Superior Court HOA Case
A Maricopa County judge entered judgment for a condominium association after finding its contractor had no competent, admissible evidence to defeat summary judgment.
Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Desert Cove Condominium Association v. BCK Coatings Inc., Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2023-093035.
Scope note: This page covers Desert Cove Condominium Association v. BCK Coatings Inc. (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2023-093035) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the four collected minute entries, especially the November 25, 2024 under-advisement ruling and the March 10, 2025 judgment-entry minute entry. Currency caveat: the collected record does not include the signed judgment text itself, only the minute entry stating judgment was entered. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The takeaway
The condominium association won summary judgment because it presented admissible evidence of the contract, implied warranty, defective work, repair scope, repair cost, and damages, while the contractor relied on a late affidavit from a witness and testimony that had not been properly disclosed.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Desert Cove Condominium Association (Plaintiff)
Condominium association that sued over defective work and obtained summary judgment. - Mark A. Holmgren (Counsel)
Counsel for Desert Cove in the minute entries.
Respondent Side
- BCK Coatings Inc. (Defendant)
Contractor defendant that opposed summary judgment but failed to present competent, timely disclosed evidence creating a factual dispute. - Christina W. Kelly (Counsel)
Counsel for BCK Coatings in the minute entries.
Neutral Parties
- Adam D. Driggs (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court judge who granted summary judgment and entered judgment.
What happened
Desert Cove Condominium Association sued BCK Coatings over allegedly defective work performed under a contract. The association moved for summary judgment after discovery closed, arguing BCK had not disclosed a witness or competent evidence that could support a defense at trial.
The court heard argument on November 15, 2024 and issued an under-advisement ruling on November 25, 2024. The court found Desert Cove had produced affidavits and expert reports showing the absence of a genuine material dispute. The ruling specifically identified evidence of a contract, implied warranty, legal duties, defective work, the appropriate repair, repair cost, and damages already incurred.
BCK relied mainly on a two-page affidavit from its president. The court found the witness had not been properly disclosed by name, the content of his affidavit testimony had not been disclosed during discovery, and BCK had not requested an extension or shown good cause to extend disclosure. The court also found some factual statements were cited to the affidavit but were not actually supported by it.
Because Desert Cove met its burden and BCK did not respond with competent, admissible evidence creating a genuine dispute, the court entered summary judgment on all counts for $1,042,429.24 plus attorneys’ fees and costs. On March 10, 2025, the court entered formal judgment in favor of Desert Cove and against BCK.
Video overview of the ruling
An AI-generated video overview of Desert Cove Condominium Association v. BCK Coatings Inc. (CV2023-093035 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). Condo association won $1.04M summary judgment for defective contractor work after BCK lacked usable evidence. This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own ruling controls.
Listen: audio deep dive on the ruling
An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the court’s reasoning and disposition in Desert Cove Condominium Association v. BCK Coatings Inc.. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.
Procedural timeline
Complete uploaded source-document index
This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/desert-cove-condominium-association-v-bck-coatings/raw/: 4 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 Desert Cove’s summary-judgment motion against BCK Coatings.
Oral Argument
Type: Court/source PDF
Oral-argument minute entry taking Desert Cove’s summary-judgment motion under advisement after argument from both sides.
Under Advisement Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Under-advisement ruling granting Desert Cove summary judgment on all counts for $1,042,429.24 plus attorneys’ fees and costs because BCK lacked competent, timely disclosed evidence to create a factual dispute.
Judgment Entered
Type: Decision or judgment
Judgment-entry minute entry granting formal judgment for Desert Cove Condominium Association and against BCK Coatings Inc. under the signed order.
FAQ
What was the association’s claim about?
The minute entries describe a contract dispute over defective work by BCK Coatings and the association’s evidence of repair scope, repair cost, and damages.
Why did Desert Cove win summary judgment?
The court found Desert Cove produced competent, admissible evidence supporting its claims, while BCK failed to produce timely disclosed, admissible evidence creating a genuine factual dispute.
What was wrong with BCK’s affidavit?
The court found BCK had not disclosed the witness by name or disclosed the substance of his affidavit testimony during the discovery period, and had not shown good cause to extend disclosure.
How much was awarded?
The summary-judgment ruling awarded $1,042,429.24 plus attorneys’ fees and costs. The later minute entry states formal judgment was entered for Desert Cove.
Why is this standard significance?
The case involves a condominium association, but the ruling is ordinary contractor litigation and does not interpret HOA statutes, CC&Rs, governance duties, records rights, elections, or assessments.
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 | CV2023-093035 (Maricopa County Superior Court) |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Superior Court |
| Decision / key date | March 10, 2025 |
| Judge / panel | Hon. Adam D. Driggs |
| Parties | Desert Cove Condominium Association (Plaintiff, condominium association) v. BCK Coatings Inc. (Defendant, contractor) |
| Topics | procedure |
| Outcome / holding | The superior court granted Desert Cove summary judgment on all counts and entered judgment against BCK Coatings. It awarded $1,042,429.24 plus attorneys’ fees and costs after finding BCK failed to offer competent, admissible evidence creating a genuine factual dispute. |
| Primary public source | View source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Uploaded source package | 4 PDFs |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 4 roadmap entries |
| Video overview | Desert Cove Condominium Association v. BCK Coatings Inc. |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 5 questions |
| Curated download aliases | 1 download link |
Key Issues & Findings
Desert Cove Condominium Association sued BCK Coatings Inc. over defective work performed under a contract. The association moved for summary judgment after discovery closed, arguing BCK had disclosed no trial witness and no competent admissible evidence to support a defense. The superior court agreed, finding the association had presented competent evidence of a contract, implied warranty, legal duties, defective work, repair scope, repair costs, and damages already incurred. The court refused to rely on BCK’s late affidavit because the witness and testimony were not timely disclosed, entered summary judgment for Desert Cove on all counts for $1,042,429.24 plus fees and costs, and later entered formal judgment.
The court applied the Arizona summary-judgment standard from Orme School, Thruston, Stevens, and Kelly. Desert Cove produced affidavits and expert reports that, in the court’s view, showed the absence of a genuine dispute on contract formation, implied warranty, legal duties, defective work, proper repair, repair cost, and damages already incurred by the association.
BCK’s opposition depended largely on a two-page affidavit from its longtime president. The court found that BCK had not previously disclosed him as a witness by name, had not disclosed the substance of the affidavit testimony during the discovery period, and had not requested an extension or shown good cause to reopen disclosure. The court also found some controverting facts cited the affidavit but were not actually supported by it.
Because Desert Cove met its initial burden and BCK did not respond with competent, admissible evidence creating a genuine material dispute, the court granted summary judgment on all counts. The later judgment-entry minute entry states that formal judgment was entered in favor of Desert Cove and against BCK Coatings.
This case is relevant to HOA and condominium boards mainly as a vendor-litigation and proof lesson. The association won because it paired expert evidence and damage proof with a disclosure-record argument showing the contractor had no usable defense evidence at summary judgment.
The case is standard, not must-read, because it does not interpret Arizona HOA or condominium statutes, CC&Rs, elections, assessments, records, or governance duties. Its value is practical: associations pursuing defective contractor work still need admissible expert and damages evidence, and contractors can lose dispositively if they miss disclosure obligations.