Category Archives: Superior Court

Trial-level Arizona Superior Court rulings

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Scope note: This page provides an educational summary of the superior court’s nonprecedential decision in Maricopa County Superior Court case CV2018-014261.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

Step 2013-08-01 Jason and Melissa Komorowski purchase Lot 52 in the Whisper Mountain subdivision.
Step 2014-09-01 A major storm causes runoff to flood the subdivision and the Komorowskis' property.
Step 2015-02-01 Homeowners take control of Whisper Mountain HOA from the developer.
Step 2016-10-01 The HOA settles defect litigation with developer VIP Construction, assuming drainage maintenance duties.
Step 2017-07-24 A storm washes mountain sediment into the drainage ditch, flooding the Komorowskis' backyard.
Step 2018-08-09 A second severe flood event occurs on Lot 52 due to a sediment dam in the unlined ditch.
Step 2018-11-01 The Komorowskis file their lawsuit against the HOA for breach of contract and equitable relief.
Step 2020-10-26 Contractor Tennyson Construction completes drainage improvements under the Deatherage Plan.
Step 2020-11-05 A four-day bench trial begins before Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Joseph P. Mikitish.
Step 2020-12-09 Trial concludes with closing arguments, and the case is taken under advisement.
Step 2021-03-08 Judge Mikitish issues findings of fact and conclusions of law, awarding $17,800.01 and a permanent injunction.
Step 2021-06-16 The court signs and files the formal written judgment against Whisper Mountain HOA, resolving the 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 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

Step 2019-07-17 The case and application for preliminary injunction were filed in Maricopa County Superior Court.
Step 2019-09-24 The court preliminarily enjoined enforcement of Section 2, the new 30-day minimum rental term.
Step 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.
Step 2020-11-25 The court awarded the owners $25,000 in attorneys' fees and $386.30 in costs and resolved the form of judgment.
Step 2021-02-08 The court modified the judgment to state that no matters remained pending and entered final judgment under Rule 54(c).
Step 2021-03-19 The association recorded a declaration that removed Sections 2 and 15, as later described in the compliance order.
Step 2021-05-12 The court found the association had complied, denied the motion to enforce, and left the restored-original-language issue undecided.

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 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

Step 2005-01-05 IT IS ORDERED setting oral argument on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment for 02/11/2005 at 8:30 a.
Step 2005-03-10 IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

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 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

Step 2002-04-03 IT IS ORDERED granting judgment against Defendants Michael R.

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 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

Step 2021-09-22 IT IS ORDERED continuing the Telephonic Order to Show Cause Return Hearing to October 22, 2021 at 4:30 p.
Step 2021-10-22 IT IS ORDERED placing this case on the Court’s Dismissal calendar for dismissal, without further notice, on February 20, 2022.
Step 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.

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 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

Step 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.

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 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

Step 2025-05-19 IT IS ORDERED that no action will be taken by this division on the above-referenced document(s).
Step 2025-08-12 IT IS ORDERED that Counsel for Plaintiff to submit a proposed form of order no later than August 15, 2025.
Step 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.

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 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

Step 2015-09-09 IT IS ORDERED granting Intervenor Procaccianti AZ II, L.
Step 2015-09-28 IT IS ORDERED granting the Motion to Intervene.
Step 2015-10-05 IT IS ORDERED Procaccianti AZ II, L.
Step 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.
Step 2016-01-15 IT IS ORDERED the motion for new trial is denied.
Step 2016-06-06 Minute entry filed.
Step 2016-07-25 IT IS ORDERED Plaintiffs' Motion to Vacate Judgment is denied.
Step 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.
Step 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.
Step 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.
Step 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.
Step 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.

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 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

Step 2018-11-19 IT IS ORDERED assigning this appeal on November 19, 2018 to Hon.
Step 2019-01-14 The Court finds that by failing to include those amounts, the Association waived its ability to recover them in the judgment.

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 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

Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association v. John Dickerson: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on by

Architectural Enforcement & Fees | CV2005-012018

Mountain Vista Ranch received a small judgment, but the court denied attorney fees after the garage repair was completed before service.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association v. John Dickerson, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2005-012018.

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 Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association v. John Dickerson (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2005-012018) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s collected minute entries through 2006-06-08; 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

Winning a small enforcement balance does not guarantee attorney fees; the court treated fees as discretionary and focused on the fact that the core repair issue was already resolved.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association (Plaintiff)
    Association party in the HOA-related dispute. Court party records list counsel as J Wood.

Respondent Side

  • Holly Dickerson (Defendant)
    Listed in the court party records as defendant.
  • John Dickerson (Defendant)
    Opposing homeowner or property-side party identified in the case caption.

Neutral Parties

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

What happened

Mountain Vista Ranch sued over a garage-repair dispute and related charges. The first collected ruling said the garage had been fixed before service of the lawsuit and that the only apparent remaining issue was attorney fees.

The court declined sanctions and later considered the association’s motion for reconsideration and clarification.

On June 8, 2006, the court denied attorney fees as a discretionary matter. It explained that the main thrust of the case had been accomplished before service and that the owners admitted the late-fee, fine, and NSF obligations.

The court entered judgment for $454.00, with interest, and signed the minute entry as a formal order.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association v. John Dickerson (CV2005-012018 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). The court entered $454 for late fees, fines, and NSF charges but denied association attorney fees. 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 Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association v. John Dickerson. 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

Step 2006-03-17 IT IS ORDERED placing this matter on the Inactive Calendar for dismissal on April 17, 2006 without further notice, unless prior thereto a stipulation to dismiss is received.
Step 2006-04-21 Minute entry filed.
Step 2006-04-24 IT IS ORDERED dismissing this cause without prejudice.
Step 2006-05-15 Minute entry filed.
Step 2006-06-08 IT IS ORDERED GRANTING Plaintiff judgment against John Dickerson and Holly Dickerson, husband and wife, in the sum of $454.

Complete source-document index

This index contains 5 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 2006-03-17

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

Ruling placing the case on the inactive calendar after finding the garage was fixed before service and declining sanctions.

Download source file
2006-03-17_001_ruling.pdf
Source 2 2006-04-21

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2006-04-21_002_ruling.pdf
Source 3 2006-04-24

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
2006-04-24_003_minute-entry.pdf
Source 4 2006-05-15

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
2006-05-15_004_minute-entry.pdf
Source 5 2006-06-08

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

Ruling entering $454.00 judgment for Mountain Vista Ranch while denying attorney fees as discretionary.

Download source file
2006-06-08_005_ruling.pdf

FAQ

What did the superior court decide?

It entered a $454.00 judgment for charges but denied the association’s attorney-fee request.

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 Mountain Vista Ranch Owners 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 / citationCV2005-012018 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateJune 8, 2006
Judge / panelHon. Barry
PartiesMountain Vista Ranch Owners Association (Plaintiff) v. John and Holly Dickerson (Defendants)
Topics
Architectural ReviewFinesAttorney FeesProcedure
Outcome / holding

The court granted Mountain Vista Ranch judgment for $454.00 but denied attorney fees because the main repair issue had been resolved before service and the owners did not dispute the late-fee, fine, and NSF obligations.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package5 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap5 roadmap entries
Video overviewMountain Vista Ranch Owners Association v. John Dickerson
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

In a garage-repair enforcement case, the court found the garage was fixed before service and declined sanctions and attorney fees. On reconsideration, it entered judgment for $454.00 in late fees, fines, and NSF charges with interest, while explaining that fees were discretionary and not appropriate on this record.

Key Issues & Findings

The first collected ruling stated that the only remaining issue appeared to be attorney fees and that the garage had been fixed before service of the lawsuit. The court declined sanctions and placed the case on the inactive calendar.

On reconsideration and clarification, the court explained that attorney-fee awards were discretionary. It found denial appropriate because the main thrust of the lawsuit, repair of the garage, had been accomplished before service, and the owners admitted the late-fee, fine, and NSF obligations.

The court calculated $24.00 in late fees, $405.00 in fines, and $25.00 in NSF charges, totaling $454.00, and signed the minute entry as a formal order.

Why It Matters

This is a useful but nonprecedential reminder that even when an association wins a small enforcement judgment, the court may still deny attorney fees as a matter of discretion when the core violation was fixed before service.

← Back to Superior Court cases