Arizona HOA Board Removal | Superior Court CV2025-002634 | Court of Appeals 1 CA-CV 25-0929
Gusich is a useful Arizona HOA governance case because it separates several issues that often get blended together: recall petitions under A.R.S. § 33-1813, nonprofit-corporation removal authority under Title 10, standing after a director has been removed, director indemnification, and how a court can slash an oversized fee request even after the HOA wins.
Last updated May 25, 2026. Case: Thomas J. Gusich v. Sun City Grand Community Association, Inc., Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2025-002634; Court of Appeals No. 1 CA-CV 25-0929; Hon. Jennifer Ryan-Touhill.
Current-status note: This page is published as a litigation record based on the source files available through 2025-11-21. Later filings, appeals, mandates, settlements, or dismissal orders may change the posture; the linked court records control.
Pipeline note: the public raw-source folder contains source files that were not in the last staged NotebookLM source set. The page remains a source-linked record, but generated media should be rebuilt or rechecked after the staged source manifest catches up.
Allegations, settlements, procedural dismissals, and notices are not findings of liability unless a cited court order expressly makes that finding.
Scope note: This page covers Superior Court rulings in CV2025-002634 and the pending Court of Appeals docket 1 CA-CV 25-0929. The Superior Court rulings are trial-court decisions and the appeal remains pending in the uploaded docket. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The rule in one sentence
An Arizona planned-community board-removal dispute may involve both Title 33 recall procedure and Title 10 nonprofit-corporation authority, but a removed director still must show a live justiciable controversy, and even a winning HOA must prove that requested attorney fees are reasonable and tied to the litigation.
Case snapshot
Thomas J. Gusich v. Sun City Grand Community Association, Inc.
Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2025-002634.
Motion to dismiss granted; final judgment entered for the association with reduced fees and taxable costs.
Court of Appeals No. 1 CA-CV 25-0929 was pending in the uploaded May 22, 2026 docket, with reply/cross-answer briefing due June 30, 2026.
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 | CV2025-002634 / 1 CA-CV 25-0929 |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Superior Court |
| Decision / key date | September 23, 2025 |
| Judge / panel | Hon. Jennifer Ryan-Touhill |
| Parties | A former Sun City Grand board member challenged his removal, the association’s board conduct standards, meeting exclusions, indemnification position, and later fee request. |
| Governing law |
|
| Topics | Board GovernanceProcedureAttorney FeesRecords Requests |
| Outcome / holding | The Superior Court dismissed the claims, entered final judgment for Sun City Grand, awarded reduced attorney fees and costs, and the matter was pending on appeal in 1 CA-CV 25-0929 in the uploaded docket. |
| Primary public source | View source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Uploaded source package | 50 PDFs |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 3 roadmap entries |
| Video overview | Thomas J. Gusich v. Sun City Grand Community Association, Inc. |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 4 questions |
| Curated download aliases | 3 download links |
Key Issues & Findings
CURRENT STATUS (June 2026): NOT FINAL — this trial-court matter is on appeal (1 CA-CV 25-0929); both sides appealed and briefing is ongoing. Thomas J. Gusich sued Sun City Grand Community Association after a board-removal dispute involving conduct standards, a special membership meeting, recall/petition procedure, executive-session exclusion allegations, and indemnification. The Superior Court granted the association’s motion to dismiss, reasoning that A.R.S. § 33-1813 did not eliminate Title 10 and bylaw-based director-removal paths, that claims about board-only conduct standards lacked a live controversy after removal, and that indemnification did not require the HOA to fund a former director’s affirmative lawsuit against the association. The court later awarded fees and costs to the association but reduced a $353,388 fee request to $44,619 plus $355.85 in taxable costs. The uploaded Court of Appeals docket showed the appeal and cross-appeal pending as of May 22, 2026.
The court distinguished petition-based removal procedure under A.R.S. § 33-1813 from other removal mechanisms under Title 10 and the association’s bylaws. Because the bylaws allowed a special membership meeting and member vote after notice, the court did not need to issue advisory rulings on disputed petition format or electronic-signature questions. The court also held that Gusich lacked standing to challenge board-only standards after he was no longer a director, and that indemnification language protects directors against liability to others rather than funding a director’s own lawsuit against the association. On fees, the court found entitlement but reduced rates, duplicative work, pre-suit work, and work tied to statutory records issues.
Gusich is a practical roadmap for Arizona HOA board-removal litigation. It warns homeowners and boards not to assume Title 33 is the only authority source, shows why declaratory claims need a live controversy, limits director-indemnification theories when a director sues the HOA, and demonstrates that even a prevailing HOA’s fee request can be aggressively reduced when the bills are not reasonable or properly tied to the litigation.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Thomas J. Gusich (Plaintiff/Appellant)
Former Sun City Grand board member who challenged his removal. - Jonathan A. Dessaules (Counsel)
Dessaules Law Group
Counsel for Gusich. - David E. Wood (Counsel)
Dessaules Law Group
Counsel for Gusich. - Joseph D. Halow (Counsel)
Dessaules Law Group
Appellate counsel listed for Gusich.
Respondent Side
- Sun City Grand Community Association, Inc. (Defendant/Appellee)
Association party defending Gusich’s board-removal claims. - Lauren Elliott Stine (Counsel)
Quarles & Brady LLP
Counsel for Sun City Grand Community Association. - Daniel G. Roberts (Counsel)
Quarles & Brady LLP
Counsel for Sun City Grand Community Association.
Neutral Parties
- Nancy M. Collins (Witness)
Filed a motion to quash a witness subpoena. - Jennifer Ryan-Touhill (Judge)
Superior Court judge assigned to the case.
Why this case matters
The dispute started after Thomas Gusich, an elected Sun City Grand board member, challenged the association’s board conduct standards, recall/removal process, meeting exclusions, and indemnification position. The Superior Court treated the case as a pleading-stage question: assuming the alleged facts, did the amended complaint state claims the court could decide?
The July 2025 ruling is important because it rejected a narrow reading of A.R.S. § 33-1813. The court reasoned that Title 33 recall-petition procedure did not eliminate other removal paths available under the association’s bylaws and Title 10 nonprofit-corporation statutes.
The September 2025 fee ruling is just as useful. The association won dismissal and was entitled to fees, but the court reduced a $353,388 request to $44,619 plus $355.85 in taxable costs after finding rates, duplicated work, pre-suit work, and record-request-related work were not fully shiftable.
Video overview of the case record
An AI-generated video overview of Thomas J. Gusich v. Sun City Grand Community Association, Inc. (CV2025-002634 / 1 CA-CV 25-0929). The Superior Court dismissed the claims, entered final judgment for Sun City Grand, awarded reduced attorney fees… This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own ruling controls.
Listen: audio deep dive on the case record
An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the court record and procedural posture in Thomas J. Gusich v. Sun City Grand Community Association, Inc.. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked case records below.
What Judge Ryan-Touhill decided
The court held that the HOA-removal statute governs petition-based removal procedure but does not eliminate other director-removal mechanisms available under Title 10 and the association bylaws.
Because the bylaws allowed a special membership meeting and a member vote after notice, the court did not need to decide whether the disputed petition format or electronic signatures satisfied A.R.S. § 33-1813.
Once Gusich was no longer on the board, the court found he was not subject to the board-only conduct standards and therefore lacked standing for declaratory relief about those standards.
The court read the indemnification language as protection against liability to others, not as a promise that the association would finance a former director’s affirmative lawsuit against the association.
The court found fee entitlement under the governing documents, A.R.S. § 33-1813(A)(4)(f), and A.R.S. § 12-341.01, then moved to reasonableness.
The court reduced requested fees from $353,388 to $44,619, plus $355.85 in taxable costs, after reviewing rates, duplication, pre-suit work, record-request issues, and excessive staffing.
For homeowners and board members
If you are challenging a board removal, separate the removal mechanism from the political facts. This ruling turned on the governing documents and statutes, not on whether the recall campaign was wise, fair, or popular.
Do not assume A.R.S. § 33-1813 is the only removal statute in play. If the association is a nonprofit corporation, Title 10 and the bylaws may matter. A strong filing should explain why the specific statutory path used is exclusive, conflicting, or unavailable.
If you seek declaratory relief, preserve a live controversy. A claim about board-only conduct rules can become moot if you are no longer a director and cannot show a present legal effect.
Fee exposure is real, but this record also shows that a court may scrutinize HOA defense bills. The court declined to shift fees for statutory records issues, duplicative work, excessive rates, and work not clearly tied to the litigation.
For HOA boards and managers
This case supports a practical compliance point: before removing a director, identify every authority source being used. That means the declaration, bylaws, Title 10 nonprofit-corporation statutes, and A.R.S. § 33-1813 when removal by petition is involved.
Document notice, quorum, eligible voters, and the vote result. The court emphasized that the membership received notice and voted at a special meeting.
Do not assume every dollar of defense spend will be shifted to the opposing member. If the HOA hires multiple firms or high-rate counsel, a later fee application still has to show reasonable rates and reasonable work tied to recoverable claims.
Keep statutory records requests separate from litigation strategy. The fee ruling expressly noted that the court would not order the homeowner to pay fees related to records to which he was statutorily entitled.
Suggested workflow for similar disputes
- Map the authority source. Identify whether the challenged action was taken under the bylaws, Title 10, A.R.S. § 33-1813, or a combination.
- Preserve the meeting record. Keep the petition or request, notices, agenda, quorum proof, voting materials, minutes, and result certification together.
- Define the live controversy. For declaratory relief, state exactly what current legal relationship the court needs to resolve.
- Separate records rights from recall politics. A homeowner may have statutory records rights even when other claims fail.
- Audit fee requests line by line. Compare rates, staffing, pre-suit work, duplicative work, and work tied to non-shiftable issues.
Filing roadmap and PDF downloads
Ruling granting motion to dismiss
Filed by: Superior Court
The court dismissed the amended complaint, finding no viable declaratory or indemnification claim at the pleading stage.
Fee ruling and final judgment
Filed by: Superior Court
The court awarded the association $44,619 in attorney fees and $355.85 in taxable costs, far below the amount requested, and entered final judgment.
Appellate docket snapshot
Filed by: Court of Appeals
The case was pending in Division One as 1 CA-CV 25-0929. The docket showed a request for oral argument and a reply/cross-answer brief due June 30, 2026.
Complete uploaded source-document index
This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/gusich-v-sun-city-grand-community-association-cv2025-002634/raw/: 50 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.
Certificate Of Compulsory Arbitration
Type: Procedural/service filing
Shows how the filer addressed Arizona’s compulsory-arbitration screening requirement.
Civil Cover Sheet
Type: Court/source PDF
Court intake document classifying the case for filing and assignment purposes.
Complaint
Type: Opening pleading
Starts or reframes the case and identifies the claims or relief requested.
Summons
Type: Procedural/service filing
Service document used to notify a defendant or respondent that the case has been filed.
Certificate Of Service
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
Application For A Preliminary Injunction
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
Application For OSC Tro
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
First Amended Complaint
Type: Opening pleading
Starts or reframes the case and identifies the claims or relief requested.
Motion To Exceed Page Limit
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
Notice Of Appearance
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Order To Show Cause
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Response
Type: Briefing paper
Opposing or responsive paper; compare it to the motion or request filed immediately before it.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Notice Of Filing Verification
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
Defendant Motion To Dismiss First Amended Complaint
Type: Opening pleading
Starts or reframes the case and identifies the claims or relief requested.
Notice Of Extension Of Time
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
Response To Motion To Dismiss
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
Notice Of Extension Of Time
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
Reply Support Motion To Dismiss
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
Certificate Of Service
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Stipulation
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Subpoena
Type: Motion/application
Discovery or evidence request material; read it with the later order to see what was allowed or denied.
List Of Witnesses And Exhibits
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
List Of Witnesses And Exhibits
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Plaintiff Bench Brief
Type: Briefing paper
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Motion To Exceed Page Limit
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
Motion To Quash Witness Subpoena
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
Order
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.
Reply To Defendant Response
Type: Briefing paper
Opposing or responsive paper; compare it to the motion or request filed immediately before it.
Minute Entry
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
Ruling granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss; allowing Defendant to seek reimbursement of attorney’s fees and costs incurred in defending itself. Defendant shall file the appropriate pap.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss; allowing Defendant to seek reimbursement of attorney’s fees and costs incurred in defending itself. Defendant shall file the appropriate pap.
Notice Of Filing Proposed Form Of Judgment
Type: Decision or judgment
Decision document; read it to understand the controlling result before moving to later filings.
Notice
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
Plaintiff Response In Opposition To Application For Attorneys Fees
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
Notice Of Extension Of Time
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
Reply In Support
Type: Briefing paper
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Ruling On Attorneys Fees
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Notice Of Appeal
Type: Procedural/service filing
Moves the dispute into appellate or judicial-review procedure; use it to track the next forum.
Notice Of Appeal
Type: Procedural/service filing
Moves the dispute into appellate or judicial-review procedure; use it to track the next forum.
Notice Of Cross Appeal
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
Notice Of Substitution Of Counsel
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
Notice Of Transcript Order
Type: Court order/minute entry
Adds hearing transcript material to the record for later review or appeal.
Court Document
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Court Document
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Electronic Index Of Record
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Motion
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
Current posture
Dismissed in the association’s favor with final judgment entered September 26, 2025.
Appeal and cross-appeal pending as 1 CA-CV 25-0929 in the uploaded May 22, 2026 docket.
Reply/cross-answer brief due June 30, 2026, according to the uploaded docket snapshot.
FAQ
Is this a published appellate precedent?
No. The uploaded merits and fee rulings are Superior Court rulings. The Court of Appeals case was pending in the uploaded docket, so the final appellate result may change the practical significance.
Did the court decide that every electronic recall signature is valid?
No. The court said it did not need to decide the disputed petition-signature issue because the membership-removal path under the bylaws and Title 10 was enough for the motion-to-dismiss ruling.
Does this mean an HOA can recover all fees whenever it beats a board-removal lawsuit?
No. The court found fee entitlement, but then reduced the requested fees sharply after reviewing reasonableness, duplication, hourly rates, and work not properly shifted to the homeowner.
Why does indemnification matter here?
Gusich argued the bylaws required the association to fund or reimburse his own lawsuit. The court rejected that theory, reading indemnification as protection against liability to others, not affirmative financing for a director’s suit against the HOA.