Covenant Enforcement & Contempt Sanctions | A.R.S. § 12-1511 | CV2021-051550
In this Maricopa County Superior Court case, the Cottonfields Community Association enforced a Reciprocal Easement and Maintenance Agreement against RCP Southern Ridge, LLP, the owner and operator of the golf course adjacent to the community’s 450 homes. After confirming an arbitration award as a judgment with a permanent and continuing injunction, the court found the golf course owner in violation of that judgment, rejected its impossibility and vagueness defenses, ordered compliance on a deadline backed by contingent $60,000 monetary sanctions, and held that the enforcement orders run with the land — binding whoever owns the golf course property.
Last updated July 1, 2026. Case: Cottonfields Community Association v. RCP Southern Ridge, LLP, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2021-051550.
Scope note: This page covers Cottonfields Community Association v. RCP Southern Ridge, LLP (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2021-051550) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s own filed minute entries, including the April 1, 2022 under-advisement ruling on the association’s Application for Order to Show Cause and Motion for Sanctions; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: the most recent collected minute entry is from August 17, 2023, when the court denied — without prejudice, for a service defect — the association’s motion to substitute the golf course’s new owner, Laveen 140, LLC, as defendant. The permanent injunction remained in effect and enforcement proceedings were still unresolved at that point, so later developments may not be reflected here. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The takeaway
In its April 1, 2022 under-advisement ruling, the superior court found by clear and convincing evidence that RCP Southern Ridge, LLP was violating the August 2021 judgment enforcing the community’s Reciprocal Easement and Maintenance Agreement. The court rejected the owner’s impossibility defense — a party claiming inability to pay bears the burden of producing financial evidence, and none was produced — and found no genuine confusion about the judgment’s specific and definite terms. It ordered full compliance by June 1, 2022 with a midpoint progress report, backed by contingent $60,000 monetary sanctions to be held as a maintenance bond, granted the association an easement to enter the golf course property for emergency repairs affecting adjacent homeowners, and ordered that these obligations run with the land, binding any future owner of the property. The court declined to impose anticipatory per-occurrence sanctions, declined to hold the LLP’s individual partners personally liable, and denied the association’s attorneys’ fees because no fee claim had been made in the pleadings.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Cottonfields Community Association (Plaintiff)
Homeowners association for the 450 homes adjacent to the Golf Course Property; obtained the arbitration award, the confirming judgment, and the enforcement orders. - Troy B. Stratman (Counsel)
Counsel for the Cottonfields Community Association throughout the collected minute entries, including the evidentiary hearing and enforcement proceedings. - Kesha Hodge (Association president)
Identified in the minute entries as a Cottonfields board member and as president of the homeowners association; testified at the December 2021 evidentiary hearing.
Respondent Side
- RCP Southern Ridge, LLP (Defendant)
Owner and operator of the Golf Course Property at the time of the judgment and the 2022 sanctions ruling; the minute entries reflect that it later sold the property. - Asha Sebastian (Counsel)
Counsel for RCP Southern Ridge, LLP, appearing from the November 12, 2021 return hearing onward, including the December 2021 evidentiary hearing. - Mark Horne (Counsel)
Co-counsel for RCP Southern Ridge, LLP at the December 9, 2021 evidentiary hearing. - Shifton White (Principal of Defendant)
Described in the minute entries as the sole proprietor of RCP Southern Ridge, LLP; testified at the December 2021 evidentiary hearing, including that proper maintenance of the golf course used to cost him $115,000 to $120,000 per year.
Neutral Parties
- Sara J. Agne (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court judge who confirmed the arbitration award, presided over the 2021 enforcement hearings, and issued the April 1, 2022 under-advisement ruling. - Melissa Iyer Julian (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court judge who issued the May 2023 ruling vacating the erroneous dismissal and the August 2023 ruling on the motion to substitute the successor owner.
What happened
Cottonfields is a 450-home Arizona community whose homes sit adjacent to a golf course. The golf course property was owned and operated by RCP Southern Ridge, LLP and is subject to a Reciprocal Easement and Maintenance Agreement (REMA), which the court described as setting restrictions and obligations on the proper use, operation, and enjoyment of the Golf Course Property for the purpose of enhancing and protecting the value, desirability, and attractiveness of the 450 homes within the Cottonfields Community Association and of the golf course itself.
The association took a REMA dispute to arbitration and won. In May 2021 it applied to the superior court to confirm the Final Arbitration Award; when the time for opposition under A.R.S. § 12-1511 passed with no response, Judge Sara Agne directed the association to lodge a proposed judgment. The judgment, filed August 3, 2021, imposed a permanent and continuing injunction requiring RCP to bring the golf course into compliance with the REMA, stop operating other businesses on the property in violation of REMA Section 5.1, regularly irrigate the property, maintain it in good condition to the Maintenance Standard of Section 5.2, and keep the related lakes in good condition as Section 3.1 requires.
Two weeks after judgment, the association filed an Application for Order to Show Cause and Motion for Sanctions, alleging noncompliance. Enforcement started slowly: at an October 2021 hearing, RCP’s principal Shifton White appeared without counsel, disputed that the company had been served, and declined a request to accept service, and the court ordered RCP to appear through counsel. With counsel on board, the court held an evidentiary hearing on December 9, 2021, at which White and association president Kesha Hodge testified, followed by written closing arguments.
In the April 1, 2022 under-advisement ruling, Judge Agne found the testimony and evidence “largely unequivocal” that RCP was violating the judgment and injunction, and that the association had proved this by clear and convincing evidence — RCP’s own principal admitted the golf course’s condition was not what he would like. The court rejected RCP’s two defenses. On impossibility, a party asserting inability to pay bears the burden of production under United States v. Rylander, and RCP produced no financial evidence; its principal testified only that the company had a “nominal income” he could not quantify. On vagueness, the court found the judgment’s terms specific and definite, noting White had owned golf courses before and understood how to comply, and finding his testimony that he was unaware of the judgment’s specific terms not credible.
The court ordered RCP to bring the property into full compliance with the REMA by June 1, 2022, and to file a written midpoint progress report by May 1, 2022 — with a $60,000 monetary sanction, payable to the Clerk of Court and held as a bond for future maintenance, if either deadline was missed, and a second $60,000 sanction if noncompliance continued into late 2022. It also granted the association an easement to access the golf course property for emergency repairs that would otherwise impact adjacent homeowners, and ordered that these obligations run with the land, binding whoever owns the property. The court declined to go further: it refused a prospective $10,000-per-occurrence sanction as an improper anticipatory contempt order, declined to pierce the LLP’s veil to reach its individual partners for lack of evidence, and denied the association’s attorneys’ fees because no fee claim had been made in the pleadings as Rule 54(g)(1) requires.
The 2023 minute entries cover the aftermath of a sale of the golf course. In March 2023 the association’s prior counsel stipulated to dismiss the case without prejudice on the ground that RCP no longer owned the property, and the court granted the stipulation. The association — asserting the stipulation was signed without its consent and that the new owner, Laveen 140, LLC, was violating the judgment and sanctions order — moved to vacate. In a May 11, 2023 ruling, Judge Melissa Iyer Julian granted Rule 60(b)(6) relief, concluding the court had erred: the claims had already been resolved in a final, unappealed Rule 54(c) judgment, so “there was nothing to dismiss,” and the dismissal conflicted with the continuing injunction that remains in effect. The proper path, the court explained, was substitution of Laveen 140, LLC as successor defendant under Rule 25(c). The association’s first substitution motion was denied without prejudice in August 2023 because the proposed new party had not been served under Rule 4.1; that is where the collected record ends.
Procedural timeline
Complete uploaded source-document index
This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/cottonfields-community-association-v-rcp-southern-ridge/raw/: 8 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.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Under Advisement Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
FAQ
What is the Reciprocal Easement and Maintenance Agreement (REMA), and why could the HOA enforce it against a golf course?
The REMA is an agreement that, in the court’s words, sets restrictions and obligations on the proper use, operation, and enjoyment of the Golf Course Property for the purpose of enhancing and protecting the value, desirability, and attractiveness of the 450 homes within the Cottonfields Community Association and of the golf course itself. Because the golf course owner’s maintenance obligations run to the benefit of the community, the association could arbitrate the owner’s breach, confirm the award as a court judgment, and then ask the court to enforce that judgment.
What did the August 2021 judgment require the golf course owner to do?
The judgment imposed a permanent and continuing injunction with five specific requirements: bring the Golf Course Property into compliance with the REMA; stop violating REMA Section 5.1 by desisting from operating other businesses on the property; regularly irrigate the property; maintain it in good condition to the Maintenance Standard required by Section 5.2; and maintain the related lakes in good condition as required by Section 3.1.
What sanctions did the court actually impose in April 2022?
The court ordered RCP to bring the property into full compliance by June 1, 2022 and to file a midpoint progress report by May 1, 2022. Missing either deadline would trigger a $60,000 monetary sanction paid to the Clerk of Court and held as a bond for future maintenance of the golf course, with a second $60,000 sanction if noncompliance continued into late 2022. The court emphasized that civil contempt uses coercion rather than punishment to secure compliance, and it refused to impose a prospective $10,000-per-occurrence sanction because anticipatory contempt orders are disapproved — future violations would need their own evidentiary hearing.
Why weren’t the LLP’s individual partners held personally liable?
The association asked the court to pierce the veil of the defendant entity and hold its individual partners personally liable on the judgment and sanctions orders, but the court found that no evidence had been presented about the individual partners sufficient to allow it to do so. The court similarly noted that no evidence was presented that would let it ascertain the company’s finances or alleged lack of them.
Why was the association denied its attorneys’ fees even though it won?
Under Rule 54(g)(1) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, a claim for attorneys’ fees must be made in the pleadings. The court found no fee claim had been pleaded, so it denied the association’s request for the fees and costs of the enforcement proceeding. It is a purely procedural point — the association prevailed on the merits but still absorbed its own enforcement costs.
What happened when the golf course was sold to a new owner?
The association’s prior counsel stipulated to dismiss the case without prejudice because RCP no longer owned the property, and the court initially granted the dismissal. On the association’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion — asserting the stipulation was signed without its consent and that the new owner, Laveen 140, LLC, was violating the judgment — the court vacated the dismissal, explaining that the claims had already been resolved in a final Rule 54(c) judgment, so there was nothing left to dismiss, and the permanent injunction remains in effect. Because the April 2022 orders run with the land, they apply to any owner of the golf course property; the court directed that further enforcement proceed by substituting the new owner as defendant under Rule 25(c), a motion that had been denied without prejudice on service grounds as of the last collected minute entry.
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 | CV2021-051550 (Maricopa County Superior Court) |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Superior Court |
| Decision / key date | April 1, 2022 |
| Judge / panel | Hon. Sara J. Agne, Hon. Melissa Iyer Julian |
| Parties | Cottonfields Community Association (Plaintiff, homeowners association for 450 homes) v. RCP Southern Ridge, LLP (Defendant, owner/operator of the adjacent Golf Course Property) |
| Governing law | |
| Topics | cc-and-rsprocedureattorneys-fees |
| Outcome / holding | The superior court found by clear and convincing evidence that RCP Southern Ridge, LLP was violating the judgment and permanent injunction enforcing the REMA, held that its impossibility defense failed for lack of any financial evidence and that the judgment’s terms were specific and definite, ordered full compliance by June 1, 2022 with contingent $60,000 monetary sanctions held as a maintenance bond, granted the association an easement for emergency repairs, and ordered that the enforcement orders run with the land and bind successor owners — while denying anticipatory per-occurrence sanctions, veil-piercing against the LLP’s individual partners, and attorneys’ fees not claimed in the pleadings. |
| Primary public source | View source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Uploaded source package | 8 PDFs |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 11 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
The Cottonfields Community Association, a 450-home Arizona community adjacent to a golf course, enforced a Reciprocal Easement and Maintenance Agreement (REMA) against the golf course’s owner-operator, RCP Southern Ridge, LLP. After winning a Final Arbitration Award establishing RCP’s breach, the association confirmed the award in superior court — the A.R.S. § 12-1511 opposition period passed without response — and obtained an August 3, 2021 judgment imposing a permanent and continuing injunction requiring RCP to bring the golf course into REMA compliance, stop operating other businesses on the property, irrigate it, and maintain the course and its lakes. When RCP did not comply, the association sought an order to show cause and sanctions. Following a December 2021 evidentiary hearing, the court’s April 1, 2022 under-advisement ruling found RCP in violation of the judgment by clear and convincing evidence, rejected its impossibility and vagueness defenses, ordered full compliance by June 1, 2022 backed by contingent $60,000 monetary sanctions, granted the association an emergency-repair access easement, and ordered that the obligations run with the land. In 2023, after RCP sold the property, the court vacated an erroneous stipulated dismissal under Rule 60(b)(6) — the claims were already merged into a final judgment and the injunction continues in effect — and directed that the successor owner, Laveen 140, LLC, be substituted as defendant under Rule 25(c). The first substitution motion was denied without prejudice on service grounds in August 2023, where the collected minute-entry record ends.
The court’s April 1, 2022 under-advisement ruling rested on its inherent power to enforce its own judgments and on Rule 70(e), with civil contempt used as coercion rather than punishment. The evidence was “largely unequivocal” that RCP was violating the August 2021 judgment: RCP’s principal, Shifton White, admitted the golf course’s condition was not what he would like, and credibly testified that proper maintenance used to cost $115,000 to $120,000 per year when he was engaged in it. RCP’s defenses failed on the record. Under United States v. Rylander, a party asserting impossibility based on inability to pay bears the burden of production, and RCP produced no financial evidence — only its principal’s testimony that the company had a “nominal income” of unknown amount. And because White had owned golf courses before, the court found no genuine confusion about the judgment’s specific and definite terms, expressly finding not credible his testimony that he was unaware of them.
The remedy was calibrated to coerce compliance rather than punish: a June 1, 2022 full-compliance deadline with a May 1 midpoint progress report, each backed by a $60,000 sanction payable to the Clerk of Court and held as a bond for future golf course maintenance, with a second $60,000 sanction if noncompliance continued into late 2022. The court granted the association an easement to enter the property for emergency repairs that would otherwise affect adjacent homeowners, and ordered — citing the REMA’s own terms — that the orders run with the land, applying to whoever holds title to the Golf Course Property. It declined a prospective $10,000-per-occurrence sanction as an improper anticipatory contempt order under BMO Harris Bank v. Bluff, declined to pierce the entity veil because no evidence about the individual partners was presented, and denied attorneys’ fees because no fee claim appeared in the pleadings as Rule 54(g)(1) requires.
The 2023 rulings dealt with the golf course’s sale. The association’s prior counsel had stipulated to dismiss the case without prejudice because RCP no longer owned the property, and the court granted it — an error, Judge Julian later concluded. Granting Rule 60(b)(6) relief under Gonzalez v. Nguyen’s merits-favoring standard, the court explained that the claims had already been resolved in a final, unappealed Rule 54(c) judgment entered August 3, 2021; the 2022 proceedings were post-judgment enforcement, so “there was nothing to dismiss,” and the dismissal order was ineffective and conflicted with the continuing injunction that remains in effect. The correct mechanism for pursuing the successor owner, Laveen 140, LLC, was substitution under Rule 25(c) — but the association’s first attempt was denied without prejudice in August 2023 because a non-party proposed for substitution must be served under Rule 4.1, not merely mailed the motion under Rule 5(c).
Most Arizona HOA litigation is association-versus-member, but this case shows an association enforcing its covenants outward — against the commercial owner of an adjacent golf course whose upkeep directly affects the value of 450 homes. It maps the full enforcement toolchain: arbitrate the breach, confirm the award under A.R.S. § 12-1511, reduce it to a judgment with a permanent injunction, and then use the court’s contempt power when the injunction is ignored. The ruling also illustrates the limits of an impossibility defense — a party claiming it cannot afford compliance must actually produce financial evidence, not just assert poverty — and the limits of enforcement, since courts will not issue anticipatory per-occurrence sanctions or reach an entity’s individual partners without evidence.
Two procedural lessons stand out for associations. First, fee recovery is not automatic even for a prevailing party: because no attorneys’ fees claim was made in the pleadings, Rule 54(g)(1) barred recovery for the entire enforcement proceeding. Second, the 2023 rulings show how covenant enforcement survives a property sale — because the orders run with the land, a final judgment and continuing injunction cannot simply be dismissed away when the violator sells; the remedy is substituting the successor owner under Rule 25(c), with full Rule 4.1 service on the new party. As a superior-court decision it binds only the parties, and the collected record ends in August 2023 with enforcement against the successor owner still unresolved.