Architectural Review | CC&Rs | CV2021-014955
The court granted summary judgment for Doubletree Canyon and ordered owners to correct exterior doors and windows that did not match the approved architectural plan.
Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Doubletree Canyon Homeowners Association v. Teodora Cupes, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2021-014955.
Scope note: This page covers Doubletree Canyon Homeowners Association v. Teodora Cupes (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2021-014955) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s collected minute entries through 2023-01-20; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: later filings, satisfaction history, appeals, and the formal written orders referenced by the minutes may not be included in these records. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The takeaway
Architectural-control language can reach the whole exterior improvement when the operative CC&R text is broader than the section heading.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Doubletree Canyon Homeowners Association (Plaintiff)
Association party in the HOA-related dispute. Court party records list counsel as Curtis Ekmark.
Respondent Side
- Cipriano Ionutescu (Defendant)
Listed in the court party records as defendant. Court party records list counsel as John Moore. - Teodora Cupes (Defendant)
Opposing homeowner or property-side party identified in the case caption. Court party records list counsel as John Moore.
Neutral Parties
- Hon. John R. Hannah Jr (Judge)
Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries. - Hon. Judge John Hannah (Judge)
Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries. - Hon. John Hannah (Judge)
Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.
What happened
Doubletree Canyon sued homeowners over exterior doors and windows that did not match the plan submitted to the Architectural Review Committee.
At oral argument on the association’s summary-judgment motion, the court found the property as built was admittedly inconsistent with the CC&Rs because the approved plan showed matching doors and windows.
The court rejected the owners’ interpretation of section 3.2.21. Although the heading referred to window coverings, the operative sentence prohibited reflective material on any improvement without prior written Architectural Review Committee consent.
The court granted summary judgment, gave the owners 90 days to remedy the issue, and required the parties to follow the CC&R approval process for the work to be done. A formal judgment followed in January 2023.
Video overview of the ruling
An AI-generated video overview of Doubletree Canyon Homeowners Association v. Teodora Cupes (CV2021-014955 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). Nonmatching exterior doors and windows violated the CC&Rs and had to be corrected in 90 days. 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 Doubletree Canyon Homeowners Association v. Teodora Cupes. 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/doubletree-canyon-homeowners-association-v-teodora-cupes/raw/: 13 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.
Default Judgment
Type: Decision or judgment
Shows the filer trying to move the case forward because the opposing party had not timely appeared.
Oral Argument
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
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.
Status Conference
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Oral Argument Set
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Oral Argument
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Oral Argument
Type: Court/source PDF
Ruling granting Doubletree Canyon summary judgment, rejecting the owners’ CC&R interpretation, and ordering correction within 90 days.
Oral Argument Set
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Oral Argument
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Judgment Entered
Type: Decision or judgment
Judgment-entry minute granting judgment in favor of Doubletree Canyon under the formal written judgment.
FAQ
What did the superior court decide?
It granted summary judgment for the association and ordered the exterior mismatch corrected.
Is this superior-court ruling precedent?
No. It binds the parties in this case but is useful only as a public record of how this dispute was handled.
Does the page summarize addresses or unit numbers?
No. Residential addresses and unit identifiers from the minute entries are intentionally omitted.
Who was the association party?
The association party identified in the collected court records was Doubletree Canyon Homeowners Association.
Does this replace legal advice?
No. This is an educational case guide based on public minute entries, not legal advice.
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 | CV2021-014955 (Maricopa County Superior Court) |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Superior Court |
| Decision / key date | September 7, 2022 |
| Judge / panel | Hon. John R. Hannah Jr, Hon. Judge John Hannah, Hon. John Hannah |
| Parties | Doubletree Canyon Homeowners Association (Plaintiff) v. Teodora Cupes and Cipriano Ionutescu (Defendants) |
| Topics | architectural-reviewcc-and-rscovenantsprocedureattorneys-fees |
| Outcome / holding | The court granted the association’s summary-judgment motion, held that the CC&R prohibition on reflective materials applied beyond window coverings to exterior building surfaces including doors, and ordered the owners to correct the nonmatching windows and doors through the CC&R approval process. |
| Primary public source | View source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Uploaded source package | 13 PDFs |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 12 roadmap entries |
| Video overview | Doubletree Canyon Homeowners Association v. Teodora Cupes |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 5 questions |
| Curated download aliases | 1 download link |
Key Issues & Findings
The court granted Doubletree Canyon summary judgment in an architectural-control dispute. It found the property was admittedly in violation because the approved plan showed matching doors and windows but the installed doors and windows did not match, rejected the owners’ narrow reading of CC&R section 3.2.21, and ordered the owners to remedy the issue within 90 days.
The court began from the undisputed condition of the property: the plan submitted to the Architectural Review Committee showed matching doors and windows, but the installed doors and windows did not match. That mismatch made the property noncompliant.
The owners argued that CC&R section 3.2.21 was limited by its heading, “Window Coverings.” The court rejected that interpretation because the second sentence barred reflective material on any “Improvement” without prior written Architectural Review Committee consent. The court read “Improvement” to include the building itself, so the restriction applied to exterior surfaces including doors.
The remedy was prospective and compliance-focused. The owners received 90 days to fix the nonmatching doors and windows and had to follow the CC&R approval process by submitting materials to the Architectural Review Committee.
This is must-read for architectural-review disputes because it applies CC&R text to an exterior-material dispute and shows that a section heading may not confine broader operative language. It also shows how a court can order a practical compliance remedy rather than only damages.