT/Appellant)
    Listed in the court party records as deft/appellant. Court party records list counsel as Gary Henman.
  • Mcdowell Mountain Justice Court (Originating Court)
    Listed in the court party records as originating court.
  • Paloma Paseo Homeowners Association (PLF/Appellee)
    Association party in the HOA-related dispute. Court party records list counsel as Rodrigo Sauaia.

Neutral Parties

  • Hon. Patricia Ann Starr (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.
  • Hon. Patricia Starr For (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.
  • Hon. Patricia A. Starr (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.

What happened

Paloma Paseo sued the Falks in justice court for assessments and related collection amounts. The parties stipulated to principal, and the trial court entered judgment for attorneys’ fees and costs in January 2018.

Months later, the association filed another fee application. The Falks responded, but the trial court treated the response as moot and awarded additional fees and costs.

On record appeal, the superior court held the association waived additional pre-judgment fees by not including them before judgment and had no basis for post-judgment fees through a later order where the judgment did not reserve them.

The superior court vacated the justice-court award and remanded for further proceedings, while declining to sanction the association.

Video overview of the case record

An AI-generated video overview of Paloma Paseo Homeowners Association v. David Falk (LC2018-000421 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). A justice-court post-judgment fee award to an HOA was vacated as untimely after final judgment. This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own ruling controls.

Listen: audio deep dive on the case record

An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the court record and procedural posture in Paloma Paseo Homeowners Association v. David Falk. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked case records below.

Audio overview generated with Google NotebookLM from the case’s court filings.

Procedural timeline

2018-11-19

IT IS ORDERED assigning this appeal on November 19, 2018 to Hon.

Download source
Oral Argument
2019-01-14

The Court finds that by failing to include those amounts, the Association waived its ability to recover them in the judgment.

Download source
Ruling

View all 2 source documents for this case ↓

Complete source-document index

This index contains 2 PDFs from the reviewed public source packet. Byte-identical copies are listed once. Files are ordered by the date and sequence in the public filename, and party filings or research materials are labeled separately from court rulings.

Source 1 2018-11-19

Oral Argument

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2018-11-19_001_oral-argument.pdf
Source 2 2019-01-14

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

Record-appeal ruling vacating the justice-court post-judgment fee award to Paloma Paseo and remanding.

Download source file
2019-01-14_002_ruling.pdf

FAQ

What did the superior court decide?

It vacated the additional post-judgment fee-and-cost award and remanded.

Is this superior-court ruling precedent?

No. It binds the parties in this case but is useful only as a public record of how this dispute was handled.

Does the page summarize addresses or unit numbers?

No. Residential addresses and unit identifiers from the minute entries are intentionally omitted.

Who was the association party?

The association party identified in the collected court records was Paloma Paseo Homeowners Association.

Does this replace legal advice?

No. This is an educational case guide based on public minute entries, not legal advice.

Case Dossier

This dossier combines the case metadata, linked court sources, and the explanatory sections below. It distinguishes court rulings from party filings, allegations, and requested relief.

Case Summary

Case ID / citationLC2018-000421 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateJanuary 14, 2019
Judge / panelHon. Patricia Ann Starr, Hon. Patricia Starr For, Hon. Patricia A. Starr
PartiesDavid Falk and Melody Falk (Appellants) v. Paloma Paseo Homeowners Association (Appellee)
Governing law
Topics
Attorney FeesAssessmentsProcedureLiens
Outcome / holding

The superior court vacated the justice-court fee-and-cost award entered five months after final judgment and remanded, while declining sanctions against the association.

Primary public sourceView hosted source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package2 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap2 roadmap entries
Video overviewPaloma Paseo Homeowners Association v. David Falk
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

On appeal from justice court, the superior court vacated a post-judgment attorneys’ fee and cost award to Paloma Paseo. It held the association waived additional pre-judgment fees by not including them before judgment and had no basis for later post-judgment fees where the final judgment did not reserve them, despite the HOA provisions and A.R.S. § 33-1807(H).

Key Issues & Findings

The superior court applied the justice-court fee timing rule and found the association filed its second fee application months after judgment. Because the association could have included all pre-judgment fees before the January 2018 judgment but did not, it waived those amounts.

The court also found the trial court erred by treating the homeowners’ timely opposition as moot. The opposition was not moot as to the new fee application filed months later.

For post-judgment fees, the court acknowledged the association’s reliance on HOA provisions and A.R.S. § 33-1807(H), but held those provisions supported fees for the prevailing party in a judgment and the association had already received such an award in the judgment. Because the later award was by order after final judgment and the association had not timely amended the judgment, there was no basis for it.

Why It Matters

This is must-read for HOA collection fee practice because it vacates a later fee award and explains that an association must timely include fee claims in the judgment or amend the judgment, rather than seeking a new order months later.

← Back to Superior Court cases