Category Archives: Superior Court

Trial-level Arizona Superior Court rulings

Desert Crown III HOA v. Gupta: Summary Judgment Reversed on Unproven Ledger (LC2022-000227)

Posted on by

Assessment Proof | Summary Judgment Burden | LC2022-000227

When Desert Crown III HOA sued a homeowner relying on an unexplained ledger and a conclusory manager affidavit, Judge Daniel J. Kiley reversed summary judgment, holding that under Wells Fargo v. Allen, courts cannot blindly defer to an association’s avowal of debt.

Last updated September 17, 2026. Case: Desert Crown III Homeowners Association v. Debabrata Gupta, Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2022-000227 (minute entries use LC2022-000227-001 DT); originating McDowell Mountain Justice Court No. CC2021-124323; Hon. Daniel J. Kiley.

Download record appeal ruling reversing summary judgment Download September 28 minute entry (no action on post-remand filing) Source-file index FAQ

Scope note: This page covers Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2022-000227, an appeal from McDowell Mountain Justice Court. Desert Crown III Homeowners Association sued homeowner Debabrata Gupta for delinquent assessments and charges, securing summary judgment based on an unexplained accounting ledger and a boilerplate property manager declaration. On pro se appeal, Superior Court Judge Daniel J. Kiley reversed the judgment under Wells Fargo v. Allen and Schwab v. Ames Construction, holding that the association’s failure to produce the underlying documents establishing debt meant the owner was not even required to controvert the motion. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

Reversed and remanded. An HOA moving for summary judgment cannot establish a prima facie entitlement to judgment merely by submitting an unexplained ledger and a conclusory property-manager affidavit asserting review of unidentified records; the court cannot blindly accept an avowal of debt. Because the association failed to make its prima facie showing, the homeowner was not required to controvert the motion under Schwab v. Ames Construction.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Desert Crown III Homeowners Association (Plaintiff/Appellee)
    Arizona nonprofit corporation
    HOA plaintiff that filed collection lawsuit in McDowell Mountain Justice Court; summary judgment reversed on appeal.
  • Emily Elizabeth Cooper (Counsel)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
    Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee Desert Crown III Homeowners Association.

Respondent Side

  • Debabrata Gupta (Defendant/Appellant)
    Scottsdale homeowner; self-represented pro se on appeal; successfully obtained reversal of summary judgment.

Neutral Parties

  • Hon. Daniel J. Kiley (Judge)
    Maricopa County Superior Court
    Superior Court Judge who authored the 8-page reversal ruling applying Wells Fargo v. Allen and Schwab v. Ames.
  • McDowell Mountain Justice Court (Originating Court)
    Trial court (Case No. CC2021-124323) whose summary judgment order was reversed.

What happened

Desert Crown III Homeowners Association, through counsel Emily Elizabeth Cooper of Carpenter Hazlewood, initiated a civil debt collection action in McDowell Mountain Justice Court (Case No. CC2021-124323) against homeowner Debabrata Gupta, seeking $4,204.50 in alleged unpaid assessments, late fees, and collection charges.

The association moved for summary judgment, submitting an account ledger and an affidavit from property manager Thomas asserting in generic terms that Gupta breached his obligations under the declaration and was indebted to the association in the principal amount of $4,204.50.

The McDowell Mountain Justice Court granted the association’s motion for summary judgment and entered a monetary judgment against Gupta on March 30, 2022. Gupta timely filed a notice of appeal to Maricopa County Superior Court.

On appeal, Superior Court Judge Daniel J. Kiley evaluated the record de novo. On September 14, 2022, Judge Kiley issued an 8-page decision reversing the justice court judgment in its entirety. Judge Kiley held that under Wells Fargo v. Allen, the association’s unauthenticated ledger and conclusory affidavit were legally insufficient to establish a prima facie case, meaning Gupta was not required to controvert the motion under Schwab v. Ames. The reversal and remand were ordered in the September 14, 2022 ruling, which the court designated a final order. On September 28, 2022, the court issued a brief minute entry declining to act on Gupta’s untitled September 27 filing, noting the appeal had already been decided and remanded.

Video overview of the case record

An AI-generated video overview of Desert Crown III Homeowners Association v. Debabrata Gupta (Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2022-000227). Reversed. Boilerplate manager affidavits and unauthenticated ledgers fail to prove HOA debt under Wells Fargo v. Allen. 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 Desert Crown III Homeowners Association v. Debabrata Gupta. 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

2021-08-15

Desert Crown III HOA files debt complaint in McDowell Mountain Justice Court (CC2021-124323).

2022-03-30

Justice court grants summary judgment in favor of HOA for $4,204.50.

2022-04-20

Homeowner Debabrata Gupta files pro se notice of appeal to Superior Court (LC2022-000227).

2022-09-28

Court declines to act on Gupta's untitled September 27 filing, noting the appeal was already ruled and remanded on September 14.

Download source
Minute Entry Remand To Justice Court

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 3 2022-09-28

Minute Entry Remand To Justice Court

Type: Court order/minute entry

Minute entry declining to take action on Appellant's untitled September 27, 2022 filing, noting the appeal was already decided and remanded in the September 14, 2022 ruling.

Download source file
2022-09-28_003_minute-entry-remand-to-justice-court.pdf

FAQ

What evidence did Desert Crown III HOA submit to win summary judgment in justice court?

The association, represented by Emily Elizabeth Cooper of Carpenter Hazlewood, submitted an internal accounting ledger listing figures without explanatory descriptions, along with a boilerplate affidavit from property manager Thomas asserting general review of association records and avowing that Gupta owed $4,204.50.

Why did Superior Court Judge Daniel J. Kiley reverse the summary judgment?

Judge Kiley held that under the Arizona Court of Appeals precedent in Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Allen, 231 Ariz. 209, a plaintiff moving for summary judgment cannot meet its burden merely by submitting an affidavit avowing in conclusory terms that records were reviewed and money is owed. The HOA failed to attach the underlying documents or explain how the ledger was prepared to allow independent judicial verification.

Why was the homeowner not penalized for failing to file a formal controverting response?

Under Schwab v. Ames Construction, 207 Ariz. 56, if a moving party fails to meet its initial burden of showing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the nonmoving party is under no obligation to respond or controvert the motion. Summary judgment must be denied based solely on the moving party’s failure of proof.

How does this lower-court ruling relate to later appellate litigation between these parties?

This 2022 ruling in LC2022-000227 successfully overturned the justice court monetary judgment. Subsequently, in separate superior court lien-foreclosure proceedings before Judge Driggs, the association obtained a foreclosure decree that was affirmed on appeal in 2 CA-CV 2025-0138 due to procedural briefing waiver, underscoring the distinction between evidentiary challenges and procedural compliance.

What must an Arizona HOA prove to obtain summary judgment on an assessment debt?

Under Judge Kiley’s decisions, an association must provide copies of the actual underlying billing records for independent court review, submit an affidavit from someone with personal knowledge explaining how the records were prepared and kept, and prove that all charged fees, fines, and costs were authorized by the governing documents.

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 / citationMaricopa County Superior Court No. LC2022-000227
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateSeptember 14, 2022
Judge / panelHon. Daniel J. Kiley
PartiesDesert Crown III HOA (Appellee) v. Debabrata Gupta (Appellant)
Governing law
  • A.R.S. § 12-124
  • A.R.S. § 22-261
Topics
AssessmentsFinesProcedure
Outcome / holding

Reversed and remanded. An HOA moving for summary judgment cannot establish a prima facie entitlement to judgment merely by submitting an unexplained ledger and a conclusory property-manager affidavit asserting review of unidentified records; the court cannot blindly accept an avowal of debt. Because the association failed to make its prima facie showing, the homeowner was not required to controvert the motion under Schwab v. Ames Construction.

Primary public sourceView hosted source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package3 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap6 roadmap entries
Video overviewDesert Crown III Homeowners Association v. Debabrata Gupta
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links2 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Desert Crown III Homeowners Association sued homeowner Debabrata Gupta in McDowell Mountain Justice Court for $4,204.50 in delinquent assessments, late charges, and fines. The justice court granted summary judgment for the association. Representing himself pro se, Gupta appealed to Maricopa County Superior Court. Judge Daniel J. Kiley reversed the judgment in an 8-page ruling. Applying the Arizona Court of Appeals landmark precedent in Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Allen, Judge Kiley held that a plaintiff cannot obtain summary judgment simply by submitting an unexplained ledger and a conclusory property manager declaration. Because the association failed to provide underlying documentation or explain how the ledger was calculated, it failed to make a prima facie case. Under Schwab v. Ames Construction, the homeowner was not required to controvert the motion, requiring complete reversal and remand.

Key Issues & Findings

On de novo review of the justice court record under Schwab v. Ames Construction, 207 Ariz. 56, Judge Kiley scrutinized the association's motion for summary judgment. The association submitted an account ledger and an affidavit from property manager Thomas asserting that based on "review of Association documents and records," Gupta was indebted for $4,204.50. However, the Thomas Affidavit never identified what documents were reviewed, never claimed familiarity with how the ledger was prepared, and did not even mention the ledger itself.

Citing Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Allen, 231 Ariz. 209 (App. 2012), Copper State Financial Management v. High Valley Builders, and CACH, LLC v. Martin, Judge Kiley explained that a court cannot simply defer to a plaintiff's avowal of debt. Conclusory affidavits setting forth liquidated amounts without underlying documents or explanation of accuracy fail as a matter of law. Under Schwab, if a moving party fails to demonstrate an entitlement to judgment, the nonmoving party need not even respond to controvert the motion. Finding that the association failed to establish a prima facie debt, the Superior Court reversed the justice court judgment in full and remanded the matter.

Why It Matters

This decision provides crucial judicial authority holding HOAs strictly accountable to Arizona summary judgment standards. Property management companies frequently generate computer ledgers with unexplained codes, fees, and penalties, and collection attorneys submit boilerplate manager affidavits asserting that the balance is owed. Judge Kiley's ruling confirms that Arizona law does not permit summary judgment on such barebones submissions. An HOA must produce the actual underlying records and provide detailed, competent witness testimony explaining the preparation, accuracy, and contractual authorization of every charged item.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Xia v. Dorsey Place Condominium Assn: ADRE Review and Parallel Litigation (LC2021-000258)

Posted on by

ADRE Appeals | Condominium Governance | LC2021-000258

When a condominium owner appealed an ADRE administrative dismissal involving Dorsey Place, Judge Daniel J. Kiley affirmed the decision, holding that an administrative dismissal must be upheld if supported by the record and legally correct for any reason.

Last updated September 17, 2026. Case: Haining Xia v. Dorsey Place Condominium Association, Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2021-000258 (minute entries use LC2021-000258-001 DT); ADRE / OAH Agency Case No. 21F-H2120016-REL; Hon. Daniel J. Kiley.

Download JRAD decision affirming ADRE dismissal Download minute entry coordinating with appellate mandate Source-file index FAQ

Scope note: This page covers Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2021-000258, an appeal under the Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions Act from an ADRE administrative dismissal involving Dorsey Place Condominiums. Condominium owner Haining Xia challenged administrative rulings regarding association governance and dispute resolution intertwined with parallel superior court litigation in Cao v. PFP Dorsey Investments. Judge Daniel J. Kiley affirmed the administrative dismissal on jurisdictional/claim-preclusion grounds (correct for any reason), and entered orders coordinating with the Arizona Court of Appeals mandate. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

Affirmed. Under the Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions Act (A.R.S. § 12-901 et seq.), an administrative dismissal must be affirmed if supported by substantial evidence and correct for any reason; because the 2019 Termination Agreement had been adjudicated valid, the condominium was terminated and ADRE/OAH lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A); the merits dismissal was affirmed only because a ruling is upheld if correct for any reason (Spence v. Bacal).

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Haining Xia (Petitioner/Appellant)
    Tempe condominium owner; self-represented pro se; appealed ADRE administrative dismissal.

Respondent Side

  • Dorsey Place Condominium Association (Respondent/Appellee)
    Arizona nonprofit corporation
    Condominium association respondent; represented by Nicholas Nogami; administrative dismissal affirmed on appeal.
  • Nicholas C. Nogami (Counsel)
    Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.
    Counsel for Respondent/Appellee Dorsey Place Condominium Association.

Neutral Parties

  • Hon. Daniel J. Kiley (Judge)
    Maricopa County Superior Court
    Superior Court Judge who authored the JRAD decision affirming administrative dismissal.
  • Arizona Department of Real Estate (Originating Agency)
    State administrative agency (Case No. 21F-H2120016-REL) whose ALJ dismissal was affirmed.

What happened

Haining Xia filed a petition under A.R.S. § 32-2199.01 before the Arizona Department of Real Estate alleging governance violations by Dorsey Place Condominium Association.

The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings (Case No. 21F-H2120016-REL). On July 14, 2021, the Administrative Law Judge entered a decision dismissing the petition on grounds that Xia failed to produce documentary evidence demonstrating a breach of the declaration.

Xia filed a notice of appeal in Maricopa County Superior Court under A.R.S. § 12-904. Assigned to Judge Daniel J. Kiley, the association appeared through counsel Nicholas C. Nogami of Maxwell & Morgan.

On June 15, 2022, Judge Kiley issued a formal JRAD decision affirming the administrative dismissal in full under Spence v. Bacal. On August 25, 2022, the court entered an order noting that the Court of Appeals had vacated the December 15, 2020 ruling underlying the affirmance (Cao v. PFP Dorsey Investments), and deferring all pending matters—including Appellant’s Motion to Vacate the affirmance—until the Cao mandate issues.

Video overview of the case record

An AI-generated video overview of Haining Xia v. Dorsey Place Condominium Association (Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2021-000258). Affirmed. Superior Court affirmed the ADRE dismissal because the 2019 condominium termination, previously held valid, left ADRE/OAH without subject-matter jurisdiction. 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 Haining Xia v. Dorsey Place 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

2020-09-21

Haining Xia files a Homeowners Association Dispute Process Petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate regarding Dorsey Place Condominiums.

2021-07-14

ADRE ALJ issues decision dismissing petition for lack of competent documentary evidence.

2021-09-22

Xia appeals administrative dismissal to Maricopa County Superior Court (LC2021-000258).

2022-08-25

Judge Kiley defers ruling on Appellant's Motion to Vacate; notes Court of Appeals vacated the underlying CV2019-055353 ruling in Cao and awaits the appellate mandate.

Download source
Minute Entry On Mandate In Cao V Pfp Dorsey

View all 6 source documents for this case ↓

Complete source-document index

This index contains 6 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 dispute in Haining Xia v. Dorsey Place Condominium Association?

Condominium owner Haining Xia filed an administrative complaint with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (Agency Case No. 21F-H2120016-REL) alleging violations of the condominium declaration and governing statutes by Dorsey Place Condominium Association.

Why did the administrative law judge dismiss the petition?

The ALJ dismissed the petition after finding that the petitioner failed to present competent documentary evidence establishing specific actionable breaches of the declaration by the association.

What standard of review did Judge Daniel J. Kiley apply on appeal?

Under the Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions Act (A.R.S. § 12-901 et seq.) and Spence v. Bacal, 243 Ariz. 504, the Superior Court will affirm an administrative decision if it is correct for any reason (Spence v. Bacal, 243 Ariz. 504). Here the court did not reach substantial-evidence review of the facts; it affirmed on a threshold ground—the previously adjudicated validity of the 2019 Termination Agreement had preclusive effect, terminating the condominium and depriving ADRE/OAH of subject-matter jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A).

How did this case connect to the parallel appellate case Cao v. PFP Dorsey Investments?

The governance and control of Dorsey Place Condominiums was simultaneously subject to major superior court and Court of Appeals litigation in Cao v. PFP Dorsey Investments. On August 25, 2022, Judge Kiley entered an order recognizing that the Court of Appeals in Cao had vacated the December 15, 2020 ruling that was the basis of the affirmance; because that decision was not yet final (no mandate had issued), the court declined to act on Appellant’s Motion to Vacate and ordered the parties to report the mandate’s outcome before it would rule.

What is the key takeaway for owners filing ADRE petitions?

Owners must build an airtight documentary record at the administrative hearing level. An appellate court reviewing an ADRE decision will not reweigh conflicting evidence or supply missing documentation, making thorough preparation at the OAH hearing essential.

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 / citationMaricopa County Superior Court No. LC2021-000258
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateJune 15, 2022
Judge / panelHon. Daniel J. Kiley
PartiesHaining Xia (Appellant) v. Dorsey Place Condominium Association (Appellee)
Governing law
Topics
Board GovernanceCC&RsProcedure
Outcome / holding

Affirmed. Under the Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions Act (A.R.S. § 12-901 et seq.), an administrative dismissal may be affirmed if it is correct for any reason; here the 2019 termination of the condominium (held valid in CV2019-055353) removed the association-governance dispute from ADRE/OAH jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A), and the dismissal was affirmed on that ground.

Primary public sourceView hosted source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package6 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap7 roadmap entries
Video overviewHaining Xia v. Dorsey Place Condominium Association
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links2 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Condominium owner Haining Xia filed an administrative complaint with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (Agency Case No. 21F-H2120016-REL) challenging governance and declaration enforcement decisions by Dorsey Place Condominium Association. An Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition after concluding that Xia failed to submit documentary evidence sufficient to substantiate a breach. Representing himself pro se, Xia appealed to Maricopa County Superior Court under the Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions Act. Assigned to Judge Daniel J. Kiley, the association was represented by Nicholas C. Nogami of Maxwell & Morgan. In a written JRAD decision issued June 15, 2022, Judge Kiley affirmed the administrative dismissal on jurisdictional grounds: because the 2019 Termination Agreement had been adjudicated valid in CV2019-055353, the condominium had been terminated and ADRE/OAH lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A). Although the ALJ had dismissed on the merits, the court affirmed under the rule that a ruling is upheld if it is correct for any reason (Spence v. Bacal). On August 25, 2022, Judge Kiley entered an order noting that the Court of Appeals had vacated the December 15, 2020 ruling underlying the affirmance (Cao v. PFP Dorsey Investments) and deferring all pending matters until the Cao appellate mandate issues.

Key Issues & Findings

The Superior Court reviewed the administrative record pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-901 through 12-914. Under Spence v. Bacal, 243 Ariz. 504, a reviewing court must affirm an order dismissing a complaint if the result was legally correct for any reason, even where the tribunal reached its dismissal on a different ground.

Although the ALJ had dismissed Xia's petition on the merits, Judge Kiley did not reach substantial-evidence review of the facts. The court instead held that the validity of the 2019 Termination Agreement had already been adjudicated in CV2019-055353 and was entitled to preclusive effect; because that agreement terminated the condominium, ADRE and the Office of Administrative Hearings lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A). The ALJ therefore should have dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, and the dismissal was affirmed as correct for that reason. In subsequent proceedings on August 25, 2022, Judge Kiley entered an order noting that the Court of Appeals had vacated the December 15, 2020 ruling underlying the affirmance (Cao v. PFP Dorsey Investments) and deferring all pending matters until the Cao appellate mandate issued.

Why It Matters

This decision underscores the stringent standards applied when an owner seeks judicial review of an adverse ADRE administrative ruling. Many homeowners mistakenly believe that appealing an administrative decision to Superior Court provides a clean slate to re-argue facts. Under Arizona's JRAD statutes, the Superior Court's review is primarily confined to the administrative record, and agency dismissals will be upheld if supported by any reasonable interpretation of the evidence. Owners pursuing ADRE dispute resolution must ensure every critical fact is substantiated by admissible documentary evidence during the initial OAH hearing.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Arrowhead Ranch POA v. Liu: Unexplained HOA Ledgers Defeated (LC2021-000358)

Posted on by

Accounting Proof | Summary Judgment Burden | LC2021-000358

When Arrowhead Ranch POA sued an owner relying on an unexplained ledger containing vague misc. charges and unproven fines, Judge Daniel J. Kiley reversed the justice court summary judgment, holding that associations must prove the factual accuracy of their ledger entries.

Last updated September 17, 2026. Case: The Arrowhead Ranch Property Owners Association Phase IV v. He Liu, Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2021-000358 (minute entries use LC2021-000358-001 DT); originating Arrowhead Justice Court No. CC2020093450RC; Hon. Daniel J. Kiley.

Download record appeal ruling reversing summary judgment Download final judgment awarding attorney fees and costs Source-file index FAQ

Scope note: This page covers Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2021-000358, an appeal from Arrowhead Justice Court. Arrowhead Ranch Property Owners Association Phase IV sued homeowner He Liu for delinquent assessments, fines, and unexplained collection charges, obtaining summary judgment in justice court. Represented by Jonathan A. Dessaules, Liu appealed. In a 15-page ruling, Superior Court Judge Daniel J. Kiley reversed the judgment under Wells Fargo v. Allen, establishing that unexplained HOA ledgers with vague charges and boilerplate manager affidavits fail as a matter of law to prove a prima facie debt, and awarded $4,902.00 in attorney fees and costs against the HOA. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

Reversed and remanded. An HOA moving for summary judgment cannot establish a prima facie entitlement to judgment merely by submitting an unexplained accounting ledger and a conclusory manager affidavit avowing that records were reviewed; the association must provide foundation explaining how charges were calculated and prove the reasonableness of pre-litigation legal fees. Because the HOA failed to meet its prima facie burden, the homeowner was not required to controvert the motion.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • The Arrowhead Ranch Property Owners Association Phase IV (Plaintiff/Appellee)
    Arizona nonprofit corporation
    HOA plaintiff that filed the collection action in Arrowhead Justice Court; judgment reversed on appeal.
  • Chad M. Gallacher (Counsel)
    Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.
    Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee The Arrowhead Ranch Property Owners Association Phase IV.
  • Lisa Riesland (Witness)
    Property Management Custodian of Records
    Submitted boilerplate affidavit in support of HOA motion for summary judgment; deemed insufficient as a matter of law under Wells Fargo v. Allen.

Respondent Side

  • He Liu (Defendant/Appellant)
    Glendale homeowner; represented by Jonathan A. Dessaules on appeal; prevailing party awarded $4,902.00 in fees and costs.
  • Jonathan A. Dessaules (Counsel)
    Dessaules Law Group
    Counsel for Defendant/Appellant He Liu; successfully obtained reversal and fee award against HOA.

Neutral Parties

  • Hon. Daniel J. Kiley (Judge)
    Maricopa County Superior Court
    Superior Court Judge who authored the landmark 15-page ruling reversing summary judgment and entered the fee award.
  • Arrowhead Justice Court (Originating Court)
    Trial court (Case No. CC2020093450RC) whose summary judgment was reversed.

What happened

In June 2020, Arrowhead Ranch Property Owners Association Phase IV, represented by Chad M. Gallacher of Maxwell & Morgan, filed a debt collection complaint in Arrowhead Justice Court against homeowner He Liu. The association sought $2,588.50 for unpaid semi-annual assessments, late fees, fines, and unspecified admin fees, plus accruing assessments and legal fees.

Representing herself pro se, Liu answered the complaint by disputing that she owed the charges, explaining that she had paid assessments, that street parking fines had previously been waived, and that she disputed an alleged weed fine. The association moved for summary judgment, attaching a multi-page accounting ledger with line items such as “misc. charges” and unexplained fines, along with a two-page affidavit from property manager Lisa Riesland asserting in boilerplate terms that she reviewed records and that Liu was indebted in the principal amount of $2,588.50.

The justice court granted the association’s motion for summary judgment and entered a judgment against Liu for $2,343.50 in damages, $4,345.00 in attorney fees, and $212.80 in costs. After the justice court denied Liu’s motion for a new trial, Liu retained attorney Jonathan A. Dessaules of the Dessaules Law Group and filed a notice of appeal to Maricopa County Superior Court.

On appeal, Dessaules argued that the association failed to establish a prima facie case, that the ledger was unauthenticated, and that charges were time-barred. On May 13, 2022, Superior Court Judge Daniel J. Kiley issued a comprehensive 15-page ruling reversing the summary judgment. Judge Kiley held that under Wells Fargo v. Allen, an HOA cannot rely on vague ledgers and conclusory manager affidavits to prove a debt. Judge Kiley also held that the association improperly billed legal fees into the ledger without judicial review of their reasonableness. Following supplemental briefing, Judge Kiley entered a final judgment on August 24, 2022, ordering Arrowhead Ranch POA to pay Liu $4,500.00 in attorney fees and $402.00 in costs.

Video overview of the case record

An AI-generated video overview of The Arrowhead Ranch Property Owners Association Phase IV v. He Liu (Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2021-000358). Reversed. Unexplained HOA accounting ledgers and conclusory manager affidavits fail to prove debt on summary judgment. 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 The Arrowhead Ranch Property Owners Association Phase IV v. He Liu. 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

2020-06-05

Arrowhead Ranch POA files collection complaint in Arrowhead Justice Court (CC2020093450RC).

2020-08-06

Homeowner He Liu files pro se answer disputing unexplained fines and charges.

2020-12-18

Association files motion for summary judgment with computer ledger and Riesland manager affidavit.

2021-02-05

Arrowhead Justice Court grants association motion for summary judgment.

2021-03-31

Justice court enters final judgment awarding HOA $6,901.30 in damages, fees, and costs.

2021-05-20

Homeowner retains Jonathan A. Dessaules and files notice of appeal to Superior Court (LC2021-000358).

View all 6 source documents for this case ↓

Complete source-document index

This index contains 6 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 2022-01-07

Minute Entry Scheduling Order

Type: Court order/minute entry

Minute entry establishing record appeal briefing schedule before Judge Daniel J. Kiley.

Download source file
2022-01-07_001_minute-entry-scheduling-order.pdf

FAQ

What did Arrowhead Ranch POA claim in its collection lawsuit?

The association, represented by Chad M. Gallacher of Maxwell & Morgan P.C., sued homeowner He Liu in Arrowhead Justice Court claiming $2,588.50 in past-due assessments, late fees, fines, and unspecified admin fees, attaching a multi-page printout ledger and a boilerplate property manager affidavit.

Why did Judge Daniel J. Kiley reverse the justice court summary judgment?

Judge Kiley held that under Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Allen, 231 Ariz. 209, a plaintiff cannot obtain summary judgment simply by submitting an unexplained ledger and a conclusory affidavit. The ledger contained vague entries such as “misc. charges” and unexplained fines without establishing how they were calculated or authorized, and the manager affidavit failed to explain how the ledger was prepared.

Was the homeowner required to file a counter-affidavit to defeat summary judgment?

No. Under Schwab v. Ames Construction, 207 Ariz. 56, when a moving party fails to make an initial prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the nonmoving party is not required to respond or submit controverting evidence. The moving party fails on its own deficient submission.

Can an HOA collect attorney fees simply by adding them to an internal account ledger?

No. Judge Kiley specifically ruled that an association cannot usurp the court’s role by unilaterally deciding its own entitlement to legal fees and the reasonableness of the amount claimed. The HOA must prove that the fees were actually incurred in collection efforts and establish their reasonableness.

What was the final outcome of the appeal for the homeowner?

The Superior Court reversed the justice court judgment in full and remanded the case. On August 24, 2022, Judge Kiley entered a final judgment awarding homeowner He Liu $4,500.00 in attorney fees and $402.00 in costs against Arrowhead Ranch POA under A.R.S. § 12-341.01.

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 / citationMaricopa County Superior Court No. LC2021-000358
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateMay 13, 2022
Judge / panelHon. Daniel J. Kiley
PartiesThe Arrowhead Ranch POA Phase IV (Appellee) v. He Liu (Appellant)
Governing law
Topics
AssessmentsFinesProcedureAttorney Fees
Outcome / holding

Reversed and remanded. An HOA moving for summary judgment cannot establish a prima facie entitlement to judgment merely by submitting an unexplained accounting ledger and a conclusory manager affidavit avowing that records were reviewed; the association must provide foundation explaining how charges were calculated and prove the reasonableness of pre-litigation legal fees. Because the HOA failed to meet its prima facie burden, the homeowner was not required to controvert the motion.

Primary public sourceView hosted source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package6 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap9 roadmap entries
Video overviewThe Arrowhead Ranch Property Owners Association Phase IV v. He Liu
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links2 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

The Arrowhead Ranch Property Owners Association Phase IV sued homeowner He Liu in Arrowhead Justice Court for $2,588.50 in past due assessments, late fees, fines, and unspecified collection charges. The justice court granted summary judgment for the association and awarded damages, fees, and costs totaling $6,901.30. Liu retained Jonathan A. Dessaules and appealed to Maricopa County Superior Court. Judge Daniel J. Kiley reversed the judgment in a detailed 15-page ruling. Applying Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Allen, Judge Kiley held that an HOA cannot obtain summary judgment based on an unexplained ledger containing vague charges (such as "misc. charges" and unexplained fines) accompanied by a boilerplate property manager affidavit. The court also held that HOAs cannot unilaterally decide the reasonableness of legal fees billed into an account ledger. Judge Kiley awarded Liu $4,902.00 in attorney fees and costs against the association.

Key Issues & Findings

The Superior Court conducted a de novo review of the justice court record under Schwab v. Ames Construction, 207 Ariz. 56. While holding that Liu waived statute of limitations and hearsay foundation objections by failing to raise them prior to judgment, Judge Kiley turned to the substantive merits of whether the association demonstrated an entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law.

The court held that the evidence submitted by the association was completely insufficient. The ledger consisted of columns listing dates and amounts with descriptions that were unintelligible or vague, including unexplained "misc. charges" and uncalculated "fines." Furthermore, the supporting affidavit of property manager Lisa Riesland did not even mention the ledger, explain how it was created, or identify any specific act or omission by the homeowner that constituted a breach. Citing Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Allen, 231 Ariz. 209, Copper State Financial Management v. High Valley Builders, and CACH, LLC v. Martin, the court ruled that conclusory affidavits stating liquidated amounts fail to establish debt as a matter of law.

Judge Kiley also addressed the association's unilateral inclusion of legal fees in the ledger. The court emphasized that an HOA cannot usurp the judicial role by declaring its own entitlement to legal fees and setting their amount. Because the association never identified the specific legal services performed or substantiated their reasonableness, those charges could not be sustained. Under Schwab, because the association failed to make a prima facie showing, summary judgment had to be reversed regardless of the homeowner's response. On August 24, 2022, Judge Kiley awarded Liu $4,500.00 in attorney fees and $402.00 in costs against the HOA under A.R.S. § 12-341.01.

Why It Matters

This decision is one of the most critical authorities in Arizona for homeowners defending against HOA collection lawsuits. Associations and collection law firms routinely file summary judgment motions supported only by an unauthenticated computer printout ledger and a boilerplate property manager declaration. Judge Kiley's decision makes clear that under Wells Fargo v. Allen, Arizona courts cannot blindly accept an HOA's avowal of debt. Associations must prove the foundation, accuracy, and justification for every charge, fine, and legal fee on their ledgers. Crucially, it demonstrates that when an owner retains counsel to hold an HOA to its evidentiary burden, the owner can defeat summary judgment and recover thousands of dollars in fee awards from the association.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Hayden Square Condominium HOA v. Weiss: ADRE Appeal Dismissed for Lack of a Final Decision (LC2019-000075)

Posted on by

Administrative Review | A.R.S. §§ 12-901, 12-905, 12-910 | LC2019-000075

Hayden Square Condominium HOA appealed an Arizona Department of Real Estate default decision to Superior Court. The court granted a stay and rejected a trial de novo, then dismissed the whole appeal for lack of jurisdiction: because the association’s motion to vacate was still pending, the agency’s decision was never ‘final.’ A staff ‘Coordinator’ letter calling it ‘final agency action’ did not count.

Last updated August 13, 2026. Case: Hayden Square Condominium HOA v. Weiss and Arizona Department of Real Estate, Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2019-000075 (minute entries use LC2019-000075-001 DT); related Arizona Department of Real Estate No. HO19-18/041; Hon. Patricia A. Starr and Hon. Douglas Gerlach.

Download final dismissal order Download stay-pending-appeal order Download trial-de-novo ruling Source-file index FAQ

Scope note: This page covers Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2019-000075, an administrative appeal (Appeal for Judicial Review) in which Hayden Square Condominium HOA challenged an Arizona Department of Real Estate default decision. It is a trial-court minute-entry record, not a published, precedential appellate opinion, and it did not resolve the underlying HOA dispute on the merits. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

Because the Arizona Department of Real Estate never ruled on the association’s timely motion to vacate its default decision, no ‘final administrative decision’ existed, and the Superior Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 12-905(A). A staff ‘Coordinator’ letter calling the default ‘final agency action’ was not the Commissioner’s ruling on the motion and could not make the decision appealable.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Hayden Square Condominium Homeowners Association (Plaintiff/Appellant)
    The condominium association that appealed the Arizona Department of Real Estate default decision to Superior Court.
  • Ashley N. Moscarello (Counsel)
    Hayden Square Condominium Homeowners Association
    Counsel of record for the association, as shown on the court's minute entries.

Respondent Side

  • Chris I. Weiss (Defendant/Appellee)
    Homeowner and petitioner in the underlying Arizona Department of Real Estate dispute; appeared self-represented (pro per) and opposed the appeal.
  • Arizona Department of Real Estate (Agency/Appellee)
    The agency whose default decision was under review; it took no position on the stay and filed an amicus brief.
  • Lynette Evans (Counsel)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Counsel who appeared for the Department after the appeal was filed.

Neutral Parties

  • Hon. Patricia A. Starr (Judge)
    Superior Court judge who issued the early administrative-review orders, granted the stay, and denied the trial de novo.
  • Hon. Douglas Gerlach (Judge)
    Superior Court judge who took over the calendar and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

What happened

Homeowner Chris I. Weiss filed a dispute petition against Hayden Square Condominium Homeowners Association with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE No. HO19-18/041). After the association filed its response about nine days past the deadline, ADRE entered a ‘Default Decision’ against the association on January 25, 2018.

The association timely moved to vacate the default. ADRE never had the Commissioner rule on that motion; instead, a Department ‘Coordinator’ issued a February 8, 2019 letter stating the Default Decision was ‘a final agency action.’ Treating that letter as its final decision, the association filed a Notice of Appeal for Judicial Review in Maricopa County Superior Court on February 28, 2019.

Judge Patricia A. Starr handled the early motions. She required the association to properly serve the Department’s counsel, allowed the Department to file an amicus brief, and — applying the four-factor test from Smith v. Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n — granted the association’s motion to stay the default pending appeal. She denied the association’s motion for a trial de novo, holding that A.R.S. § 12-910 permits an evidentiary hearing only as necessary to review the agency, not a new trial.

After the calendar passed to Judge Douglas Gerlach, the court dismissed the appeal on July 26, 2019 for lack of jurisdiction. Because the association’s motion to vacate was still pending and undecided, no ‘final administrative decision’ existed to appeal under A.R.S. §§ 12-901(2) and 12-905(A). The court declined to award fees or costs and entered the dismissal as a final order.

Procedural timeline

January 25, 2018

ADRE entered a Default Decision against the association (ADRE No. HO19-18/041).

January 28, 2018

The Default Decision was served on the association by mail.

January 31, 2018

The association timely filed a motion to vacate the default.

February 8, 2019

An ADRE 'Coordinator' sent a letter declaring the default 'a final agency action.'

February 28, 2019

The association filed its Notice of Appeal for Judicial Review, opening LC2019-000075.

March 13, 2019

Judge Starr issued administrative-review orders (service, record transmittal, and briefing).

April 16, 2019

The court deferred ruling on the stay until ADRE's counsel was properly served, and separately granted ADRE leave to file an amicus brief.

May 1, 2019

Judge Starr granted the motion to stay the default pending appeal (Smith four-factor test).

May 22, 2019

Judge Starr denied the association's motion for a trial de novo (A.R.S. § 12-910).

July 12, 2019

Judge Gerlach set the administrative review for determination on the briefs.

July 26, 2019

Judge Gerlach dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction; final order.

View all 7 source documents for this case ↓

Complete source-document index

This index contains 7 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 2019-03-13

Administrative Review Orders

Type: Court order/minute entry

Judge Starr's opening administrative-review order directing the association to serve the appeal, arrange preparation of the agency record, and follow the briefing schedule under A.R.S. §§ 12-904 and 12-906.

Download source file
2019-03-13_001_administrative-review-orders.pdf
Source 2 2019-04-16

Order Granting ADRE Amicus

Type: Court order/minute entry

Order granting the Arizona Department of Real Estate leave to file an amicus brief in the appeal.

Download source file
2019-04-16_002_order-granting-adre-amicus.pdf
Source 3 2019-04-16

Order On Motion For Stay Service

Type: Court order/minute entry

Order deferring the association's motion to stay the default until it properly served the Department's counsel and gave the Department an opportunity to state its position.

Download source file
2019-04-16_003_order-on-motion-for-stay-service.pdf
Source 4 2019-05-01

Order Granting Stay Pending Appeal

Type: Court order/minute entry

Order granting the association's motion to stay the Department's default decision pending appeal, applying the four-factor test of Smith v. Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission.

Download source file
2019-05-01_004_order-granting-stay-pending-appeal.pdf
Source 5 2019-05-22

Order Denying Trial De Novo

Type: Court order/minute entry

Order denying the association's motion for a trial de novo, holding that A.R.S. § 12-910 authorizes an evidentiary hearing only to the extent necessary to review the agency's action, not a new trial.

Download source file
2019-05-22_005_order-denying-trial-de-novo.pdf
Source 6 2019-07-12

Minute Entry Set For Determination

Type: Court order/minute entry

Minute entry noting that briefing was complete and setting the administrative review for determination on the record without oral argument.

Download source file
2019-07-12_006_minute-entry-set-for-determination.pdf
Source 7 2019-07-26

Final Order Dismissing Appeal

Type: Court order/minute entry

Judge Gerlach's final order dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the Department never issued a final appealable decision on the association's still-pending motion to vacate (A.R.S. §§ 12-901(2), 12-905(A)).

Download source file
2019-07-26_007_final-order-dismissing-appeal.pdf

FAQ

What was LC2019-000075 about?

It was Hayden Square Condominium Homeowners Association’s Superior Court appeal of a default decision that the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) entered against it in an HOA dispute (ADRE No. HO19-18/041) brought by homeowner Chris I. Weiss. The Superior Court reviewed the appeal but never reached the underlying merits.

Why was the appeal dismissed?

For lack of jurisdiction. Under A.R.S. §§ 12-901(2) and 12-905(A), a court may review only a ‘final’ administrative decision, and the association’s timely motion to vacate the default had never been ruled on. Until that motion is decided, the default is not yet final or appealable.

Didn't the Department say the decision was final?

A Department ‘Coordinator’ sent a February 8, 2019 letter calling the default ‘a final agency action,’ but the court held that letter could not make the decision appealable. Only the Real Estate Commissioner could rule on the motion to vacate, and any denial must state its ‘particular grounds and reasons’ (A.R.S. § 32-2199.04(C)), which the letter did not.

Did the association win a stay of the default?

Yes. Applying the four-factor test from Smith v. Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission, Judge Patricia A. Starr granted a stay of the default decision pending the appeal on May 1, 2019.

Why was the request for a trial de novo denied?

Because A.R.S. § 12-910 lets the Superior Court hold an evidentiary hearing only ‘to the extent necessary’ to review the agency’s action, not a brand-new trial. The only question here — whether the association was entitled to a hearing before the agency — was purely legal, so no evidentiary hearing was required (Curtis v. Richardson).

What does this case mean for homeowners and HOAs?

Confirm you have a genuine final decision before appealing to Superior Court. If a motion to vacate, a request for rehearing, or another method of administrative review is still pending, the agency’s decision is not final, and an appeal filed too early will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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 / citationMaricopa County Superior Court No. LC2019-000075
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateJuly 26, 2019
Judge / panelHon. Patricia A. Starr, Hon. Douglas Gerlach
PartiesHayden Square Condominium HOA (Appellant) v. Chris I. Weiss and Arizona Department of Real Estate (Appellees)
Governing law
  • A.R.S. § 12-901(2)
  • A.R.S. § 12-905(A)
  • A.R.S. § 12-910
  • A.R.S. § 12-911
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04(C)
Topics
Procedure
Outcome / holding

Because the Arizona Department of Real Estate never ruled on the association's timely motion to vacate its default decision, no 'final administrative decision' existed, and the Superior Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 12-905(A). A staff 'Coordinator' letter calling the default 'final agency action' was not the Commissioner's ruling on the motion and could not make the decision appealable.

Primary public sourceView hosted source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package7 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap11 roadmap entries
Video overviewNo video embed currently configured
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions6 questions
Featured download links3 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Homeowner Chris I. Weiss filed an HOA-dispute petition against Hayden Square Condominium Homeowners Association with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE No. HO19-18/041). After the association filed its response about nine days late, ADRE entered a 'Default Decision' against it on January 25, 2018. The association timely moved to vacate the default, but ADRE never had the Commissioner rule on that motion; instead, a Department 'Coordinator' sent a letter declaring the default 'final agency action.' Treating that letter as the agency's final word, the association appealed to Maricopa County Superior Court. Judge Starr granted a stay of the default and denied the association's request for a trial de novo. Judge Gerlach then dismissed the entire appeal for lack of jurisdiction: under A.R.S. § 12-901(2), an agency decision is not final while a motion to vacate or for rehearing is pending, and only the Real Estate Commissioner — stating grounds — can deny it.

Key Issues & Findings

Under Arizona's Administrative Review Act, the Superior Court may review only a 'final administrative decision' (A.R.S. § 12-905(A)). A decision is not final when a party has filed 'an application for rehearing or other method of administrative review'; it becomes final only when that request 'is denied or the decision on rehearing or review is rendered' (A.R.S. § 12-901(2)). The association's motion to vacate the default was timely (Ariz. Admin. Code R4-28-1304(B)) and qualified at least as an 'other method of administrative review,' so the default could not become final until the Commissioner ruled on it.

ADRE never had the Commissioner rule. Instead, a 'Coordinator' sent a February 8, 2019 letter declaring the default 'a final agency action.' Judge Gerlach held that letter could not substitute for the Commissioner's ruling: it was signed by a coordinator rather than the Commissioner charged with deciding the motion (Ariz. Admin. Code R4-28-1310(F); A.R.S. § 32-2101(14)), and an order denying such a motion must contain 'a statement of the particular grounds and reasons' (A.R.S. § 32-2199.04(C)), which the letter lacked. The court also noted Arizona's strong policy favoring decisions on the merits and the apparent absence of prejudice from the association's nine-day-late response.

Earlier in the case, Judge Starr applied the four-factor stay test from Smith v. Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Comm'n and granted a stay of the default pending appeal, but denied the association's motion for a trial de novo. She explained that A.R.S. § 12-910 authorizes an evidentiary hearing only 'to the extent necessary' to review the agency's action, not a fresh trial in Superior Court (Curtis v. Richardson). Because the only issue — whether the association was entitled to a hearing before the agency — was purely legal, no evidentiary hearing was required.

Why It Matters

For homeowners and associations alike, this case marks exactly when an ADRE (or OAH) HOA decision becomes appealable. If a motion to vacate, a request for rehearing, or another method of administrative review is still pending, the agency's decision is not yet 'final,' and an appeal filed too early will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, as the association's was here. A letter from agency staff calling a decision 'final agency action' does not count; only a ruling by the decision-maker — here, the Real Estate Commissioner — stating its grounds starts the appeal clock.

The dismissal was not a loss on the merits. Because the motion to vacate remained pending and undecided, the association's default was never actually final, which left the agency free to still decide that motion. The practical lesson is to confirm a genuine, properly signed final decision before spending money on a Superior Court appeal.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Town Square HOA v. Tomiczek: Landscaper Negligence and CC&Rs (LC2018-000210)

Posted on by

Contract vs. Tort | CC&R Indemnity | LC2018-000210

When an owner sued an HOA for breach of contract after landscapers damaged his wall and killed his vegetation, Judge Patricia Ann Starr held that CC&Rs do not provide contractual indemnity for vendor negligence, vacating the owner’s award and assessing over $18,800 in fees and costs.

Last updated September 17, 2026. Case: Town Square Homeowners Association v. Robert A. Tomiczek, Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2018-000210 (minute entries use LC2018-000210-001 DT); originating Moon Valley Justice Court No. CC2015-144356RC; Hon. Patricia Ann Starr.

Download record appeal ruling vacating counterclaim damages Download final order awarding attorney fees and costs Source-file index FAQ

Scope note: This page covers Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2018-000210, an appeal from Moon Valley Justice Court. Town Square Homeowners Association sued homeowner Robert A. Tomiczek for assessment breach, and Tomiczek counterclaimed for damage to his block wall and vegetation caused by HOA landscapers, winning damages at trial. Represented by appellate counsel Lori L. Voepel, the association appealed. Superior Court Judge Patricia Ann Starr vacated the judgment on the counterclaims, holding that CC&Rs create servitudes rather than an indemnity contract for vendor negligence, and barred the owner from converting contract counterclaims to tort negligence on appeal. The court awarded the HOA $14,000.00 in attorney fees and $4,816.90 in costs. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

Vacated and remanded. An HOA declaration does not impose a contractual duty on the association to indemnify a homeowner for property damage caused by vendor negligence; a litigant who pleads and tries counterclaims solely under a breach of contract theory cannot change theories on appeal to assert tort negligence. Counterclaim judgment vacated and fees awarded to the HOA under A.R.S. § 12-341.01.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Town Square Homeowners Association (Plaintiff/Appellant)
    Arizona nonprofit corporation
    HOA plaintiff/appellant; represented by Lori L. Voepel; successfully vacated counterclaim judgment and won fee award.
  • Lori L. Voepel (Counsel)
    Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C.
    Appellate counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant Town Square Homeowners Association.

Respondent Side

  • Robert A. Tomiczek (Defendant/Appellee)
    Homeowner; counterclaimed for wall and plant damage; damages award vacated on appeal and assessed $14,000.00 in attorney fees and $4,816.90 in costs.
  • Christopher J. Berry (Counsel)
    Counsel for Defendant/Appellee Robert A. Tomiczek.

Neutral Parties

  • Hon. Patricia Ann Starr (Judge)
    Maricopa County Superior Court
    Superior Court Judge who authored the ruling vacating the counterclaim judgment and entered the fee order.
  • Moon Valley Justice Court (Originating Court)
    Trial court (Case No. CC2015-144356RC) whose counterclaim judgment was vacated.

What happened

In August 2015, Town Square Homeowners Association sued homeowner Robert A. Tomiczek in Moon Valley Justice Court for breach of contract, alleging failure to pay assessments.

Tomiczek answered and asserted counterclaims for breach of contract, claiming that the HOA’s landscaping contractors negligently operated machinery against his private block wall and sprayed toxic fertilizer into his front yard bender box, destroying plants.

Following a bench trial on April 26, 2017, the justice court found for the HOA on assessments ($3,559.00) and found for Tomiczek on counterclaims D and E, awarding him $1,477.50 for wall repair and $6,402.78 for destroyed vegetation.

Town Square HOA, represented by appellate specialist Lori L. Voepel, appealed to Maricopa County Superior Court. On December 13, 2018, Judge Patricia Ann Starr issued a formal ruling vacating the counterclaim awards, holding that CC&Rs create servitudes rather than an indemnity contract for vendor negligence and that Tomiczek could not pivot to tort on appeal. On March 12, 2019, Judge Starr entered an order awarding the HOA $14,000.00 in attorney fees and $4,816.90 in costs against Tomiczek.

Video overview of the case record

An AI-generated video overview of Town Square Homeowners Association v. Robert A. Tomiczek (Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2018-000210). Vacated. CC&Rs do not create an indemnity duty for vendor negligence; owner barred from converting contract to tort. 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 Town Square Homeowners Association v. Robert A. Tomiczek. 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

2015-08-14

Town Square HOA files collection complaint in Moon Valley Justice Court (CC2015-144356RC).

2016-02-05

Homeowner Robert A. Tomiczek files answer and counterclaims for breach of CC&Rs.

2017-04-26

Justice court conducts bench trial on complaint and counterclaims.

2017-06-20

Justice court enters judgment awarding HOA $3,559.00 and awarding Tomiczek $7,880.28 on counterclaims.

View all 10 source documents for this case ↓

Complete source-document index

This index contains 10 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 2018-06-18

Minute Entry Setting Schedule

Type: Court order/minute entry

Initial minute entry establishing appellate briefing schedule before Judge Patricia Ann Starr.

Download source file
2018-06-18_001_minute-entry-setting-schedule.pdf

FAQ

What happened at trial in the Moon Valley Justice Court?

Town Square HOA sued homeowner Robert A. Tomiczek for unpaid assessments. Tomiczek counterclaimed for breach of contract, alleging HOA landscapers damaged his block wall with machinery and killed vegetation with improper chemicals. The justice court awarded the HOA $3,559.00 on its claim and awarded Tomiczek $7,880.28 on his counterclaims.

Why did Judge Patricia Ann Starr vacate the homeowner's damages award?

Judge Starr held that Tomiczek chose to plead and try his claims strictly as breach of contract under the CC&Rs.; The declaration required party wall repairs to be shared equally and tasked the HOA with common landscaping, but contained no contractual duty to indemnify an owner for vendor negligence. Having tried the case in contract, the owner was precluded from switching to a tort negligence theory on appeal.

Can an HOA be sued for breach of contract when its vendors damage private property?

Generally no. CC&Rs govern property use, assessments, and maintenance duties; they do not function as a general liability insurance policy or indemnity contract. Claims for physical property damage caused by contractors must be brought as tort claims (negligence or trespass) rather than breach of declaration.

What financial penalty did the homeowner face as a result of the appeal?

Because the association successfully reversed the counterclaims, the Superior Court deemed the association the prevailing party on appeal and awarded Town Square HOA $14,000.00 in attorney fees and $4,816.90 in costs under A.R.S. § 12-341.01 against Tomiczek.

What is the key takeaway for Arizona homeowners from this case?

Pleading the correct legal theory is critical. Suing an HOA under the CC&Rs for tortious conduct by third-party vendors risks dismissal, appellate reversal, and catastrophic attorney fee exposure under contractual and statutory prevailing party provisions.

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 / citationMaricopa County Superior Court No. LC2018-000210
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateDecember 13, 2018
Judge / panelHon. Patricia Ann Starr
PartiesTown Square HOA (Appellant) v. Robert A. Tomiczek (Appellee)
Governing law
  • A.R.S. § 12-341.01
  • A.R.S. § 12-124(A)
  • A.R.S. § 22-261
Topics
CC&RsAttorney FeesProcedure
Outcome / holding

Vacated and remanded. An HOA declaration does not impose a contractual duty on the association to indemnify a homeowner for property damage caused by vendor negligence; a litigant who pleads and tries counterclaims solely under a breach of contract theory cannot change theories on appeal to assert tort negligence. Counterclaim judgment vacated and fees awarded to the HOA under A.R.S. § 12-341.01.

Primary public sourceView hosted source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package10 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap7 roadmap entries
Video overviewTown Square Homeowners Association v. Robert A. Tomiczek
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links2 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Town Square Homeowners Association sued homeowner Robert A. Tomiczek in Moon Valley Justice Court for assessment breach of contract. Tomiczek counterclaimed for breach of contract, asserting that HOA landscapers damaged his block wall with heavy machinery and sprayed fertilizer that killed his front-yard vegetation. After a bench trial, the justice court awarded the HOA $3,559.00 on its complaint, but awarded Tomiczek $7,880.28 on his counterclaims. The HOA appealed. Superior Court Judge Patricia Ann Starr vacated the judgment on the counterclaims. Judge Starr held that Tomiczek tried his claims exclusively under a contract theory (the CC&Rs), but the declaration contained no contractual indemnity duty requiring the HOA to pay for vendor negligence. Barring Tomiczek from converting his contract claims into tort negligence claims on appeal, the court vacated the damage award and ordered Tomiczek to pay the association $14,000.00 in attorney fees and $4,816.90 in costs.

Key Issues & Findings

On appeal, Judge Starr analyzed the trial court record and the governing declaration. At trial, Tomiczek specifically affirmed that he was proceeding on the theory that the board breached its contractual obligations under the declaration to maintain property. Having chosen to litigate his claims as breach of contract, Tomiczek was barred from altering his theory on appeal to negligence, which would unfairly prejudice the association.

Reviewing contract interpretation de novo (Grosvenor Holdings v. Figueroa, 222 Ariz. 588), the court examined the CC&Rs. Regarding the block wall, Article II, Section 13(A) provided that common wall repairs necessitated by causes other than party negligence would be shared equally; it created no indemnity obligation. Regarding vegetation, Article IX, Section 1(A) assigned front-yard maintenance to the association, but did not address vendor negligence or establish contractual liability for plant damage caused during maintenance. Because the declaration imposed no contractual duty of indemnification, Tomiczek failed to prove breach of contract as a matter of law. On March 12, 2019, Judge Starr awarded Town Square HOA $14,000.00 in attorney fees and $4,816.90 in costs under A.R.S. § 12-341.01.

Why It Matters

This case serves as a vital warning for homeowners and legal practitioners dealing with HOA disputes. When an association or its third-party contractors cause physical damage to an owner's home, wall, or landscaping, the owner must plead tort claims—such as negligence or trespass—rather than relying on the CC&Rs. Framing vendor property damage as a breach of the association's contractual declaration is fatal under Arizona law, leaving the homeowner vulnerable to total reversal and crippling fee awards under A.R.S. § 12-341.01.

← Back to Superior Court cases

CBS-136 HOA v. Cohen: Facial Challenge to ADRE Dispute Process (LC2018-000316)

Posted on by

Constitutional Law | ADRE Administrative Appeals | LC2018-000316

After losing an administrative hearing to homeowner Annette Cohen, CBS-136 HOA mounted a facial constitutional challenge against the ADRE dispute process. When Judge Patricia Ann Starr ordered formal service on the Attorney General and legislative leadership, the HOA stipulated to dismiss.

Last updated September 17, 2026. Case: CBS-136 Homeowners Association v. Annette Cohen, Arizona Department of Real Estate, and State of Arizona, Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2018-000316 (minute entries use LC2018-000316-001 DT); related Office of Administrative Hearings / ADRE matter; Hon. Patricia Ann Starr.

Download order on facial constitutionality and state substitution Download minute entry denying motion for sanctions Download minute entry denying motion to dismiss Source-file index FAQ

Scope note: This page covers Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2018-000316, an administrative appeal filed on August 10, 2018. Following an adverse administrative ruling in favor of homeowner Annette Cohen before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), CBS-136 Homeowners Association appealed to Superior Court and mounted a direct facial constitutional challenge against the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) dispute resolution statutes (A.R.S. § 32-2199.01 et seq.). Judge Patricia Ann Starr substituted the State of Arizona as the proper party appellee, required formal service on the Arizona Attorney General, Speaker of the House, and President of the Senate under A.R.S. § 12-841(A), and the association subsequently stipulated to dismiss the appeal with prejudice, preserving the homeowner’s administrative victory. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The Superior Court held that under A.R.S. § 12-908, the Department of Real Estate is not a necessary party to every HOA dispute appeal, but an HOA’s facial constitutional challenge against state dispute resolution statutes requires substitution of the State of Arizona and mandatory statutory service on the Attorney General, Speaker of the House, and President of the Senate pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-841(A).

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • CBS-136 Homeowners Association (Plaintiff/Appellant)
    Homeowners association in Sun City West that appealed an adverse administrative decision and attacked the statutory dispute process as facially unconstitutional.
  • Brian E. Ditsch (Counsel)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
    Counsel of record representing CBS-136 Homeowners Association.

Respondent Side

  • Annette Cohen (Defendant/Appellee)
    Homeowner who prevailed against the HOA at the Office of Administrative Hearings and defended her victory pro per in Superior Court.
  • State of Arizona (Defendant/Appellee)
    Office of the Arizona Attorney General
    Substituted as party appellee by court order to defend the facial constitutionality of Arizona's HOA administrative dispute resolution statutes.
  • Arizona Department of Real Estate (Dismissed Appellee)
    State regulatory agency that referred the petition to OAH; dismissed as a non-jural entity and superseded by the State of Arizona.
  • Dena Rosen Benjamin (Counsel)
    Office of the Arizona Attorney General
    Assistant Attorney General representing the State of Arizona upon substitution.

Neutral Parties

  • Hon. Patricia Ann Starr (Judge)
    Maricopa County Superior Court
    Superior Court Judge who ordered service on legislative leadership, substituted the State of Arizona, and presided over the appeal.

What happened

Homeowner Annette Cohen prevailed against CBS-136 HOA in an administrative dispute before the Office of Administrative Hearings.

The Real Estate Commissioner denied the HOA’s petition for rehearing, rendering the ALJ order binding.

CBS-136 HOA appealed to Maricopa County Superior Court (LC2018-000316), raising a facial constitutional challenge to A.R.S. § 32-2199.01.

Homeowner Cohen moved to dismiss the appeal, which the court denied because the Rules of Civil Procedure do not govern administrative reviews.

ADRE moved to dismiss itself as a non-jural entity under A.R.S. § 12-908.

Judge Patricia Ann Starr substituted the State of Arizona as appellee and ordered the HOA to serve the Attorney General, Senate President, and House Speaker under A.R.S. § 12-841(A).

Assistant Attorney General Dena Rosen Benjamin entered an appearance for the State.

The parties subsequently filed a joint stipulation for dismissal, terminating the appeal and leaving the administrative ruling in place.

Video overview of the case record

An AI-generated video overview of CBS-136 Homeowners Association v. Annette Cohen and State of Arizona (Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2018-000316). HOA launched facial constitutional challenge to ADRE dispute statute; State intervened before stipulated dismissal. 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 CBS-136 Homeowners Association v. Annette Cohen and State of Arizona. 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

2018-08-10

CBS-136 HOA files Notice of Appeal for Judicial Review of Administrative Decision in Maricopa County Superior Court (LC2018-000316).

2018-12-19

Assistant Attorney General Dena Rosen Benjamin files Notice of Appearance for the State of Arizona.

2019-03-04

Court enters formal Order of Dismissal following parties' joint stipulation for dismissal.

View all 9 source documents for this case ↓

Complete source-document index

This index contains 9 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 2018-08-23

Administrative Review Orders

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2018-08-23_001_administrative-review-orders.pdf

FAQ

What led to the appeal in CBS-136 HOA v. Cohen?

Homeowner Annette Cohen filed a dispute petition against CBS-136 Homeowners Association with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE). The matter was heard before an Administrative Law Judge at the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), who ruled in favor of Cohen. The Real Estate Commissioner denied the association’s motion for rehearing, making the ALJ order binding.

What constitutional challenge did the HOA raise?

Represented by attorney Brian E. Ditsch, CBS-136 HOA appealed to Maricopa County Superior Court and argued that Arizona’s HOA dispute resolution statutes (A.R.S. § 32-2199.01 et seq.) were facially unconstitutional, invoking legal arguments reminiscent of the earlier Gelb v. DFBLS jurisprudence.

How did Judge Starr handle the constitutional challenge?

Judge Patricia Ann Starr held that under A.R.S. § 12-841(A), any party asserting that a state statute is facially unconstitutional must formally serve its brief on the Arizona Attorney General, Speaker of the House of Representatives, and President of the Senate. The court refused to rule on constitutionality until proof of service on state leadership was provided.

Why was the State of Arizona substituted for ADRE?

ADRE moved to dismiss itself as an appellee, arguing it was a non-jural entity under amended A.R.S. § 12-908 and that the binding decision was issued by an ALJ. Judge Starr agreed that ADRE was not a necessary party to every HOA dispute, but recognized that the HOA’s constitutional challenge required state representation, ordering the State of Arizona substituted as party appellee.

How did the litigation conclude?

After Assistant Attorney General Dena Rosen Benjamin appeared on behalf of the State and briefing proceeded, the parties filed a joint stipulation for dismissal. The court entered an order of dismissal, leaving the homeowner’s administrative victory in full effect.

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 / citationMaricopa County Superior Court No. LC2018-000316
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateDecember 11, 2018
Judge / panelHon. Patricia Ann Starr
PartiesCBS-136 HOA (Appellant) v. Annette Cohen & State of Arizona (Appellees)
Governing law
  • A.R.S. § 12-841(A)
  • A.R.S. § 12-908
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
Topics
ProcedureCC&RsBoard Governance
Outcome / holding

The Superior Court held that under A.R.S. § 12-908, the Department of Real Estate is not a necessary party to every HOA dispute appeal, but an HOA's facial constitutional challenge against state dispute resolution statutes requires substitution of the State of Arizona and mandatory statutory service on the Attorney General, Speaker of the House, and President of the Senate pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-841(A).

Primary public sourceView hosted source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package9 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap7 roadmap entries
Video overviewCBS-136 Homeowners Association v. Annette Cohen and State of Arizona
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links3 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Following an adverse ruling by an Administrative Law Judge at the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) in favor of Sun City West homeowner Annette Cohen, CBS-136 Homeowners Association initiated an administrative appeal in Maricopa County Superior Court (LC2018-000316). Rather than defending on the factual record, the association—represented by Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen—mounted a direct facial constitutional challenge against Arizona's HOA dispute resolution system established under A.R.S. § 32-2199.01 et seq. ADRE moved to dismiss itself as a non-jural entity under amended A.R.S. § 12-908, but recognized that the facial constitutional attack required state representation. On December 11, 2018, Judge Patricia Ann Starr substituted the State of Arizona as party appellee and strictly enforced A.R.S. § 12-841(A), ordering that the HOA could not obtain a ruling on constitutionality without formally serving its brief on the Arizona Attorney General, Speaker of the House, and President of the Senate. Facing formal state intervention and rigorous review, the association subsequently entered a stipulation for dismissal, leaving the homeowner's administrative victory standing.

Key Issues & Findings

Under amended A.R.S. § 12-908, an administrative agency is no longer an indispensable party to every judicial review proceeding between private litigants (Lewis v. Arizona State Personnel Board). Because the binding decision before the court was issued by an Administrative Law Judge under A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B) after the Commissioner denied rehearing, ADRE was entitled to dismissal.

However, because CBS-136 HOA challenged the fundamental facial constitutionality of the legislative scheme governing HOA dispute resolution, the State of Arizona was the indispensable sovereign entity to defend its statutes. Judge Starr held that compliance with A.R.S. § 12-841(A) was mandatory: any party alleging that a state statute is facially unconstitutional must serve the Attorney General, House Speaker, and Senate President. The court refused to adjudicate the constitutional claims absent verified proof of legislative and executive service. When confronted with this procedural hurdle and the entry of appearance by the Attorney General's Office, the association chose to stipulate to dismissal.

Why It Matters

This case provides critical insight into how HOA industry counsel attempted to challenge the reconstituted ADRE dispute resolution system following the Court of Appeals decision in Gelb v. DFBLS. When homeowners successfully prevail before an ALJ, associations have attempted to invalidate the entire administrative forum on constitutional grounds. Judge Starr's enforcement of statutory service on state leadership and substitution of the Attorney General creates a formidable procedural barrier against collateral constitutional attacks by associations.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Terravita Country Club v. William M. Brown: ADRE Records Inspection Affirmed (LC2017-000307)

Posted on by

Administrative Review | A.R.S. § 33-1805 & § 32-2199 | LC2017-000307

Terravita Country Club refused member William M. Brown’s records request, claiming the records related to criminal charges brought against him by the City of Scottsdale. Judge Patricia Ann Starr held that third-party litigation does not excuse an association from statutory disclosure duties under A.R.S. § 33-1805.

Last updated September 17, 2026. Case: Terravita Country Club, Inc. v. William M. Brown and Arizona Department of Real Estate, Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2017-000307 (minute entries use LC2017-000307-001 DT); related Arizona Department of Real Estate No. HO 17-16/005 / Office of Administrative Hearings No. 17F-H1716005-REL; Hon. Patricia Ann Starr.

Download record appeal ruling affirming ADRE Download ruling denying stay of records disclosure Download initial administrative review orders Source-file index FAQ

Scope note: This page covers Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2017-000307, an administrative appeal under the post-Gelb statutory framework (A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.) in which Terravita Country Club, Inc. challenged an Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) order. Superior Court Judge Patricia Ann Starr affirmed the ADRE decision, holding that an association cannot withhold records under A.R.S. § 33-1805 based on pending criminal litigation against a member when the association is not a party to that prosecution. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The Superior Court affirmed the ADRE Final Order, holding that substantial evidence supported the finding that Terravita violated A.R.S. § 33-1805. An association cannot refuse member inspection requests on the basis of pending criminal proceedings to which the association is not a named party.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Terravita Country Club, Inc. (Plaintiff/Appellant)
    Country club and community entity in Scottsdale that appealed the ADRE records disclosure order.
  • Anjali J. Patel (Counsel)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
    Counsel of record representing Terravita Country Club, Inc.

Respondent Side

  • William M. Brown (Defendant/Appellee)
    Member and property owner who prevailed before ADRE and Superior Court under A.R.S. § 33-1805; appeared self-represented (pro per).
  • Arizona Department of Real Estate (Agency/Appellee)
    State administrative department that adopted the ALJ decision as its Final Order on July 24, 2017.
  • Lynette Evans (Counsel)
    Arizona Attorney General's Office
    Assistant Attorney General appearing on behalf of the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (Administrative Law Judge)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    ALJ who conducted the evidentiary hearing (No. 17F-H1716005-REL) and ruled Terravita violated A.R.S. § 33-1805.
  • Hon. Patricia Ann Starr (Judge)
    Maricopa County Superior Court
    Superior Court judge who denied the stay of records disclosure and affirmed the ADRE order on the merits.

What happened

On February 6, 2017, William M. Brown requested records from Terravita Country Club under A.R.S. § 33-1805. Terravita refused eight days later, claiming the documents involved pending criminal litigation against Brown.

Brown filed a petition with ADRE. On July 10, 2017, ALJ Velva Moses-Thompson issued a decision ruling that because Terravita was not a party to the criminal case, its refusal violated A.R.S. § 33-1805. The ALJ ordered document production within 10 days and a $500 fee refund.

ADRE adopted the ruling as a Final Order on July 24, 2017, and denied Terravita’s request for rehearing.

Terravita filed a Notice of Appeal in Maricopa County Superior Court on August 23, 2017 (LC2017-000307) and moved for an emergency stay.

On December 13, 2017, Judge Patricia Ann Starr denied Terravita’s motion to stay the records disclosure, holding that Terravita failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and could not stall statutory disclosures.

On May 21, 2018, Judge Starr issued a final Record Appeal Ruling affirming the ADRE order in its entirety and directing Terravita to comply and pay Brown’s costs.

Video overview: HOA record requests and the limits of litigation privilege

A plain-English breakdown of why pending third-party criminal proceedings do not excuse an HOA from member records disclosures under A.R.S. § 33-1805.

Procedural timeline

2017-02-06

William M. Brown submits written records request to Terravita Country Club pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1805.

2017-02-14

Terravita sends email refusing disclosure, alleging records relate to pending Scottsdale criminal litigation.

2017-04-13

Brown files Petition for Hearing with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (HO 17-16/005).

2017-06-19

Office of Administrative Hearings conducts evidentiary hearing before ALJ Velva Moses-Thompson.

2017-07-10

ALJ Moses-Thompson issues decision finding Terravita violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 and ordering compliance.

2017-07-24

ADRE Commissioner Judy Lowe accepts decision and issues Final Order.

2017-08-23

Terravita files Notice of Appeal for Judicial Review in Maricopa County Superior Court (LC2017-000307).

View all 10 source documents for this case ↓

Complete source-document index

This index contains 10 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 2017-08-31

Administrative Review Orders

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2017-08-31_001_administrative-review-orders.pdf

FAQ

What led to the administrative appeal in LC2017-000307?

Homeowner William M. Brown submitted a formal records request to Terravita Country Club, Inc. under A.R.S. § 33-1805. Terravita refused to produce the records, claiming they were protected because Brown was facing pending criminal prosecution initiated by the City of Scottsdale. Brown petitioned the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE), and an Administrative Law Judge ruled Terravita violated the statute. Terravita appealed that order to Superior Court.

Can an HOA refuse a records request because a member faces criminal litigation?

No. Superior Court Judge Patricia Ann Starr affirmed the ALJ’s finding that because Terravita was not a party to the criminal case brought by the City of Scottsdale, it could not claim the records were shielded by litigation exemptions. Under A.R.S. § 33-1805, pending third-party proceedings do not relieve an association of its mandatory 10-business-day disclosure timeline.

Did the court stay the disclosure order during the appeal?

No. While Judge Starr granted a temporary stay as to the $500 filing fee reimbursement, she explicitly denied Terravita’s motion to stay production of the records on December 13, 2017. The court ruled that Terravita failed to show irreparable harm, while staying production would directly prejudice the member entitled to inspect the association’s books.

What is the standard of review applied to ADRE administrative appeals?

Under A.R.S. § 12-910(E), the Superior Court must affirm an administrative decision unless the action is unsupported by substantial evidence, contrary to law, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion. The court does not conduct a trial de novo or substitute its own factual judgment for that of the administrative agency.

How does this case connect to the broader Terravita litigation saga?

This case represents the post-Gelb administrative era (ADRE under A.R.S. § 32-2199). It parallels Brown’s earlier DFBLS administrative battle (LC2012-000699 / 1 CA-CV 14-0455) and the extensive civil litigation between Terravita and Brown (CV2016-017770 and CV2017-055475), documenting a decade of disputes over governance transparency.

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 / citationMaricopa County Superior Court No. LC2017-000307
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateMay 21, 2018
Judge / panelHon. Patricia Ann Starr
PartiesTerravita Country Club, Inc. (Appellant) v. William M. Brown and Arizona Department of Real Estate (Appellees)
Governing law
Topics
Meetings & RecordsProcedureDisclosure
Outcome / holding

The Superior Court affirmed the ADRE Final Order, holding that substantial evidence supported the finding that Terravita violated A.R.S. § 33-1805. An association cannot refuse member inspection requests on the basis of pending criminal proceedings to which the association is not a named party.

Primary public sourceView hosted source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package10 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap9 roadmap entries
Video overviewTerravita Country Club v. Brown: HOA Records and ADRE Oversight
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links3 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

On February 6, 2017, member William M. Brown requested association records from Terravita Country Club, Inc. pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1805. Eight days later, Terravita refused the request, claiming the records were protected because they pertained to pending criminal proceedings brought against Brown by the City of Scottsdale. Brown filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE No. HO 17-16/005). Following a hearing before Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson (OAH No. 17F-H1716005-REL), the tribunal found that Terravita was not a party to the Scottsdale criminal prosecution and had violated § 33-1805 by failing to provide records within 10 business days. ADRE Commissioner Judy Lowe accepted the decision, ordered Terravita to produce the records within 10 days, and ordered Terravita to reimburse Brown's $500 filing fee. Terravita appealed to Maricopa County Superior Court (LC2017-000307). Judge Patricia Ann Starr denied Terravita's attempt to stay the document disclosure and, on May 21, 2018, affirmed the ADRE order in full, confirming that third-party litigation does not exempt an association from statutory record disclosures.

Key Issues & Findings

Under A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), all books, records, and financial statements of a planned community association must be made reasonably available for examination by any member within 10 business days of a written request. While subsection (B) exempts certain privileged categories—such as records pertaining to pending litigation between the association and a member—Judge Starr found that the criminal charges cited by Terravita were brought by the City of Scottsdale, not Terravita.

Because Terravita was not a party to the criminal action, it could not invoke the litigation exemption. Furthermore, the court held that Terravita waived several appellate arguments by failing to adequately develop them in its briefs, citing Cullum v. Cullum. Applying the deferential standard of review under A.R.S. § 12-910(E) (Siler v. Arizona Dept. of Real Estate), Judge Starr concluded that the administrative decision was supported by substantial evidence and was neither contrary to law, arbitrary and capricious, nor an abuse of discretion.

Earlier in the appeal, Judge Starr applied the stay standard under A.R.S. § 12-911 and denied Terravita's motion to stay production of the records, finding no irreparable harm to the association while recognizing the ongoing harm to the member deprived of statutory transparency.

Why It Matters

This ruling establishes a crucial check on association gatekeeping. Associations frequently attempt to withhold financial and administrative records by pointing to collateral disputes or outside law-enforcement complaints. This decision clarifies that only litigation where the association itself is a party can justify withholding documents, and that members' statutory inspection rights under A.R.S. § 33-1805 are strictly enforced by Arizona courts.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Dynamite Mountain Ranch v. Yang: ADRE Appeal Dismissed with Prejudice (LC2016-000528)

Posted on by

Administrative Appeals | ADRE Dispute Resolution | LC2016-000528

After an adverse administrative ruling before the Arizona Department of Real Estate, Dynamite Mountain Ranch HOA appealed to Superior Court. When no settlement stipulation was filed on time, Judge Patricia Ann Starr first dismissed the appeal without prejudice in July 2017; the parties later stipulated to dismissal with prejudice, which the court granted in January 2018.

Last updated September 17, 2026. Case: Dynamite Mountain Ranch Homeowners Association v. Lotay Yang, Sun Strand LLC, and Arizona Department of Real Estate, Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2016-000528 (minute entries use LC2016-000528-001 DT); related Office of Administrative Hearings / ADRE matter; Hon. Patricia Ann Starr.

Download order dismissing appeal with prejudice Download minute entry regarding service of process Download administrative review orders Source-file index FAQ

Scope note: This page covers Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2016-000528, an administrative appeal filed on December 21, 2016. Dynamite Mountain Ranch Homeowners Association appealed an adverse administrative decision rendered by the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) in favor of property owner Lotay Yang and Sun Strand LLC. After the parties reported a settlement but filed no stipulation within the court’s 45-day deadline, Superior Court Judge Patricia Ann Starr dismissed the appeal without prejudice on July 18, 2017. The parties then filed a joint stipulation for dismissal with prejudice on January 16, 2018, which the court granted on January 19, 2018, concluding the litigation and leaving the administrative resolution intact. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The Superior Court entered a final order of dismissal with prejudice pursuant to the parties’ joint settlement stipulation, terminating the association’s administrative appeal of the adverse ADRE ruling.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Dynamite Mountain Ranch Homeowners Association (Plaintiff/Appellant)
    Homeowners association in North Phoenix that appealed an administrative decision rendered by ADRE.
  • Larry D. Langley (Counsel)
    Counsel of record representing Dynamite Mountain Ranch Homeowners Association.

Respondent Side

  • Lotay Yang (Defendant/Appellee)
    Property owner who defended administrative proceedings and reached a settlement leading to dismissal with prejudice.
  • Sun Strand LLC (Defendant/Appellee)
    Entity affiliated with the real property at issue in the administrative dispute.
  • Arizona Department of Real Estate (Defendant/Appellee)
    State regulatory agency overseeing HOA dispute petitions.
  • Ryan Matthew Krench (Counsel)
    Office of the Arizona Attorney General
    Assistant Attorney General representing the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Neutral Parties

  • Hon. Patricia Ann Starr (Judge)
    Maricopa County Superior Court
    Superior Court Judge who presided over the administrative appeal and signed the dismissal order.

What happened

Dynamite Mountain Ranch HOA filed a Notice of Appeal for Judicial Review of Administrative Decision against Lotay Yang, Sun Strand LLC, and ADRE.

The court addressed service issues regarding out-of-state California addresses for Yang.

Assistant Attorney General Ryan Krench appeared for ADRE.

On April 27, 2017, the HOA notified the court that the parties had reached a resolution and that a stipulation would be filed. When no stipulation was filed within the 45-day deadline the court set on May 23, 2017, Judge Patricia Ann Starr dismissed the appeal without prejudice on July 18, 2017.

The parties then filed a Joint Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice on January 16, 2018, and on January 19, 2018 Judge Starr granted the stipulation, dismissing the appeal with prejudice.

Video overview of the case record

An AI-generated video overview of Dynamite Mountain Ranch Homeowners Association v. Lotay Yang, Sun Strand LLC, and ADRE (Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2016-000528). HOA appealed adverse ADRE administrative decision, reached settlement, and dismissed appeal with prejudice. 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 Dynamite Mountain Ranch Homeowners Association v. Lotay Yang, Sun Strand LLC, and ADRE. 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

2016-12-21

Dynamite Mountain Ranch HOA files Notice of Appeal for Judicial Review in Maricopa County Superior Court (LC2016-000528).

2017-04-27

HOA files notice that parties reached a resolution of the dispute.

2017-05-23

Judge Patricia Ann Starr orders that any stipulation and proposed order be filed within 45 days; absent that filing, the appeal will be dismissed without prejudice.

Download source
Minute Entry Resolution Notice
2017-07-18

No stipulation having been filed, Judge Patricia Ann Starr signs a formal order dismissing the appeal without prejudice.

Download source
Minute Entry Case Dismissed
2018-01-16

The parties file a Joint Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice.

View all 5 source documents for this case ↓

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 2017-01-05

Administrative Review Orders

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2017-01-05_001_administrative-review-orders.pdf
Source 4 2017-07-18

Minute Entry Case Dismissed

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2017-07-18_004_minute-entry-case-dismissed.pdf

FAQ

What was the underlying dispute in Dynamite Mountain Ranch v. Yang?

Property owner Lotay Yang and Sun Strand LLC were involved in an administrative dispute with Dynamite Mountain Ranch Homeowners Association before the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) and the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). Following an adverse ruling, the association appealed to Maricopa County Superior Court.

What procedural hurdles occurred during the appeal?

The HOA encountered difficulty serving the property owner at out-of-state California addresses and local Phoenix properties, prompting the court to review alternative service methods under Arizona administrative appeal rules.

How did the Superior Court appeal conclude?

The parties reached an out-of-court settlement resolving the underlying community dispute. When no dismissal stipulation was filed within the court’s 45-day deadline, Judge Patricia Ann Starr dismissed the appeal without prejudice on July 18, 2017. The parties then filed a Joint Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice on January 16, 2018, and on January 19, 2018 Judge Starr signed a formal order granting it, dismissing the appeal with prejudice.

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 / citationMaricopa County Superior Court No. LC2016-000528
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateJanuary 19, 2018
Judge / panelHon. Patricia Ann Starr
PartiesDynamite Mountain Ranch HOA (Appellant) v. Lotay Yang, Sun Strand LLC & ADRE (Appellees)
Governing law
  • A.R.S. § 12-904
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
Topics
ProcedureCC&RsBoard Governance
Outcome / holding

The Superior Court entered a final order of dismissal with prejudice pursuant to the parties' joint settlement stipulation, terminating the association's administrative appeal of the adverse ADRE ruling.

Primary public sourceView hosted source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package5 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap7 roadmap entries
Video overviewDynamite Mountain Ranch Homeowners Association v. Lotay Yang, Sun Strand LLC, and ADRE
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions3 questions
Featured download links3 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Dynamite Mountain Ranch Homeowners Association appealed to Maricopa County Superior Court (LC2016-000528) seeking judicial review of an administrative decision issued under the auspices of the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) in favor of property owner Lotay Yang and Sun Strand LLC. Represented by attorney Larry D. Langley, the association challenged the administrative ruling under Arizona's Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions statutes. Following initial procedural proceedings regarding out-of-state service on Yang and representation of ADRE by Assistant Attorney General Ryan Matthew Krench, the association reported that the parties had reached an agreement to resolve all outstanding disputes. On January 19, 2018, Judge Patricia Ann Starr granted the parties' Joint Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice, formally concluding the litigation.

Key Issues & Findings

Under Arizona administrative appeal practice, parties retain the ability to negotiate settlements and terminate judicial review through voluntary stipulations. Following the completion of service and initial appearance of state counsel, the association and property owner settled the underlying community governance claims, warranting dismissal with prejudice under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 41 and the JRAD Rules.

Why It Matters

The case illustrates the typical lifecycle of administrative appeals brought by HOAs against owners following hearings before the Department of Real Estate, demonstrating how Superior Court appeals frequently serve as negotiating levers that culminate in stipulated dismissals.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Candlewood Estates at Troon North v. Root: Interlocutory Appeal Dismissed (LC2016-000282)

Posted on by

Administrative Review | A.R.S. § 12-901 & § 12-905 | LC2016-000282

When homeowner Carol Root obtained an order granting a rehearing in her CC&R dispute, Candlewood Estates at Troon North HOA rushed to Superior Court to stop it. Judge Patricia Ann Starr dismissed the HOA’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, awarding costs to the homeowner.

Last updated September 17, 2026. Case: Candlewood Estates at Troon North Homeowners Association v. Carol M. Root and Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety, Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2016-000282 (minute entries use LC2016-000282-001 DT); related Office of Administrative Hearings / DFBLS matter; Hon. Patricia Ann Starr.

Download record appeal ruling dismissing appeal Download order awarding costs to appellee Root Download initial order granting stay pending appeal Source-file index FAQ

Scope note: This page covers Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2016-000282, an administrative appeal filed on July 1, 2016—the very month the Arizona Legislature transferred HOA dispute oversight from DFBLS to the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE). Candlewood Estates at Troon North HOA appealed an administrative order granting homeowner Carol M. Root a rehearing, attempting to enforce CC&R alternative dispute resolution clauses. Superior Court Judge Patricia Ann Starr dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 12-901(2) and § 12-905(A), holding that granting an administrative rehearing is not a final appealable order. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The Superior Court dismissed the HOA’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 12-905(A). An administrative order granting a petition for rehearing is not a final administrative decision appealable to Superior Court under A.R.S. § 12-901(2), even if the agency form text states the order is appealable.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Candlewood Estates at Troon North Homeowners Association (Plaintiff/Appellant)
    Homeowners association in the Troon North master planned community in Scottsdale that brought the premature appeal.
  • Frederick E. Davidson (Counsel)
    Law Offices of Frederick E. Davidson
    Counsel of record representing Candlewood Estates at Troon North Homeowners Association.

Respondent Side

  • Carol M. Root (Defendant/Appellee)
    Homeowner who petitioned against CC&R violations, secured an administrative rehearing, and won dismissal of the HOA's appeal with costs; appeared pro per.
  • Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety (Agency/Appellee)
    State department that granted Root's petition for rehearing; counsel for the successor Arizona Department of Real Estate also appeared.
  • Bradley R. Jardine (Counsel)
    Office of Administrative Hearings / DFBLS
    Counsel appearing in connection with the administrative record transmittal.

Neutral Parties

  • Hon. Patricia Ann Starr (Judge)
    Maricopa County Superior Court
    Superior Court judge who dismissed the appeal for lack of administrative finality and awarded costs to Root.

What happened

Carol M. Root filed a petition against Candlewood Estates at Troon North HOA with DFBLS alleging CC&R violations.

The HOA moved to dismiss, claiming CC&R dispute resolution provisions were the exclusive remedy, which an ALJ initially granted.

On May 25, 2016, DFBLS granted Root’s motion for rehearing, finding the ALJ’s dismissal contrary to law.

On July 1, 2016, Candlewood Estates appealed to Maricopa County Superior Court (LC2016-000282) seeking to overturn the rehearing order.

Judge Patricia Ann Starr granted a temporary stay pending review, but ultimately dismissed the entire appeal on October 18, 2017 for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that granting a rehearing is not a final agency decision.

On March 8, 2018, Judge Starr signed an order awarding taxable costs to homeowner Carol Root.

Procedural timeline

2016-02-17

ALJ grants Candlewood Estates' motion to dismiss based on CC&R dispute clauses.

2016-05-25

DFBLS enters order granting homeowner Carol Root's petition for rehearing as contrary to law.

2016-07-01

Candlewood Estates files Notice of Appeal for Judicial Review in Maricopa County Superior Court (LC2016-000282).

View all 12 source documents for this case ↓

Complete source-document index

This index contains 12 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 2016-07-26

Administrative Review Orders

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2016-07-26_002_administrative-review-orders.pdf
Source 10 2017-08-22

Order Setting Appeal At Issue

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2017-08-22_010_order-setting-appeal-at-issue.pdf

FAQ

What was the dispute in LC2016-000282?

Homeowner Carol M. Root filed an administrative petition with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety (DFBLS) alleging that Candlewood Estates at Troon North Homeowners Association violated the community’s CC&Rs.; The HOA moved to dismiss, arguing the CC&Rs required disputes to go through internal alternative dispute resolution. An Administrative Law Judge initially dismissed the petition, but DFBLS granted Root’s petition for rehearing.

Why did the HOA appeal to Superior Court?

Candlewood Estates sought to overturn the DFBLS order granting the rehearing, arguing that the agency had labeled its rehearing order a ‘final administrative decision’ and that the ALJ’s initial dismissal was correct under the CC&Rs.;

Why did Judge Starr dismiss the HOA's appeal?

Judge Patricia Ann Starr held that under A.R.S. §§ 12-901(2) and 12-905(A), the Superior Court has jurisdiction to review only final administrative decisions that terminate proceedings before the agency. Even though the agency order contained standard boiler-plate text calling it a ‘final administrative decision,’ granting a rehearing continues the proceedings rather than terminating them. The appeal was therefore an impermissible interlocutory appeal.

Can CC&R dispute clauses strip state administrative tribunals of jurisdiction?

The ALJ’s initial dismissal had accepted the HOA’s argument that CC&R dispute resolution procedures were exclusive. However, DFBLS granted a rehearing because that ruling was contrary to law—private CC&R clauses cannot contract away a homeowner’s statutory right to file a dispute petition under Arizona law.

What costs were awarded to the homeowner?

Following the dismissal of the HOA’s appeal, self-represented homeowner Carol Root filed a Motion for Costs. On March 8, 2018, the Superior Court entered an order awarding Root her taxable costs incurred in defending against the HOA’s premature appeal.

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 / citationMaricopa County Superior Court No. LC2016-000282
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateOctober 18, 2017
Judge / panelHon. Patricia Ann Starr
PartiesCandlewood Estates at Troon North HOA (Appellant) v. Carol M. Root and Arizona DFBLS (Appellees)
Governing law
  • A.R.S. § 12-901(2)
  • A.R.S. § 12-905(A)
  • Former A.R.S. § 41-2198
Topics
ProcedureCC&RsAttorney Fees
Outcome / holding

The Superior Court dismissed the HOA's appeal for lack of jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 12-905(A). An administrative order granting a petition for rehearing is not a final administrative decision appealable to Superior Court under A.R.S. § 12-901(2), even if the agency form text states the order is appealable.

Primary public sourceView hosted source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package12 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap7 roadmap entries
Video overviewNo video embed currently configured
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links3 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Homeowner Carol M. Root filed a petition with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety (DFBLS) alleging that Candlewood Estates at Troon North Homeowners Association violated the community's declaration (CC&Rs). The association moved to dismiss, arguing that the dispute had to proceed under the private alternative dispute resolution mechanisms defined in the CC&Rs rather than an administrative hearing. An Administrative Law Judge granted the motion to dismiss on February 17, 2016. However, upon Root's motion for review, the Department granted a rehearing on May 25, 2016, concluding the ALJ's dismissal was contrary to law. Seeking to abort the rehearing, Candlewood Estates filed an Appeal for Judicial Review in Maricopa County Superior Court on July 1, 2016 (LC2016-000282). Judge Patricia Ann Starr dismissed the appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, holding that an agency order granting a rehearing does not terminate the administrative proceedings and is therefore not an appealable 'final administrative decision' under A.R.S. § 12-901(2). On March 8, 2018, the court entered an order awarding taxable costs to Root.

Key Issues & Findings

Under Arizona's Administrative Review Act, the Superior Court possesses jurisdiction only to review 'final administrative decisions' (A.R.S. § 12-905(A)). To be final under A.R.S. § 12-901(2), an administrative decision must affect legal rights or duties and terminate the proceeding before the agency.

Judge Starr rejected Candlewood's argument that the order was final simply because DFBLS included boilerplate text advising the parties of appeal rights. An order granting a rehearing explicitly restarts or continues agency proceedings rather than concluding them. Because the dispute remained pending before the agency, the HOA's filing was an impermissible interlocutory appeal.

The case also highlights the tension between CC&R dispute resolution provisions and statutory administrative remedies. While the HOA sought to enforce CC&R clauses to avoid state agency oversight, DFBLS determined that private declarations cannot strip the state of statutory authority to hear homeowner grievances under Arizona law.

Why It Matters

For HOA boards and management attorneys, this case demonstrates that litigators cannot short-circuit unfavorable administrative rehearing orders by rushing to Superior Court. Appellate review of administrative actions requires strict adherence to finality rules. For homeowners, it confirms that when an agency grants a rehearing on the merits, the HOA cannot stall the process with premature appeals without facing dismissals and cost awards.

← Back to Superior Court cases

William M. Brown v. Terravita Community Ass’n: Attorney Fee Reversal on Appeal (LC2012-000699)

Posted on by

Administrative Review | A.R.S. § 12-341.01 & § 33-1805 | LC2012-000699

After demanding Terravita Community Association’s legal engagement agreements and executive minutes, homeowner William M. Brown was hit with a $5,000 attorney fee award in Superior Court. Representing himself before the Court of Appeals, Brown secured a full reversal, cementing key limits on HOA fee shifting.

Last updated September 17, 2026. Case: William M. Brown v. Terravita Community Association, Inc. and Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety, Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2012-000699 (minute entries use LC2012-000699-001 DT); related Office of Administrative Hearings No. 12F-H1212014-BFS; Court of Appeals No. 1 CA-CV 14-0455; The Hon. Crane McClennen.

Download judgment on appellate mandate reversing fees Download initial trial fee judgment against Brown Download initial record appeal ruling Source-file index FAQ

Scope note: This page covers Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2012-000699 and Court of Appeals No. 1 CA-CV 14-0455, an administrative appeal arising from a DFBLS records dispute. Superior Court Judge Crane McClennen initially affirmed the administrative dismissal of homeowner William M. Brown’s records petition and entered a $5,000 attorney fee judgment against him under A.R.S. § 12-341.01. Brown appealed pro se to the Arizona Court of Appeals, which issued a Memorandum Decision on July 30, 2015 reversing the fee award and declaring Brown the prevailing party, resulting in a judgment in Brown’s favor on remand. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

Following the Arizona Court of Appeals reversal in 1 CA-CV 14-0455, the Superior Court vacated the $5,000 attorney fee judgment against homeowner William M. Brown and entered final judgment in his favor. Administrative review petitions concerning statutory record requests do not trigger fee shifting against homeowners under A.R.S. § 12-341.01.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • William M. Brown (Plaintiff/Appellant)
    Homeowner who appealed the DFBLS ruling and achieved complete reversal of the $5,000 attorney fee penalty on appeal; appeared pro per.

Respondent Side

  • Terravita Community Association, Inc. (Defendant/Appellee)
    Master planned community association in Scottsdale that obtained the initial fee judgment which was overturned on appeal.
  • Arizona Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety (Agency/Appellee)
    State administrative department whose certified decision was under judicial review.
  • Curtis S. Ekmark (Counsel)
    Ekmark & Ekmark, L.L.C.
    Counsel of record representing Terravita Community Association, Inc.
  • Mary D. Williams (Counsel)
    Arizona Attorney General's Office
    Assistant Attorney General appearing on behalf of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.

Neutral Parties

  • Brian Brendan Tully (Administrative Law Judge)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    ALJ who granted summary judgment for mootness (No. 12F-H1212014-BFS) holding records were privileged.
  • The Hon. Crane McClennen (Judge)
    Maricopa County Superior Court
    Superior Court judge who entered the initial fee award and subsequently entered judgment for Brown on appellate remand.

What happened

On May 25, 2012, William M. Brown requested Terravita’s legal representation contracts and executive session minutes pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1805.

The association declined to produce the documents, asserting attorney-client privilege and executive session confidentiality.

Brown filed an administrative petition with DFBLS. On October 4, 2012, ALJ Brian Brendan Tully granted summary judgment for mootness, holding Brown was not legally entitled to the records.

Brown appealed to Maricopa County Superior Court on December 24, 2012 (LC2012-000699). Judge Crane McClennen affirmed the agency decision on November 22, 2013, and on February 13, 2014 awarded Terravita $5,000 in attorneys’ fees.

Brown posted a supersedeas bond and appealed pro se to the Arizona Court of Appeals (1 CA-CV 14-0455).

On July 30, 2015, the Court of Appeals reversed the fee judgment, holding Brown was the prevailing party on appeal.

On November 24, 2015, Judge McClennen entered judgment on the mandate in favor of Brown, awarding costs and releasing his bond.

Video overview: HOA record disputes, attorney-client privilege, and appellate fee reversal

An analysis of William M. Brown’s challenge to Terravita Community Association’s record withholdings, and how his pro se appellate victory eliminated a $5,000 fee penalty.

Procedural timeline

2012-05-25

William M. Brown submits formal records request to Terravita Community Association under A.R.S. § 33-1805.

2012-10-04

ALJ Brian Brendan Tully grants summary judgment for mootness in favor of Terravita (12F-H1212014-BFS).

2012-11-13

OAH Director Cliff J. Vanell certifies the ALJ decision as final administrative action.

2012-12-24

Brown files Notice of Appeal for Judicial Review in Maricopa County Superior Court (LC2012-000699).

2015-07-30

Arizona Court of Appeals issues Memorandum Decision in 1 CA-CV 14-0455 reversing the $5,000 fee award.

2015-09-09

Court of Appeals issues official Mandate transmitting reversal to Superior Court.

View all 16 source documents for this case ↓

Complete source-document index

This index contains 16 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 2013-01-02

Administrative Review Orders

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2013-01-02_001_administrative-review-orders.pdf
Source 5 2013-08-26

Order Setting Oral Argument

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2013-08-26_005_order-setting-oral-argument.pdf
Source 6 2013-09-24

Order Vacating Oral Argument

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2013-09-24_006_order-vacating-oral-argument.pdf
Source 16 2015-11-24

Order Exonerating Cost Bond

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2015-11-24_016_order-exonerating-cost-bond.pdf

FAQ

What triggered the dispute in LC2012-000699?

On May 25, 2012, homeowner William M. Brown requested copies of legal engagement letters and fee schedules between Terravita Community Association and the law firm Ekmark & Ekmark, as well as minutes from board executive sessions. When the HOA refused, Brown filed an administrative petition with DFBLS under A.R.S. § 33-1805.

Are HOA legal engagement letters and executive minutes subject to member inspection?

Under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B), contracts and fee schedules regarding legal representation are protected by attorney-client privilege and cannot be disclosed without board waiver. Furthermore, executive session minutes are expressly protected from disclosure under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(3), because non-board members are excluded from executive sessions under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A).

Why did the Superior Court order Brown to pay $5,000 in attorneys' fees?

After Superior Court Judge Crane McClennen affirmed the ALJ’s summary judgment dismissing Brown’s petition, Terravita applied for attorneys’ fees under A.R.S. § 12-341.01, claiming the administrative appeal arose out of contract (the CC&Rs). Judge McClennen awarded Terravita $5,000 in fees on February 13, 2014.

What did the Arizona Court of Appeals decide in 1 CA-CV 14-0455?

Brown appealed pro se to the Arizona Court of Appeals (1 CA-CV 14-0455). On July 30, 2015, the Court of Appeals issued a Memorandum Decision reversing the fee award, holding that Plaintiff-Appellant Brown was the prevailing party on appeal. On remand, Judge McClennen entered judgment on November 24, 2015 in favor of Brown and awarded Brown his taxable costs.

Why is Brown v. Terravita regularly cited in Arizona fee disputes?

The decision is widely cited (including in Whitmer v. Hilton Casitas) on the boundaries of fee shifting under A.R.S. § 12-341.01, establishing that purely statutory claims and administrative appeals do not automatically ‘arise out of contract’ simply because the parties belong to a common-interest community.

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 / citationMaricopa County Superior Court No. LC2012-000699 / 1 CA-CV 14-0455
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateNovember 24, 2015
Judge / panelThe Hon. Crane McClennen
PartiesWilliam M. Brown (Appellant) v. Terravita Community Association and Arizona DFBLS (Appellees)
Governing law
Topics
Attorney FeesMeetings & RecordsProcedure
Outcome / holding

Following the Arizona Court of Appeals reversal in 1 CA-CV 14-0455, the Superior Court vacated the $5,000 attorney fee judgment against homeowner William M. Brown and entered final judgment in his favor. Administrative review petitions concerning statutory record requests do not trigger fee shifting against homeowners under A.R.S. § 12-341.01.

Primary public sourceView hosted source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package16 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap10 roadmap entries
Video overviewWilliam M. Brown v. Terravita Community Ass'n: Overturning HOA Attorney Fees
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links3 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

In May 2012, homeowner William M. Brown submitted a records request to Terravita Community Association, Inc. under A.R.S. § 33-1805, seeking the association's legal engagement agreements with Ekmark & Ekmark, fee schedules, and minutes from board executive sessions. When the association refused, Brown filed an administrative complaint with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety (DFBLS No. 12F-H1212014-BFS). Administrative Law Judge Brian Brendan Tully granted the association's motion for summary judgment, concluding the requested records were protected by attorney-client privilege and executive session confidentiality statutes. Brown appealed to Maricopa County Superior Court (LC2012-000699). Judge Crane McClennen affirmed the administrative order and entered a $5,000 attorney fee judgment against Brown under A.R.S. § 12-341.01. Brown appealed pro se to the Arizona Court of Appeals (1 CA-CV 14-0455). On July 30, 2015, the Court of Appeals issued a Memorandum Decision reversing the fee award and designating Brown the prevailing party. On remand, Judge McClennen entered judgment on November 24, 2015 in favor of Brown and awarded him costs.

Key Issues & Findings

While the administrative tribunal correctly recognized that attorney retainer agreements and executive session minutes are protected from general member inspection under A.R.S. § 33-1805(B) and § 33-1804(A), the trial court erred in penalizing the homeowner with $5,000 in association attorneys' fees under A.R.S. § 12-341.01.

Under Arizona law, fees are authorized under § 12-341.01 only in contested actions 'arising out of a contract.' Brown's administrative petition was grounded in the enforcement of statutory transparency mandates under A.R.S. § 33-1805, rather than a breach-of-contract claim based on the declaration. The Court of Appeals determined that Brown was the prevailing party on appeal in 1 CA-CV 14-0455, overturning the superior court's fee award.

Pursuant to the appellate mandate, Judge McClennen entered judgment for Brown for his taxable costs ($280.00) and exonerated his $500.00 supersedeas cost bond, closing the case pursuant to Rule 54(c). The case stands as a key defense against HOAs using fee-shifting statutes to discourage homeowners from seeking administrative review.

Why It Matters

This case is a landmark victory for self-represented homeowners. Had the $5,000 fee judgment stood, it would have created a chilling effect preventing homeowners from using state administrative hearing processes to question association secrecy. The Court of Appeals' reversal demonstrates that an HOA cannot easily weaponize A.R.S. § 12-341.01 to extract attorney fees when a homeowner invokes statutory inspection rights.

← Back to Superior Court cases