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.
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.
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.
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/: 3 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.
Ruling Granting Motion Dismiss Board Removal Claims
Type: Court order/minute entry
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
Fee Ruling Final Judgment
Type: Decision or judgment
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Court Of Appeals Docket 1 Ca CV 25 0929
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
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.