Superior Court HOA Case
A Maricopa County judge held that Foothills Club West could not take over golf-course declarant rights without a 75% Master CC&R amendment vote and could not take final action in executive session.
Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Club West Conservancy v. Foothills Club West Community Association, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2020-003577.
Scope note: This page covers Club West Conservancy v. Foothills Club West Community Association (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2020-003577) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s own filed minute entries, especially the July 1, 2020 dismissal ruling, the October 30, 2020 preliminary-injunction ruling, the March 23, 2021 summary-judgment ruling, and the November 10, 2021 Rule 54(c) judgment; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: the last collected minute entries, dated November 10, 2021, show a final Rule 54(c) judgment and denial of intervention; they do not show any appellate outcome. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The takeaway
The superior court ruled that Foothills Club West Community Association could not become declarant under the Golf Course Declaration without following the Master CC&Rs’ 75% member-vote amendment process for annexing property. It also held that the association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 by accepting the assignment and executing amendments in executive session, because the statute permits closed sessions for limited advice or discussion topics but not final votes or action.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Club West Conservancy (Plaintiff)
Arizona nonprofit corporation whose pleaded purpose was to protect members affected by the association’s golf-course actions. - Francis J. Slavin (Counsel)
Counsel for Club West Conservancy in the minute entries. - Daniel J. Slavin (Counsel)
Counsel appearing for Club West Conservancy in later minute entries.
Respondent Side
- Foothills Club West Community Association (Defendant)
Planned-community association that accepted the Golf Course Declaration declarant-rights assignment and executed later amendments. - Michael P. Hinz (Defendant)
Board-member defendant and association president identified in the rulings as signing the 2018 First Amendment. - Paul Moroz (Defendant)
Board-member defendant identified in the rulings as signing the 2010 Assignment of Declarant Rights as then-president. - Martha Neese (Defendant)
Board-member defendant who appeared in the minute entries. - Christopher Geist (Defendant)
Board-member defendant listed in the case-party records. - Fred Kaiser (Defendant)
Board-member defendant listed in the case-party records. - Thomas Townsend (Defendant)
Board-member defendant listed in the case-party records. - Carlotta L. Turman (Counsel)
Counsel for the association defendants in the minute entries. - Jeffrey G. Solloway (Counsel)
Counsel for the association defendants in the early motion-to-dismiss and later proceedings. - Scott Carpenter (Counsel)
Counsel appearing for the association defendants in the early proceedings. - Timothy H. Barnes (Counsel)
Counsel appearing for the association defendants in later proceedings.
Neutral Parties
- The Edge at Club West, LLC (Proposed intervenor)
Filed a motion to intervene after summary judgment; the court denied intervention on November 10, 2021. - Daniel G. Dowd (Counsel)
Counsel associated with The Edge at Club West, LLC in the intervention-related minute entries. - Daniel J. Kiley (Judge)
Superior Court judge who denied dismissal and entered the preliminary-injunction ruling. - Andrew J. Russell (Judge)
Superior Court judicial officer who issued the March 23, 2021 summary-judgment ruling. - Joan M. Sinclair (Judge)
Superior Court judge who entered costs, final judgment, and the intervention ruling.
What happened
Foothills Club West is a master planned community with a separate Golf Course Declaration. The Master CC&Rs required 75% owner approval for most amendments, including amendments involving addition or annexation of property. The Golf Course Declaration restricted the golf-course property to golf-course and related uses and allowed the original declarant to transfer declarant rights by recorded instrument.
The association accepted an Assignment of Declarant Rights in 2010. In 2018, the association signed a First Amendment to the Golf Course Declaration adding a process for member approval of a future change from golf use to non-golf use. The Conservancy alleged the association and board members lacked authority to accept those declarant rights, lacked authority to amend the Golf Course Declaration, and used executive sessions in a way that violated Arizona’s planned-community open-meeting statute.
Judge Daniel Kiley first denied the association defendants’ motion to dismiss. The July 1, 2020 ruling held the Conservancy had sufficiently pleaded representational standing, that the golf-course owner was not a basis for dismissal under Rule 19, that A.R.S. § 10-3304 did not bar declaratory relief, and that Paragraph 11.8 of the CC&Rs was broad enough to let owners enforce the governing documents through the Conservancy.
After an evidentiary hearing, Judge Kiley entered a preliminary injunction. The October 30, 2020 ruling found serious questions about whether the board could accept declarant rights and amend the Golf Course Declaration in executive session, and about whether a tract declaration could use a lower amendment threshold than the 75% threshold in the Master Declaration. The injunction barred votes to amend the governing documents to authorize non-golf use or development while the merits were pending.
Judge Andrew Russell later resolved the merits on summary judgment. The March 23, 2021 ruling held that accepting declarant rights effectively brought the golf-course property under association control and therefore required compliance with the Master CC&Rs’ annexation/amendment process. The court also held the association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 because accepting the assignment and executing amendments occurred in executive session, and executive sessions may not be used for final votes or action.
Final Rule 54(c) judgment was entered November 10, 2021. The judgment declared the Assignment of Declarant Rights, the First Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment null and void ab initio; held Shea Homes did not validly transfer declarant rights to the association; held the association did not become declarant under the Golf Course Declaration; awarded the Conservancy $5,108.83 plus interest; released the injunction bond; and stated no matters remained pending.
Procedural timeline
Complete uploaded source-document index
This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/club-west-conservancy-v-foothills-club-west-community-association/raw/: 20 PDFs. Files are ordered by the date/sequence embedded in the normalized filename; AI-generated review materials are labeled separately and should not be treated as court filings.
Oral Argument Set
Type: Court/source PDF
Minute entry setting oral argument on the association defendants’ motion to dismiss after they withdrew their motion for summary disposition.
Oral Argument
Type: Court/source PDF
Order-to-show-cause minute entry setting a preliminary-injunction hearing and directing the parties to address a temporary restraining order barring Golf Course Declaration votes.
Oral Argument
Type: Court/source PDF
Oral-argument minute entry setting an evidentiary hearing on temporary injunctive relief and taking the association defendants’ motion to dismiss under advisement.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Correcting minute entry replacing the remote-hearing information for the July 6 evidentiary hearing.
Under Advisement Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Under-advisement ruling denying the association defendants’ motion to dismiss and holding Club West Conservancy had pleaded enough to pursue declaratory and injunctive claims over the Golf Course Declaration.
Status Conference
Type: Court/source PDF
Minute entry vacating the evidentiary hearing by agreement and setting a telephonic status conference.
Status Conference
Type: Court/source PDF
Status-conference minute entry recording the parties’ agreement to resolve the temporary-restraining-order issue and resetting the preliminary-injunction hearing.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling granting Club West Conservancy additional time to respond to the association defendants’ partial summary-judgment motion.
Oral Argument Set
Type: Court/source PDF
Minute entry resetting the preliminary-injunction hearing at counsel’s request.
Oral Argument
Type: Court/source PDF
Preliminary-injunction hearing minute entry receiving testimony and exhibits, denying the defendants’ oral request to deny injunctive relief, and taking the application under advisement.
Under Advisement Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Under-advisement ruling granting a preliminary injunction that barred votes to amend the Golf Course Declaration or Master Declaration to allow non-golf use or development of the golf-course property.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling entering the formal preliminary-injunction order with modifications consistent with the court’s written injunction ruling.
Oral Argument Set
Type: Court/source PDF
Status-conference minute entry setting argument on the association defendants’ partial summary-judgment motion and Club West Conservancy’s cross-motion for summary judgment.
Oral Argument
Type: Court/source PDF
Oral-argument minute entry taking the competing summary-judgment motions under advisement.
Under Advisement Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Under-advisement ruling denying the association defendants’ partial summary-judgment motion, granting Club West Conservancy summary judgment, and holding the association lacked authority to accept declarant rights without a 75% Master CC&R amendment vote and violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 by acting in executive session.
Judgment Entered
Type: Decision or judgment
Judgment entry awarding Club West Conservancy $5,108.83 in taxable costs after the summary-judgment ruling resolved the case.
Status Conference
Type: Court/source PDF
Minute entry setting a status conference on the proposed Rule 54(c) judgment.
Status Conference
Type: Court/source PDF
Status-conference minute entry recording agreed changes to the proposed judgment and delaying entry until the pending intervention motion was resolved.
Judgment Entered
Type: Decision or judgment
Rule 54(c) judgment declaring the Assignment of Declarant Rights, First Amendment, and Fifth Amendment null and void ab initio, holding the association did not become declarant, awarding Club West Conservancy $5,108.83 plus interest, releasing the injunction bond, and stating no matters remained pending.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying The Edge at Club West, LLC’s motion to intervene and related requests while stating the judgment would track the under-advisement ruling.
FAQ
What did Club West Conservancy challenge?
The Conservancy challenged the association’s recorded acceptance of Golf Course Declaration declarant rights and later amendments to that declaration, arguing the association had no authority to act as declarant or change the declaration through executive-session board action.
Why did the court say a 75% vote mattered?
The court treated accepting the golf-course declarant role as effectively bringing the golf-course property under association control. Because the original 20-year annexation pathway had expired, the court held the only available route was a Master CC&R amendment under Section 11.2, which required approval by members owning at least 75% of all lots.
What did the court decide under A.R.S. § 33-1804?
The court held that the association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 by accepting declarant rights and executing amendments in executive session. The statute allows closed sessions for limited topics such as legal advice, but the court held those topics do not include voting or otherwise taking final action.
Did the preliminary injunction decide the whole case?
No. The October 2020 preliminary injunction preserved the status quo by barring votes to authorize non-golf use or development while the case continued. The merits were resolved later in the March 23, 2021 summary-judgment ruling.
What did the final judgment void?
The November 10, 2021 judgment declared the 2010 Assignment of Declarant Rights, the 2018 First Amendment, and the 2019 Fifth Amendment null and void ab initio, and held the association did not become declarant under the Golf Course Declaration.
Is this ruling binding precedent for other HOA disputes?
No. It is a superior-court ruling, so it binds only the parties. It is still educational because it lays out a detailed trial-court analysis of CC&R hierarchy, annexation authority, and A.R.S. § 33-1804 open-meeting limits.
Case Dossier
This generated dossier mirrors the structured data surfaced on the OAH/ADRE case pages. It is added from the curated court-case record and the custom page source package, while the hand-authored analysis below remains intact.
Case Summary
| Case ID / citation | CV2020-003577 (Maricopa County Superior Court) |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Superior Court |
| Decision / key date | March 23, 2021 |
| Judge / panel | Hon. Daniel J. Kiley, Hon. Andrew J. Russell, Hon. Joan M. Sinclair |
| Parties | Club West Conservancy (Plaintiff) v. Foothills Club West Community Association and board-member defendants (Defendants) |
| Governing law | |
| Topics | cc-and-rsamendmentsopen-meetingsboard-governanceprocedure |
| Outcome / holding | The superior court granted Club West Conservancy summary judgment, denied the association defendants’ partial summary-judgment motion, held that Foothills Club West Community Association could not accept golf-course declarant rights without following the Master CC&Rs’ 75% amendment-vote requirement, and held the association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 by taking the assignment and amendment actions in executive session. |
| Primary public source | View source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Uploaded source package | 20 PDFs |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 10 roadmap entries |
| Video overview | No video embed currently configured |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 6 questions |
| Curated download aliases | 1 download link |
Key Issues & Findings
Club West Conservancy sued Foothills Club West Community Association and board-member defendants over the association’s acceptance of declarant rights under the Foothills Club West Golf Course Declaration and later amendments to that declaration. The court first denied the association defendants’ motion to dismiss, allowing the Conservancy to proceed on representational standing and CC&R-enforcement theories. After an evidentiary hearing, the court entered a preliminary injunction barring votes to amend the Golf Course Declaration or Master Declaration to allow non-golf use or development of the golf-course property. On summary judgment, the court ruled for the Conservancy: accepting declarant rights effectively annexed the golf-course property and required a 75% member vote to amend the Master CC&Rs, and the association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 by voting and taking action in executive session. Final Rule 54(c) judgment declared the assignment and two amendments null and void ab initio and awarded costs to the Conservancy.
The court treated the association’s acceptance of the Golf Course Declaration declarant rights as more than a simple transfer of contract rights. Although the Golf Course Declaration allowed the original declarant to transfer rights, the court held the receiving association also had to be authorized by its own Master CC&Rs to take control over the golf-course property. Because accepting the declarant role brought additional property under the association’s control, the court characterized it as annexation. The Master CC&Rs’ original 20-year annexation pathway had expired, the golf course did not fit the separate non-annexable-property provision, and Section 11.2 required a 75% member vote to amend the Master CC&Rs for annexation.
The court also enforced Arizona’s open-meeting statute for planned communities. It found no factual dispute that the association accepted the declarant-rights assignment and executed later Golf Course Declaration amendments in executive session. The court rejected the argument that a board may take final action behind closed doors because counsel is present or legal advice is involved. A.R.S. § 33-1804 allows executive sessions for limited topics such as legal advice and litigation discussion, but the court held none of those authorized topics includes voting or otherwise taking action.
Earlier rulings shaped the case but did not end it. The July 2020 dismissal ruling held the Conservancy could proceed based on representational standing, the CC&Rs’ owner-enforcement clause, and the Declaratory Judgments Act. The October 2020 preliminary-injunction ruling found serious questions about both executive-session action and whether a tract declaration could use a lower amendment threshold than the Master Declaration. The March 2021 summary-judgment ruling then resolved the merits, and the November 2021 judgment declared the Assignment of Declarant Rights, First Amendment, and Fifth Amendment null and void ab initio.
This case is a detailed Arizona superior-court example of an HOA board’s limits when trying to control property and amendment rights outside the ordinary common-area structure. The ruling did not say a golf-course declaration could never be assigned; it said this association could not accept that role unless its own Master CC&Rs authorized the resulting annexation, which required a 75% member-approved amendment.
The open-meeting holding is equally important for board governance. The court read A.R.S. § 33-1804 to permit closed executive sessions for advice and discussion on listed topics, but not for final votes or action. As a superior-court ruling it is not precedent, but it is a strong must-read trial-court treatment of CC&R hierarchy, tract declarations, annexation, open meetings, and member control over major community changes.