Superior Court HOA Case
A Maricopa County judge let 26 Fiesta Villas votes proceed after applying condominium CC&R purchaser language and A.R.S. § 33-1244.
Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Lisa Marx v. Fiesta Villas Condominium Association, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2013-095464.
Scope note: This page covers Lisa Marx v. Fiesta Villas Condominium Association (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2013-095464) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s own filed minute entries, especially the September 10, 2013 under-advisement ruling quashing the temporary restraining order; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: the last collected minute entry, dated October 31, 2013, shows the matter was dismissed with prejudice after Marx filed a notice of dismissal with prejudice. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The takeaway
The court quashed a TRO that would have stopped Dwight Schrute Holdings from casting 26 votes in a condominium-association election. The key point was the CC&Rs’ purchaser definition: a buyer assigned special declarant rights was not treated as a purchaser required to pay the transfer and working-capital fees, and A.R.S. § 33-1244 supported the defendants’ position that those special declarant rights transferred through the trustee-sale/deed-of-trust process.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Lisa Marx (Plaintiff)
Sought temporary injunctive relief to stop 26 votes from being cast in the Fiesta Villas Condominium Association election. - Christina N. Morgan (Counsel)
Counsel for Lisa Marx in the minute entries. - Scott L. Potter (Counsel)
Counsel appearing with Christina N. Morgan for Lisa Marx at the order-to-show-cause hearing.
Respondent Side
- Fiesta Villas Condominium Association (Defendant)
Condominium association whose election was at issue. - Dwight Schrute Holdings LLC (Defendant)
Entity whose 26 votes in the association election were temporarily restrained and then allowed after the TRO was quashed. - HUB Realty LLC (Defendant)
Entity alleged to have transferred or held interests connected to the 26 units and disputed fees. - Spencer J. Lindahl (Defendant)
The ruling states that HUB Realty and Dwight Schrute Holdings were managed by Spencer J. Lindahl. - Melinda C. Lindahl (Defendant)
Named defendant in the case-party records and minute entries. - Paul R. Neil (Counsel)
Counsel for Fiesta Villas Condominium Association in the minute entries.
Neutral Parties
- David M. Talamante (Judge)
Judge who issued the August 30, 2013 temporary restraining order referenced in the ruling. - David K. Udall (Judge)
Judge who heard the order-to-show-cause return hearing and quashed the TRO. - John Rea (Judge)
Presiding civil judge who reassigned the case after a notice of change of judge.
What happened
Lisa Marx obtained a temporary restraining order before a Fiesta Villas Condominium Association election. The TRO prevented Dwight Schrute Holdings LLC from casting 26 votes at the September 10, 2013 election.
The theory behind the TRO was that Dwight Schrute Holdings and HUB Realty owed transfer-fee and working-capital-fund assessments for 26 units. Marx argued that because those sums had not been paid, the 26 votes should not be cast in the association election.
Judge David Udall held an order-to-show-cause return hearing on September 9, 2013 and took the matter under advisement. The next day, the court focused on the CC&Rs’ definition of “Purchaser” and on A.R.S. § 33-1244, which addresses transfer of special declarant rights after foreclosure, trustee sale, or similar transfer.
The court found that anyone with a declarant right was not required to pay the transfer or working-capital fees under the CC&Rs’ purchaser definition. The court also found that HUB Realty and Dwight Schrute Holdings had received their interests through trustee-sale and deed-of-trust instruments, giving defendants a strong argument that special declarant rights transferred and that their voting rights were not restricted.
On irreparable harm, the court found the claimed election harm speculative. Marx pointed to a possible special $2,000-per-unit levy for improvements, but the court was not persuaded that the evidence showed how the election would come out depending on the 26 votes. The court quashed the TRO, and the case was dismissed with prejudice on October 31, 2013.
Video overview of the ruling
An AI-generated video overview of Lisa Marx v. Fiesta Villas Condominium Association (CV2013-095464 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). Special-declarant rights let 26 condo-unit votes proceed despite unpaid transfer and working-capital fees. 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 Lisa Marx v. Fiesta Villas Condominium Association. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.
Procedural timeline
Complete uploaded source-document index
This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/lisa-marx-v-fiesta-villas-condominium-association/raw/: 4 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.
Oral Argument
Type: Court/source PDF
Order-to-show-cause hearing minute entry taking under advisement whether to continue a temporary restraining order barring Dwight Schrute Holdings LLC from casting 26 votes in the Fiesta Villas Condominium Association election.
Under Advisement Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Under-advisement ruling quashing the temporary restraining order after finding defendants had a strong argument that special declarant rights under the CC&Rs and A.R.S. § 33-1244 meant the 26 votes were not barred by unpaid transfer and working-capital fees.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Case-reassignment minute entry assigning the case to Judge David K. Udall after Fiesta Villas Condominium Association filed a notice of change of judge.
Judgment Entered
Type: Decision or judgment
Dismissal order dismissing the case with prejudice after Marx filed a notice of dismissal with prejudice.
FAQ
What did the TRO try to stop?
It stopped Dwight Schrute Holdings LLC from casting 26 votes in the Fiesta Villas Condominium Association election.
Why were the votes challenged?
Marx argued that HUB Realty and Dwight Schrute Holdings had not paid transfer-fee and working-capital-fund assessments for the 26 units, so the votes should be restricted.
Why did the court quash the TRO?
The court found defendants had a strong argument that an entity assigned special declarant rights was excluded from the CC&Rs’ purchaser definition and therefore was not required to pay those fees before voting.
How did A.R.S. § 33-1244 matter?
The court considered A.R.S. § 33-1244 because it provides that special declarant rights can transfer to a person acquiring title through foreclosure, trustee sale, or similar sale of declarant-owned units or development-rights property.
Did the court decide the final merits of every claim?
No. The ruling decided temporary injunctive relief by quashing the TRO. The case was later dismissed with prejudice after Marx filed a notice of dismissal.
Why is this marked must-read?
Even though it was a TRO ruling, it directly applies a condominium statute and CC&R voting/assessment language to an association election, which is a recurring governance issue.
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 | CV2013-095464 (Maricopa County Superior Court) |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Superior Court |
| Decision / key date | September 10, 2013 |
| Judge / panel | Hon. David M. Talamante, Hon. David K. Udall, Hon. John Rea |
| Parties | Lisa Marx (Plaintiff) v. Fiesta Villas Condominium Association, Dwight Schrute Holdings LLC, HUB Realty LLC, Spencer J. Lindahl, and Melinda C. Lindahl (Defendants) |
| Governing law | |
| Topics | electionsvoting-and-electionsassessmentscc-and-rsboard-governance |
| Outcome / holding | The superior court quashed the temporary restraining order that had barred Dwight Schrute Holdings LLC from casting 26 votes in the Fiesta Villas Condominium Association election, finding defendants were likely to succeed on their argument that special declarant rights exempted them from the transfer-fee and working-capital-fund payment theory used to restrict voting. |
| Primary public source | View source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Uploaded source package | 4 PDFs |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 5 roadmap entries |
| Video overview | Lisa Marx v. Fiesta Villas Condominium Association |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 6 questions |
| Curated download aliases | 1 download link |
Key Issues & Findings
Lisa Marx obtained a temporary restraining order that prevented Dwight Schrute Holdings LLC from casting 26 votes in the Fiesta Villas Condominium Association election. The asserted basis was that HUB Realty LLC and Dwight Schrute Holdings had not paid transfer-fee and working-capital-fund assessments under the condominium CC&Rs. After an order-to-show-cause hearing, the superior court quashed the TRO. The court read the CC&Rs’ definition of “Purchaser” together with A.R.S. § 33-1244 on transfer of special declarant rights and found defendants had a strong merits position that an entity holding special declarant rights was not required to pay those fees and therefore was not barred from voting. The case was dismissed with prejudice the next month.
The court focused on the CC&Rs. Sections 7.9 and 7.11 required each purchaser of a unit to pay working-capital and transfer-fee assessments, but Section 1.2.30 defined “Purchaser” to exclude a person who, in addition to purchasing a unit, is assigned any special declarant right. The court found that HUB Realty and Dwight Schrute Holdings were managed by Spencer Lindahl and that they received their interest through trustee-sale and deed-of-trust instruments.
The court then considered A.R.S. § 33-1244, which provides for transfer of special declarant rights and states that, unless otherwise provided in the mortgage or deed of trust, a person acquiring title to all real estate being foreclosed or sold succeeds to special declarant rights related to that real estate whether or not the conveying instrument says so. On that record, the court found defendants had a strong position that the CC&Rs did not require them to pay the transfer and working-capital fees, and therefore their voting rights under the CC&Rs would not be restricted or prohibited.
For irreparable harm, Marx argued that the board intended to assess a special $2,000 levy on each unit for improvements. The court found the election outcome speculative regardless of whether Dwight Schrute Holdings cast its votes. Because defendants showed likelihood of success and the claimed harm was speculative, the court quashed the TRO.
This is a compact but important condominium-election ruling. It shows how special declarant rights can affect both assessment obligations and voting eligibility, and it ties the CC&Rs’ purchaser definition directly to A.R.S. § 33-1244’s transfer rule.
The ruling is not appellate precedent and arose at the temporary-restraining-order stage, but it is still useful for Arizona condo readers because the issue was concrete: whether 26 unit votes could be blocked on the theory that transfer and working-capital fees had not been paid. The court allowed the votes to proceed by quashing the TRO.