Superior Court Condo Case
The court found fact questions over whether AAM owed and breached a duty when administering guest key-fob access to condominium common areas.
Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Kaplan v. AAM / Regency House Condominium, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2015-005625.
Current-status note: 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 Kaplan v. AAM / Regency House Condominium (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2015-005625) as a public Arizona superior-court condominium case guide. It is built from the court’s filed minute entries, especially the October 4, 2016 VSS summary-judgment ruling and the August 14, 2017 AAM under-advisement ruling. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The takeaway
A condominium property manager that administers guest key fobs can face a negligence trial over common-area access and security if fact questions remain about duty, breach, causation, and comparative fault.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Violet Kaplan (Plaintiff)
Regency House condominium owner whose unlocked unit was burglarized.
Respondent Side
- AAM LLC (Defendant)
Property manager for Regency House and administrator of condominium key-fob issuance. - VSS Security Services (Defendant)
Security-services defendant that obtained summary judgment because AAM administered key-fob issuance. - Alex Rodriguez (Defendant)
Guest alleged to have used condominium access and stolen items from the plaintiff's unit.
Neutral Parties
- Sherry K. Stephens (Judge)
Superior Court judge who issued the AAM summary-judgment ruling.
What happened
The plaintiff owned a unit at Regency House. A guest of another owner allegedly received a key fob, used access to the common areas, and stole jewelry and cash from the plaintiff’s unlocked unit.
The plaintiff alleged AAM was negligent in drafting and implementing access-control rules and in maintaining property security for unit owners. She also asserted claims against VSS Security Services, which allegedly staffed security functions.
The court granted VSS summary judgment because the evidence showed AAM, not VSS, administered key-fob issuance for the condominium community. It also found no evidence supporting negligent hiring, supervision, or training claims against VSS.
The court later denied AAM summary judgment on negligence. It found a jury could conclude AAM created a duty to residents when it issued guest key fobs and had to monitor issuance consistently with common-area security. The court identified disputed facts over key-fob use, breach, reasonableness, and comparative fault from the unlocked unit. It dismissed negligent entrustment, emotional-distress, and punitive-damages theories.
Video overview of the ruling
An AI-generated video overview of Kaplan v. AAM / Regency House Condominium (CV2015-005625 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). Condo manager faced negligence trial over guest key-fob access; security vendor won summary judgment. 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 Kaplan v. AAM / Regency House Condominium. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.
Procedural timeline
The court dismisses two owner defendants.
The court denies AAM and VSS Security Services' motion to dismiss.
The court grants summary judgment for VSS Security Services.
The court denies AAM summary judgment on negligence but dismisses negligent entrustment, emotional-distress, and punitive-damages theories.
The court places the settled case on the dismissal calendar and deems pending motions moot.
Complete source-document index
This index contains 11 PDFs from the reviewed public source packet. Byte-identical copies are listed once. Files are ordered by the date and sequence in the public filename, and party filings or research materials are labeled separately from court rulings.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling dismissing the complaint as to two owner defendants after no response was filed to their Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying AAM and VSS Security Services' motion to dismiss the claims against them.
Order
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
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.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling granting summary judgment for VSS Security Services because AAM administered key-fob issuance for the condominium community and no negligent hiring or supervision evidence was offered.
Dismissal
Type: Court/source PDF
Partial dismissal entry dismissing claims against VSS Security Services with prejudice under the parties' stipulation.
Reassignment
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.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Under Advisement Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Under-advisement ruling denying AAM summary judgment on negligence over guest key-fob access and common-area security while dismissing negligent entrustment, emotional-distress, and punitive-damages claims.
Dismissal
Type: Court/source PDF
Dismissal-calendar entry noting the case had settled and deeming pending motions moot.
FAQ
Did the court find AAM owed a duty?
The court held that a jury could conclude AAM created a duty to residents by issuing guest key fobs and had to monitor key-fob issuance consistently with common-area security.
Did AAM win summary judgment?
Not on negligence. The court denied summary judgment on the negligence claim but dismissed negligent entrustment, emotional-distress, and punitive-damages theories.
Why did VSS Security Services win summary judgment?
The court found the uncontroverted evidence showed AAM administered key-fob issuance for the condominium community, not VSS.
Why is this case marked standard?
The rulings apply general negligence and summary-judgment law to condominium access control; they do not interpret HOA statutes or CC&Rs.
Case Dossier
This dossier combines the case metadata, linked court sources, and the explanatory sections below. It distinguishes court rulings from party filings, allegations, and requested relief.
Case Summary
| Case ID / citation | CV2015-005625 (Maricopa County Superior Court) |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Superior Court |
| Decision / key date | August 14, 2017 |
| Judge / panel | Hon. Sherry K. Stephens, Hon. Jo Lynn Gentry, Hon. Randall H. Warner |
| Parties | Violet Kaplan (Plaintiff, condominium owner) v. AAM LLC, VSS Security Services, Allen Svec, Michael Bowers, and others |
| Governing law |
|
| Topics | CondominiumsProcedureArchitectural Review |
| Outcome / holding | The superior court denied AAM summary judgment on negligence because fact questions remained over key-fob access and condominium common-area security, while dismissing negligent entrustment, emotional-distress, and punitive-damages theories. |
| Primary public source | View source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Reviewed source package | 11 PDFs |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 5 roadmap entries |
| Video overview | Kaplan v. AAM / Regency House Condominium |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 4 questions |
| Featured download links | 1 download link |
Key Issues & Findings
A Regency House condominium owner sued after a guest of another owner allegedly used a key fob to access the condominium common areas and steal items from her unlocked unit. The court dismissed claims against two owner defendants, denied an early motion to dismiss by AAM and VSS, granted summary judgment for the security-services defendant because AAM administered key-fob issuance, and later denied AAM summary judgment on the negligence claim. The court held a jury could find that by issuing guest key fobs, AAM created a duty to residents to monitor key-fob issuance consistently with common-area security. The court dismissed negligent entrustment, emotional-distress, and punitive-damages claims, and the case later settled.
The October 4, 2016 ruling granted summary judgment for VSS Security Services because the uncontroverted evidence showed AAM, not VSS, administered key-fob issuance for the condominium community. The court also found no evidence supporting negligent hiring, supervision, or training claims against VSS.
The August 14, 2017 under-advisement ruling focused on AAM, the property manager for Regency House. The court described the plaintiff's theory that AAM had a duty to create and administer key-fob rules in a way that maintained proper security for common areas. It noted the plaintiff agreed AAM had no duty to control the conduct of a third person.
The court still found a jury could conclude AAM created a duty to residents by issuing guest key fobs and had to monitor issuance in a manner consistent with common-area security. The court identified fact questions about whether the guest used a key fob to access the common areas, whether AAM breached a duty in issuing the key fob, whether AAM's conduct was reasonable, and whether the plaintiff's unlocked unit made her solely or partially responsible. It therefore denied summary judgment on negligence but dismissed other damages and negligent-entrustment theories.
This is a condominium-management duty case, not a broad HOA-governance case. It matters because the court allowed a negligence claim to proceed against the property manager based on guest key-fob access to common areas, even while narrowing the case by dismissing other theories.
The case is marked standard because it applies general negligence and summary-judgment principles, not Title 10, Title 33, or CC&R interpretation. It is useful for common-area access and security disputes in condominium communities.