Laveen Meadows v. Mejia | Arizona HOA Foreclosure FAQ

Name: Laveen Meadows Homeowners Association v. Mejia
Uploaded: 2020-05-05
Description: HOA lien foreclosure judgment properly included assessments, fees, and statutory lien priorities.

HOA Foreclosure | A.R.S. § 33-1807 | 1 CA-CV 18-0276

This landmark Arizona case establishes that a homeowner cannot defeat an HOA foreclosure action by bringing delinquent assessments current after the lawsuit is filed. The court ruled that the right to foreclose is fixed at filing, allowing the HOA to proceed to collect outstanding legal fees.

Last updated June 29, 2026. Case: Laveen Meadows, appellate No. 1 CA-CV 18-0276; opinion affirming.

Download the appellate opinion Download the appellate mandate Download the record index Source-file index FAQ

Current-status note: 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.

Scope note: This page covers the trial and appellate litigation history of Laveen Meadows v. Mejia, a precedential Arizona decision holding that a homeowner’s post-filing payment of delinquent assessments does not eliminate an association’s statutory right to foreclose for unawarded attorneys’ fees. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The Arizona Court of Appeals held that under A.R.S. § 33-1807(A), an association’s statutory right to foreclose its assessment lien is determined as of the date the foreclosure action is filed, and a homeowner’s subsequent partial payment of delinquent assessments does not divest the court of jurisdiction or eliminate the association’s right to pursue foreclosure for remaining fees and costs.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Laveen Meadows Homeowners Association, Inc. (Plaintiff)
Laveen Meadows Homeowners Association, Inc.
Arizona nonprofit corporation that initiated the foreclosure action for delinquent assessments.
Chad M. Gallacher (Counsel)
Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.
Lead counsel representing Laveen Meadows Homeowners Association, Inc. throughout the case and appeal.
W. William Nikolaus (Counsel)
Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.
Counsel representing Laveen Meadows Homeowners Association, Inc. in trial and appellate proceedings.
Brian W. Morgan (Counsel)
Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.
Counsel representing Laveen Meadows Homeowners Association, Inc., participated in default and evidentiary hearings.
Samuel C. Richardson (Counsel)
Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.
Counsel representing Laveen Meadows Homeowners Association, Inc. in drafting default-related and appellate briefs.
Heather Yearack (Witness)
Laveen Meadows Homeowners Association, Inc.
Witness/representative for Laveen Meadows who testified regarding Mejia's assessment ledger and late fees at the evidentiary hearing.
Mohammed al Sayed (Board Member)
Laveen Meadows Homeowners Association, Inc.
Laveen Meadows board member who attended the June 2, 2017 superior court hearing.
Lisa Riesland (Other)
Laveen Meadows Homeowners Association / Management Company
Community manager for Laveen Meadows, mentioned by witness Yearack in testimony.

Respondent Side

Carlos Mejia (Defendant)
Homeowner of Lot 63, Laveen Meadows Parcel 2
Homeowner who appealed the denial of his motion to set aside the default judgment of foreclosure.
Jonathan A. Dessaules (Counsel)
Dessaules Law Group
Lead counsel representing Defendant Carlos Mejia on appeal.
Jacob A. Kubert (Counsel)
Dessaules Law Group
Co-counsel representing Carlos Mejia in both the trial court and the Court of Appeals.
David E. Wood (Counsel)
Dessaules Law Group
Additional in-firm counsel representing Carlos Mejia during the appellate proceedings.
Paul Monaghan (Witness)
Dessaules Law Group
Witness for Carlos Mejia who testified at the evidentiary hearing regarding Mejia's assessment payment of $5,000.
Davina Bressler (Counsel)
Maricopa County Attorney's Office
Deputy County Attorney representing Defendant State of Arizona, which disclaimed interest and was dismissed.
State of Arizona (Defendant)
State of Arizona, Maricopa County Finance Department Collections Unit
Named as defendant due to a criminal restitution lien; filed a Disclaimer of Interest and was dismissed.
Lexington National Insurance Corporation (Defendant)
Lexington National Insurance Corporation
Named as defendant due to a recorded Deed of Trust; failed to appear and defaulted.
US Immigration Bonds and Insurance Services, Inc. (Defendant)
US Immigration Bonds and Insurance Services, Inc.
Named as defendant due to a recorded Deed of Trust; failed to appear and defaulted.
United States of America (Defendant)
Department of the Treasury – Internal Revenue Service
Named as defendant due to a federal tax lien; filed a Disclaimer of Interest and was dismissed with prejudice.

Neutral Parties

Hon. Margaret E. Benny (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court
Judge Pro Tempore/Commissioner who presided over the trial court proceedings, entered default judgment, and denied Rule 60(b) motion.
Hon. Maria Elena Cruz (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Presiding Judge who delivered the decision of the appellate court affirming the foreclosure judgment.
Hon. Kenton D. Jones (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Appellate judge on the panel who joined the majority opinion affirming the foreclosure judgment.
Hon. Kent E. Cattani (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Appellate judge who dissented, arguing that Mejia's payment of assessments precluded foreclosure.
Hon. Michael J. Brown (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Appellate judge who was substituted for Judge Jones on the panel for the subsequent attorneys' fees order.
Hon. Peter B. Swann (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals who signed the administrative memorandum substituting Judge Brown on the panel.
Hon. James P. Beene (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals / Arizona Supreme Court
Signed appellate procedural orders as Presiding Judge of Department M and Supreme Court orders as Duty Justice.
Hon. Melina Brill (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Judge Pro Tempore who signed initial procedural and dismissal orders on appeal.

What happened

In May 2016, Laveen Meadows Homeowners Association filed a judicial foreclosure complaint against homeowner Carlos Mejia, alleging that he was delinquent on assessments for over a year and in an amount exceeding $1,200. Mejia failed to file a timely answer, and the Association obtained an entry of default in December 2016.

Before the court entered default judgment, Mejia retained counsel and paid $5,000 – an amount that exceeded his delinquent assessments and late fees but did not cover the substantial attorneys’ fees the Association had incurred. Mejia moved to set aside the default, arguing that his payment eliminated the statutory basis for foreclosure under A.R.S. § 33-1807(A). The trial court denied the motion and entered a judgment of foreclosure, recording a negative principal balance of -$2,152.08 (reflecting Mejia’s overpayment of assessments) but ordering foreclosure of the lien to satisfy $11,190.00 in attorneys’ fees and $1,012.25 in costs. Mejia appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Laveen Meadows Homeowners Association v. Mejia (1 CA-CV 18-0276). HOA lien foreclosure judgment properly included assessments, fees, and statutory lien priorities. 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 Laveen Meadows Homeowners Association v. Mejia. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

Audio overview generated with Google NotebookLM from the case’s court filings.

Procedural timeline

2016-05-11

Complaint filed in Maricopa County Superior Court seeking foreclosure of assessment lien.

2016-05-12

Carlos Mejia served with the Summons and Complaint by a private process server.

2016-07-13

Laveen Meadows files Notice of Dismissal of Defendant State of Arizona.

2016-08-22

IRS files Disclaimer of Interest; Laveen Meadows files Notice of Dismissal of Defendant United States of America.

2016-10-12

Superior Court enters 150-Day Order Minute Entry.

2016-12-08

Laveen Meadows files Application and Affidavit for Entry of Default against Carlos Mejia.

2017-04-03

Laveen Meadows files Motion and Affidavit for Entry of Default Judgment, China Doll fee affidavit, and Statement of Costs.

2017-04-14

Dessaules Law Group files Notice of Appearance for Carlos Mejia; Mejia files Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default, Answer, and Notice of Payment of $5,000 assessments.

2017-04-17

Default hearing held; Superior Court resets hearing to June 2, 2017 to allow briefing on Mejia's Motion to Set Aside Default.

2017-04-28

Laveen Meadows files Response in Opposition to Motion to Set Aside Default.

2017-05-10

Mejia files Reply in Support of Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default.

2017-05-19

Laveen Meadows files Motion to Strike Mejia's Reply for improperly citing unpublished trial court rulings.

2017-05-24

Mejia files Response to Motion to Strike and attaches copies of the cited trial court rulings.

2017-05-26

Laveen Meadows files Reply to Motion to Strike and Notice of Exhibits for the damages hearing.

2017-06-02

Hearing held; Superior Court grants Laveen Meadows' Motion to Strike and denies Mejia's Motion to Set Aside Default; schedules evidentiary hearing on damages.

2017-06-06

Superior Court signs Order formally denying Mejia's Motion to Set Aside Default.

2017-06-09

Mejia files Defendant's Hearing Memorandum regarding damages and right of foreclosure.

2017-06-19

Laveen Meadows files Pre-Hearing Memorandum, Supplemental China Doll Fee Affidavit, and Supplemental Application for Attorney Fees.

2017-06-20

Default Evidentiary Hearing on damages held; Heather Yearack and Paul Monaghan testify; Court takes matter under advisement.

2017-07-03

Mejia files Objection to Proposed Judgment, Objection to Statement of Costs, and Response to Fee Application.

2017-07-14

Laveen Meadows files Replies in support of its Proposed Judgment, Fee Application, and Statement of Costs.

2017-08-04

Superior Court signs and files Judgment of Foreclosure, awarding -$2,152.08 principal, $11,190.00 in attorney's fees, and $1,012.25 in costs.

2017-08-16

Mejia files Notice of Appeal, initiating case 1 CA-CV 17-0539.

2017-08-17

Mejia files Motion to Set Supersedeas Bond and Stay Enforcement of Judgment in Superior Court.

2017-08-31

Laveen Meadows files Notice of Cross-Appeal.

2017-09-28

Superior Court sets Mejia's supersedeas bond at $0.00 and stays enforcement of the judgment pending appeal.

2017-12-07

Court of Appeals issues Order terminating stay and dismissing appeal 1 CA-CV 17-0539 for lack of jurisdiction because a direct appeal cannot be taken from a default judgment without first seeking Rule 60(b) relief.

2017-12-20

Mejia files Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment under Rule 60(b) in Superior Court; Court of Appeals dismisses the Association's cross-appeal.

2018-01-10

Laveen Meadows files Response in Opposition to Mejia's Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment.

2018-01-30

Mejia files Reply in Support of Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment.

2018-03-28

Superior Court enters signed Minute Entry denying Mejia's Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment and permitting Association to apply for post-judgment fees.

2018-04-05

Laveen Meadows files Post-Judgment Application for Attorney Fees ($7,680.00) and Statement of Costs ($98.51).

2018-04-20

Superior Court signs Order granting Laveen Meadows' post-judgment attorney's fees and costs.

2018-04-25

Court of Appeals enters Order granting the request for oral argument.

Download source

0000 Order Granting Request For Oral Arg

Download source

0000 Letter From Asc 09222020 Re Petitio

2020-11-25

Laveen Meadows files Notice of Settlement in the Arizona Supreme Court.

2020-11-30

Arizona Supreme Court enters Order dismissing the pending fee applications following settlement of the matter.

Download source

0000 Asc Order Filed 11302020 Re Dismiss

2020-12-03

Court of Appeals issues its Civil Mandate to the trial court, concluding the appellate proceedings.

Download source

Type: Decision or judgment

Decision document; read it to understand the controlling result before moving to later filings.

Download source file

2020-12-03_237_0000-civil-mandate.pdf

FAQ

Does paying off delinquent assessments after an HOA foreclosure lawsuit is filed stop the foreclosure under Arizona law?

No. In the binding precedent of Laveen Meadows v. Mejia, the Arizona Court of Appeals held that an association’s statutory right to foreclose is determined as of the date the lawsuit is filed. Bringing the assessment balance current after filing does not eliminate the HOA’s right to proceed with foreclosure to recover outstanding attorneys’ fees and costs.

What is the statutory threshold for an HOA to file a foreclosure lawsuit in Arizona?

Under A.R.S. § 33-1807(A), an HOA can only foreclose its assessment lien if the owner has been delinquent in the payment of assessments (excluding collection fees, late charges, and attorneys’ fees) for a period of one year or in the amount of $1,200 or more, whichever occurs first.

Can an HOA foreclose on a home solely to collect unpaid attorneys' fees and costs?

Yes, if the statutory foreclosure threshold for assessments was met on the date the lawsuit was filed. While attorneys’ fees alone are not foreclosable assessments, if a foreclosure action is properly initiated based on delinquent assessments, the HOA can continue the foreclosure process to recover its reasonable collection fees, attorneys’ fees, and late charges.

Is the Laveen Meadows v. Mejia ruling binding precedent for all Arizona HOAs and homeowners?

Yes. This decision is a published, precedential opinion from the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One. It was subsequently clarified and codified by the Arizona Legislature in amendments to A.R.S. § 33-1807(A), confirming that eligibility for foreclosure is determined on the date the action is filed.

How can a homeowner stop an HOA foreclosure once a lawsuit has been filed?

Once a foreclosure action is filed, a homeowner cannot unilaterally stop the process merely by paying the delinquent assessments. To completely stop the foreclosure and redeem the property, the homeowner must satisfy the entire secured debt, which includes all delinquent assessments, late fees, costs, and the HOA’s reasonable attorneys’ fees.

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	1 CA-CV 18-0276
Court / tribunal	Court of Appeals
Decision / key date	May 5, 2020
Judge / panel	Hon. Margaret E. Benny, Hon. Maria Elena Cruz, Hon. Kenton D. Jones, Hon. Kent E. Cattani
Parties	Laveen Meadows Homeowners Association, Inc. (Plaintiff/Appellee) v. Carlos Mejia (Defendant/Appellant)
Governing law	A.R.S. § 33-1807 A.R.S. § 33-1807(A) A.R.S. § 33-1807(C) A.R.S. § 33-1807(F) A.R.S. § 33-1807(H)
Topics	ForeclosureAssessmentsAttorney FeesProcedure
Outcome / holding	The Arizona Court of Appeals held that under A.R.S. § 33-1807(A), an association's statutory right to foreclose its assessment lien is determined as of the date the foreclosure action is filed, and a homeowner's subsequent partial payment of delinquent assessments does not divest the court of jurisdiction or eliminate the association's right to pursue foreclosure for remaining fees and costs.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package	234 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	66 roadmap entries
Video overview	Laveen Meadows Homeowners Association v. Mejia
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	5 questions
Featured download links	3 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Laveen Meadows Homeowners Association filed a judicial foreclosure action against homeowner Carlos Mejia for delinquent assessments exceeding $1,200. Mejia subsequently paid $5,000, which covered the delinquent assessments and late fees but did not cover the HOA's unawarded attorney's fees. Mejia argued that bringing the assessments current eliminated the statutory basis for foreclosure under A.R.S. § 33-1807(A). The trial court denied Mejia's motion to set aside the default judgment of foreclosure, holding that the statutory threshold delinquency must exist when the action is filed, and subsequent partial payments do not divest the court of jurisdiction or extinguish the foreclosure right. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision in a 2-1 opinion, holding that under A.R.S. § 33-1807(A), the right to foreclose is determined at the inception of the lawsuit, and subsequent payments towards delinquent assessments do not eliminate the association's right to proceed with foreclosure to recover its outstanding collection fees and attorney's fees.

Key Issues & Findings

The Court of Appeals focused on the plain language of A.R.S. § 33-1807(A), concluding that the statutory conditions permitting foreclosure—such as delinquency for one year or in the amount of $1,200 or more—act as a triggering event or ripeness element required to initiate the foreclosure action. Once this threshold is met at the time of filing, jurisdiction is established, and subsequent actions or partial payments by the homeowner do not divest the court of jurisdiction or extinguish the association's lien foreclosure right.

The court distinguished the Arizona statute from California's negative phrasing, which explicitly limits the ongoing right to foreclose. It also noted that the Arizona Legislature's post-dispute amendment to § 33-1807(A), adding the phrase 'as determined on the date the action is filed,' serves as a clarifying declaration of the original statute's intent.

The dissenting opinion argued that the majority's decision leads to an absurd result where a homeowner who has paid all delinquent assessments can still have their home foreclosed upon solely to satisfy unawarded and unadjudicated attorney's fees, which are otherwise non-foreclosable under the statute.

Why It Matters

For Arizona homeowners, this case emphasizes the critical risk of allowing HOA assessment delinquencies to reach the statutory thresholds of $1,200 or one year. Once a foreclosure lawsuit is filed, homeowners cannot unilaterally stop the foreclosure process merely by paying the outstanding assessments; they must pay the entire debt, including the HOA's substantial and often unadjudicated attorney's fees, to protect their homes from a sheriff's sale.

For HOA boards and managers, the ruling confirms their leverage in collection actions but also reinforces the necessity of strict compliance with statutory thresholds on the exact date of filing. For legal counsel, it highlights the importance of maintaining an accurate accounting of assessments versus attorney's fees and demonstrates that contractual attorney's fees provisions in CC&Rs do not merge with a default judgment, allowing the recovery of post-judgment collection costs.

← Back to Court of Appeals cases

Facebook Comments Box