Procedure | A.R.S. § 12-322A | 1 CA-CV 04-0816
This case illustrates the complex procedural path of an Arizona homeowners association dispute on appeal. It highlights key milestones including docketing, record transmission, and the final mandate. Homeowners and boards can observe how appellate courts govern procedural compliance and cost recovery.
Last updated June 29, 2026. Case: Vales, appellate No. 1 CA-CV 04-0816; mandate issued.
Scope note: This page covers the procedural history, timeline, and cost awards of the Arizona HOA appeal in Janet Vales v. Kings Hill Condominium Association, including its precedential posture. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The takeaway
The Court of Appeals issued its opinion and memorandum decision on December 22, 2005, and subsequently issued a mandate on March 29, 2006, commanding the Maricopa County Superior Court to comply with its decision and awarding appellate costs of $297.80.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Janet Vales (Plaintiff)
A married woman dealing with her sole and separate property; Plaintiff/Appellant. - Melody K. Seal (Counsel)
Jackson White PC
Represented Plaintiff/Appellant Janet Vales. - James L. Tanner (Counsel)
Jackson White PC
Represented Plaintiff/Appellant Janet Vales.
Respondent Side
- Kings Hill Condominium Association (Defendant)
An unincorporated condominium association; Defendant/Appellee. - Michael A. Ludwig (Counsel)
Jones Skelton & Hochuli PLC
Represented Defendant/Appellee Kings Hill Condominium Association. - Randall H. Warner (Counsel)
Jones Skelton & Hochuli PLC
Represented Defendant/Appellee Kings Hill Condominium Association.
Neutral Parties
- Hon. J. Richard Gama (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court
Trial Court Judge on Appeal. - Hon. Philip Hall (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Presiding Judge, Department D. - Hon. G. Murray Snow (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Judge, Department D. - Hon. Patricia K. Norris (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Judge, Department D. - Philip G. Urry (Other)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Clerk of Court of Appeals, Division One. - Michael K. Jeanes (Other)
Maricopa County Superior Court
Clerk of Maricopa County Superior Court. - Patricia Sanderman (Other)
Maricopa County Superior Court
Supervisor, Appeals Section, Maricopa County Superior Court.
What happened
Janet Vales filed an appeal (No. 1 CA-CV 04-0816) in the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, from a judgment of the Maricopa County Superior Court (No. CV2003-009786) presided over by Judge J. Richard Gama. The case was docketed in December 2004, with Vales paying the $140.00 filing fee on January 3, 2005.
Following the docketing, the Court of Appeals ordered the Clerk of the Maricopa County Superior Court to transmit the record on appeal. The Superior Court compiled and transmitted a record consisting of one volume of instruments and minute entries, with no transcripts or exhibits, in April 2005. The appeal was submitted without oral argument to Department D, consisting of Presiding Judge Philip Hall and Judges G. Murray Snow and Patricia K. Norris, who took the matter under advisement in October 2005. The court issued an opinion and memorandum decision on December 22, 2005, and, after denying a motion for reconsideration, issued its mandate on March 29, 2006, awarding $297.80 in costs.
Video overview: Procedural Milestones
This video outlines the key procedural stages and timeline of the Arizona condominium dispute Janet Vales v. Kings Hill Condominium Association.
Procedural timeline
Complete uploaded source-document index
This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/janet-vales-v-kings-hill-condominium-association/raw/: 7 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.
0000 Div 1 Civil Notice To Counsel Appell
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0000 Div 1 Notice To Counsel Appellees Fe
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0000 Div 1 Civil Record Ordered From Supe
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
0000 Div 1 Inventory
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0000 Div 1 Under Advisement
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0000 Div 1 Westmead Package Letters
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0000 Div 1 Civil Mandate Package
Type: Decision or judgment
Decision document; read it to understand the controlling result before moving to later filings.
FAQ
What is the precedential value of the decision in Vales v. Kings Hill Condominium Association?
The Court of Appeals issued both an ‘Opinion’ and a ‘Memorandum Decision’ on December 22, 2005. Under Arizona court rules, memorandum decisions are non-precedential, while opinions are published and binding. Because the mandate references both, parties must check which parts of the decision were officially published as precedential.
What is the penalty if an appellant fails to pay the filing fee on time?
If the appellant fails to pay the required filing fee ($140.00 in this case) within the timeframe specified by the court, the appeal will be deemed abandoned in accordance with A.R.S. § 12-322A.
How does the Arizona Court of Appeals obtain the trial court record?
Under Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure (ARCAP) Rule 11(a)(3), the Court of Appeals issues an order directing the Clerk of the Superior Court to transmit the record on appeal (including instruments, minute entries, transcripts, and exhibits) within 15 days.
Can an HOA appeal be decided without oral argument?
Yes. If the appeal is deemed ‘at issue,’ the court may submit the case without oral argument. In this case, Department D took the matter under advisement after conference on October 5, 2005.
Are attorneys’ fees or costs awarded at the end of an HOA appeal?
Yes, the prevailing party on appeal can recover taxable costs. Upon issuing the final mandate on March 29, 2006, the Court of Appeals awarded costs of $297.80 to be complied with by the Maricopa County Superior Court.
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 | 1 CA-CV 04-0816 |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Court of Appeals |
| Decision / key date | December 22, 2005 |
| Judge / panel | Hon. Philip Hall, Hon. G. Murray Snow, Hon. Patricia K. Norris, Hon. J. Richard Gama |
| Parties | Janet Vales (Plaintiff/Appellant, homeowner) vs. Kings Hill Condominium Association (Defendant/Appellee, unincorporated condominium association) |
| Topics | procedure |
| Outcome / holding | The Court of Appeals issued its opinion and memorandum decision on December 22, 2005, and subsequently issued a mandate on March 29, 2006, commanding the Maricopa County Superior Court to comply with its decision and awarding appellate costs of $297.80. |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Uploaded source package | 7 PDFs |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 12 roadmap entries |
| Video overview | Vales: Procedural Milestones |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 5 questions |
| Curated download aliases | 2 download links |
Key Issues & Findings
This appeal arises from a dispute between homeowner Janet Vales and the Kings Hill Condominium Association. Following a trial court decision in Maricopa County Superior Court under Judge J. Richard Gama, Vales appealed to the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One. The appellate court docketed the case in December 2004, received briefing throughout early 2005, and ordered the transmission of the record on appeal. The matter was submitted to Department D (consisting of Judges Philip Hall, G. Murray Snow, and Patricia K. Norris) without oral argument and taken under advisement. On December 22, 2005, the Court of Appeals filed its opinion and memorandum decision. After denying a motion for reconsideration on March 7, 2006, and with no petition for review filed with the Arizona Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals issued its mandate on March 29, 2006, commanding the Superior Court to comply with its decision and awarding $297.80 in costs.
The available record for this matter is procedural rather than substantive: it documents the docketing, filing-fee deadlines, transmission of the record on appeal, submission of the appeal to Department D under advisement without oral argument, and the issuance of the opinion, memorandum decision, and final mandate, but it does not reproduce the court’s merits analysis. Accordingly, this page summarizes the procedural posture and disposition rather than the substantive legal reasoning. The Court of Appeals resolved the appeal through a combination of a published opinion and a non-precedential memorandum decision, denied a motion for reconsideration, and then issued its mandate commanding the Superior Court to comply and awarding appellate costs.
Because the substantive merits of the decision are not detailed in the procedural record, the primary takeaway is procedural. It highlights the structured, multi-step nature of the Arizona appellate process for homeowners and HOA boards, including strict deadlines for filing fees, the compilation of the record on appeal, the submission under advisement without oral argument, and the finality of the mandate. Additionally, it underscores that prevailing parties on appeal in Arizona HOA disputes can recover taxable costs (here, $297.80) upon issuance of the mandate.