Category Archives: Superior Court

In November 2012, Saxton filed demands to inspect association financial records pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1805. The association produced three sets of documents between December 2012 and January 2013, but redacted substantial portions. In September 2013, counsel for the association offered to allow Saxton to inspect the unredacted originals at counsel’s office, but Saxton did not attend.

Under former A.R.S. § 41-2198.01(B) (and current A.R.S. § 32-2199.01), a petition for an administrative hearing must be filed within one year of the date of the alleged violation. Because Saxton received the redacted records by January 8, 2013, but did not file her DFBLS petition until November 25, 2013, the ALJ and Superior Court held that her claims regarding the timeliness and initial production were barred by the one-year statute of limitations.

Yes. Where an association maintains sensitive or confidential records that require supervision to protect against improper disclosure of privileged material, offering the homeowner a reasonable opportunity to view unredacted documents at the office of association legal counsel complies with A.R.S. § 33-1805.

Yes. Following the affirmance of the administrative dismissal, The Lakes Community Association filed a Statement of Costs and Notice of Taxation. On July 27, 2015, Judge Crane McClennen ordered Saxton to pay $535.70 in taxable costs to the association.

Homeowners must calendar the strict one-year administrative statute of limitations from the very first denial or defective production. Waiting to negotiate or refusing an invitation to inspect documents at counsel’s office can lead to complete dismissal of statutory claims.

Velda Rose Estates Home Owners Association, represented by Charles E. Maxwell of Maxwell & Morgan, sued homeowner Edith Poggi in East Mesa Justice Court for unpaid assessments. The HOA obtained summary judgment and proceeded to enforce the monetary judgment by executing a sheriff’s sale of her property.

Represented by counsel Kent Berk of Berk & Moskowitz, Poggi appealed to Maricopa County Superior Court, arguing that the HOA had improperly assessed fees based on the number of units rather than the number of lots as the declaration required.

Commissioner Harris issued a detailed 16-page ruling on June 10, 2014, affirming in part and reversing in part the justice court’s judgment and remanding the case. The court held that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the HOA assessed Poggi per unit rather than per lot as the CC&Rs required, and set aside the summary judgment on that basis; it rejected her separate claims, including that the CC&Rs were invalidly adopted and that she had not received the summary judgment motion. Because neither party prevailed, the court awarded no attorney fees.

Following the Superior Court’s reversal and remand, the parties reached a settlement and, on October 17, 2014, filed a stipulation to vacate all judgments, set aside the sheriff’s sale, and dismiss with prejudice. On October 30, 2014, the Superior Court took no action on that stipulation, holding it lacked jurisdiction because the case had already been remanded to the East Mesa Justice Court.

It serves as a powerful demonstration that HOA collection judgments and resulting execution sales can be challenged and overturned on appeal when based on defective notice, improper assessment math, or flawed CC&R enforcement.

The case arose from Suzanne Sallus’s 2011 purchase of a parcel in Sunrise Desert Vistas. When her title company requested mandatory resale disclosures under A.R.S. § 33-1806, the POA provided limited assessment figures and directed her to its public website. Sallus petitioned the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety (DFBLS), arguing the POA failed to deliver required financial reports, reserve studies, and pending litigation disclosures.

No. The Administrative Law Judge and Superior Court Judge Crane McClennen both held that A.R.S. § 33-1806 requires direct delivery of all statutory disclosures. Directing a buyer to a website is legally deficient where the website lacks complete mandatory documents (like insurance coverage and reserve funds) or where sensitive financial records are gated behind owner-only logins that prospective purchasers in escrow cannot access.

A lawsuit remains legally ‘pending’ until the court formally signs and enters an order of dismissal. The POA claimed it was not required to disclose two lawsuits because settlement agreements had already been signed in private; however, because the Superior Court had not yet entered formal dismissal orders when escrow notice was received, the lawsuits were legally pending and required disclosure under § 33-1806(A).

On June 7, 2016, in 1 CA-CV 14-0452, the Arizona Court of Appeals vacated both the Superior Court judgment and the underlying ALJ order because the administrative agency (DFBLS) lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate private planned community disputes. This jurisdictional flaw stemmed from the separation-of-powers doctrine articulated in Gelb v. DFBLS.

They are companion cases arising from the same contentious relationship. While this lower court appeal (LC2013-000042) tested the state’s administrative hearing process over pre-closing statutory disclosure duties, the parties concurrently litigated their broader governance, harassment, and CC&R enforcement battle in Maricopa County Superior Court civil division (CV2013-004301).