Arizona Condo Governance | Records and Voting | Direct and Derivative Claims
This condominium-governance case concerns records access, recordkeeping, voting, open meetings, insurance and governing-document changes. The October 6, 2026 ruling dismissed specified claims and allowed specified individual-right theories to proceed. A September order had already recorded withdrawal without prejudice of thirteen summary-judgment motions, including eight featured in the July packet. On October 20 the court denied reconsideration. These procedural rulings do not establish liability on the remaining allegations.
Last reviewed October 26, 2026. Case: Lisa Marx v. Tara Condominiums Association, Inc., Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2025-012980 (consolidated with CV2025-062973); Hon. Adele Ponce, following earlier rulings by Hon. Randall H. Warner. Latest reviewed ruling: October 20, 2026, filed October 22.
Current-status note: This case guide was checked October 26, 2026, including the October 20 order filed October 22 denying reconsideration without further reasoning. No final disposition of the full case appears in the reviewed orders.
The September 11 order records thirteen summary-judgment motions withdrawn without prejudice, including eight of the nine July 5–21 motions featured here. The July 5 declaration-amendment motion is not listed withdrawn; no merits disposition of it was identified in the reviewed orders. Withdrawal does not decide the underlying claims.
The October 6 final dismissal paragraphs name Count IV/DJ IV, Count V/DJ V and the consolidated fiduciary-duty claim. The analysis treats Count VI as derivative without separately enumerating it there. The court declined to dismiss the challenged open-meeting and insurance-change claims. Records and voting allegations are not findings of liability, and their absence from those dismissal paragraphs does not establish every requested remedy.
The replacement audio and video were reviewed against the public filings and orders. They explain records, voting and participation allegations alongside Tara’s defenses and the actual dismissals. Surviving the pleading challenge is not proof of liability.
Updated record guide: This page was corrected on October 26, 2026 after review of the August 28 and September 11 minute entries and the October 20 reconsideration ruling. An earlier version described all nine featured July summary-judgment motions as pending; eight were withdrawn without prejudice. Withdrawal is not a merits judgment against those claims.
This is a pending-case guide, not a final merits judgment. The October 6 ruling dismissed specified claims and left other theories for further proceedings. Party allegations and proposed orders are not court findings. The replacement audio and video below were reviewed against the public court records through October 26, 2026.
Current case status
The October 6, 2026 ruling granted Tara’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in part: Count IV/DJ IV and Count V/DJ V were dismissed, and the consolidated fiduciary-duty claim was separately dismissed as not valid. The court declined to dismiss the challenged open-meeting and insurance-change claims. Records-access, recordkeeping and voting allegations also appear in the pleadings and were not enumerated in the final dismissal paragraphs. Thirteen summary-judgment motions were withdrawn without prejudice in September; the July 5 declaration motion was not listed withdrawn. The October 20 order denied reconsideration without further explanation. No final disposition of the entire case appears in the reviewed orders.
Case snapshot
An owner seeks enforcement of alleged individual contractual and statutory rights concerning meetings, records inspection, accurate records, voting, insurance and declaration changes. Tara denies unlawful conduct and disputes the available relief.
October 6: partial judgment on the pleadings. October 20, filed October 22: reconsideration denied without additional reasoning. The case has not been fully resolved in the reviewed orders.
The September 11 order records thirteen withdrawals without prejudice. Eight of the nine motions featured from July 5–21 are on that list; the July 5 declaration-amendment motion is not. Withdrawal of a motion is not dismissal of the underlying claim.
The public index contains 218 distinct PDFs and the historical July roadmap. The three added official orders supply the withdrawal and reconsideration updates; the roadmap alone is not a current docket. Loose intake materials remain outside the approved public source set.
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 | CV2025-012980 |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Superior Court |
| Decision / key date | October 20, 2026 |
| Judge / panel | Hon. Randall H. Warner, Hon. Adele Ponce |
| Parties | Lisa Marx, a Tara condominium owner, sued Tara Condominiums Association over alleged open-meeting, records, insurance, common-element, voting, and declaration/bylaw violations. |
| Governing law |
|
| Topics | Meetings & RecordsBoard GovernanceCC&RsRecords RequestsProcedureAttorney Fees |
| Outcome / holding | The October 6, 2026 ruling granted judgment on the pleadings in part: Count IV/DJ IV and Count V/DJ V were expressly dismissed, as was the consolidated fiduciary-duty claim. The court declined to dismiss the challenged open-meeting and insurance-change claims; it discussed Count VI as derivative but did not separately name it in the final dismissal paragraphs. Records-access, recordkeeping and voting counts are not enumerated there. The October 20 reconsideration denial adds no reasoning or additional claim disposition. |
| Primary public source | View hosted source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Reviewed source package | 218 PDFs, 1 other source file |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | No separate litigation roadmap table on this page |
| Video overview | Marx v. Tara: records, voting and October 2026 rulings |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 8 questions |
| Featured download links | 33 download links |
Key Issues & Findings
Lisa Marx, a self-represented condominium owner, challenges Tara Condominiums Association over alleged records-access, recordkeeping, voting, meeting, insurance and governing-document violations in CV2025-012980, consolidated with CV2025-062973. The operative Second Amended Complaint alleges individual participation and property-related harm; Tara denies wrongdoing and liability. On October 6, 2026, Judge Adele Ponce dismissed Count IV/DJ IV and Count V/DJ V and separately dismissed the consolidated fiduciary-duty claim, while declining to dismiss challenged open-meeting and insurance-change claims. The analysis treats Count VI as derivative without separately naming it in the final dismissal paragraphs. A September order had recorded thirteen summary-judgment motions withdrawn without prejudice, including eight of nine featured July motions; the July 5 declaration motion was not on that list. The October 20 order denied reconsideration without further reasoning. The reviewed orders do not finally resolve the entire case.
The court distinguished harm to the association or another owner from an individual owner’s statutory and contractual participation rights and personally borne insurance costs. It found no particularized injury for the dismissed unit-boundary/upkeep theories, but did not extend Iqtunheimr to extinguish individual procedural claims merely because a decision affected all owners. Technical violations, prejudice and later ratification remained reserved. The fiduciary-duty claim was separately held not valid under Rohde. None of this establishes the truth or remedy of every overlapping records, voting or governance allegation.
This pending case illustrates the need to distinguish a pleaded member-right injury, a derivative claim, a withdrawn motion and a merits judgment. Records inspection, accurate records, voting, meeting procedure and an owner’s insurance obligations deserve separate attention rather than treating the whole dispute as a disagreement over collective spending. The exact ordering paragraphs and later withdrawal/reconsideration orders control the status described here.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Lisa Marx (Plaintiff)
Self-represented condominium owner plaintiff.
Respondent Side
- Tara Condominiums Association, Inc. (Defendant)
Association party named in Marx’s condominium-governance claims. - Mark Gottmann (Former individual defendant)
Tara Condominiums Association
Dismissed by the July 31, 2025 ruling; the association remained a defendant. - Dennis Anderson (Former individual defendant)
Tara Condominiums Association
Dismissed by the July 31, 2025 ruling; the association remained a defendant. - Charles H. Oldham (Counsel)
CHDB Law LLP
Counsel served by Marx in the case filings. - Ari Bowhay (Counsel)
CHDB Law LLP
Counsel served by Marx in the case filings.
Neutral Parties
- Randall H. Warner (Judge)
Superior Court judge listed in the amended complaint and orders. - Adele Ponce (Judge)
Later Superior Court judge listed in the case metadata.
Video: claims, defenses and the October rulings
This updated overview explains the records, voting and participation allegations, Tara’s defenses, the claims expressly dismissed and the insurance challenge allowed to proceed. It distinguishes Count VI’s analysis from the final ordering paragraphs. The court’s filings and orders control.
Listen: the broader case and what the rulings mean
The replacement discussion covers individual member rights, the derivative-action defense, the earlier adverse rulings, the distinct insurance theories and the September motion withdrawals. Surviving a pleading challenge does not prove liability.
What the record shows
Marx’s September 15, 2025 Second Amended Complaint asserts overlapping contract, statutory and declaratory theories. It alleges personal losses of participation, voting and inspection rights, monetary and property-value harm, and interference with property enjoyment. Those are pleaded allegations, not findings that she proved each injury.
The dispute is broader than roof repairs or master-policy spending. Count II concerns access to non-exempt association records; Count VII concerns maintaining accurate minutes and records of actions; Count VIII concerns printed ballots, ballot-return information and in-person voting. Counts I and III challenge notice, meetings, discussion, votes and authorization under the declaration and open-meeting statute. The same events sometimes support more than one theory, which does not make every theory equally viable.
A separate insurance/declaration dispute, CV2025-062973, was consolidated, and its complaint was treated as a Rule 15(d) supplemental pleading in March 2026. The public first amended filing describes challenged amendments, ballot inspection and a transfer of insurance responsibilities to owners. Tara’s March 30 response admits that amendments were approved, a vote occurred and the prior master policy expired, while denying unlawful conduct, injury and liability and asserting procedural and substantive defenses.
The July filings requested partial summary judgment on grouped issues. Later official orders changed that posture: the court directed withdrawal of fourteen motions, and the September 11 order listed thirteen withdrawn without prejudice. The July motion papers remain useful descriptions of Marx’s arguments, but eight of the nine featured July motions are no longer awaiting decision as filed.
Records, voting and participation are distinct issues
Marx alleges that non-exempt financial, contract and governance records were withheld or delayed under A.R.S. § 33-1258. Tara’s May 27 motion expressly excludes Count II and its declaratory counterpart, while reserving defenses. The October 6 final dismissal paragraphs do not name this count.
Marx separately alleges inaccurate minutes and missing records of association actions under A.R.S. § 10-11601. Tara’s May 27 motion expressly does not seek judgment on Count VII or its declaratory counterpart. The July 10 motion addressing two such allegations was later withdrawn without prejudice, without a merits ruling.
Marx alleges denial of printed ballot materials, omitted ballot-return information and loss of in-person voting under A.R.S. § 33-1250. Tara’s May 27 motion expressly excludes Count VIII and its declaratory counterpart while reserving defenses. The October 6 final dismissal paragraphs do not name this count.
Marx challenges decisions allegedly made without required notice, an agenda, discussion, a vote or open proceedings. The October 6 court declined to dismiss the challenged participation-right theories, while reserving technical-violation, prejudice and later-ratification questions. No automatic victory on the merits follows.
What the court has already done
In the June 24, 2025 order filed June 25, the court denied preliminary relief. It observed that certain board actions should have required a vote but did not find the necessary irreparable harm; it also rejected or found premature other requests. This was an interim-relief ruling, not a final decision of every claim.
The separate June 24 order filed June 26 denied Tara’s first derivative-claim dismissal motion as then framed, while limiting damages to harm Marx herself suffered and could prove. The October 2026 ruling later considered newer appellate authority and the operative pleadings.
The July 31, 2025 ruling dismissed Mark Gottmann and Dennis Anderson, distinguishing association obligations from personal liability claims against board members.
The July 16, 2026 minute entry granted Tara’s request to postpone the Colby discovery ruling until after the Rule 12(c) motion was decided. It did not itself decide Rule 12(c), the merits, or Marx’s July summary-judgment motions.
The October 6, 2026 ruling (Hon. Adele Ponce) applied the 2026 Iqtunheimr decision and dismissed Count IV/DJ IV (unit boundaries) and Count V/DJ V (upkeep) as derivative, and dismissed the consolidated breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim. It declined to dismiss the open-meeting claims (Counts I and III) and the insurance-cancellation claims, holding those are direct, not derivative.
Following the August 28 direction, the September 11 order recorded thirteen withdrawals without prejudice. It did not grant Tara judgment on the underlying claims or decide the declaration-amendment motion.
The October 20 order, filed October 22, denied Marx’s October 13 motion for reconsideration. It gives no further reasoning and identifies no additional claims for dismissal.
The Rule 12(c) motion and the Colby discovery stay
Tara’s May 27, 2026 motion for judgment on the pleadings argues that community-wide claims over common property, association funds, insurance, and governance belong to the association and must satisfy derivative-action requirements.
The scope of Tara’s motion matters. Section IV.C, pages 13–14, expressly excludes the records-inspection and voting counts, personal subsets of Counts I and III, and personal inspection rights in the supplemental pleading, while reserving defenses. It also does not seek judgment on the corporate-records counts. The motion therefore does not ask the court to dispose of the entire case.
Marx’s June 2, 2026 opposition accepts that Iqtunheimr is published Arizona authority, but argues it decided only a common-area maintenance derivative claim and does not convert open-meeting, notice, voting, records, insurance-accounting, or declaration-amendment claims into derivative claims.
The same June 2 packet opposed Tara’s request to stay the pending Colby Management discovery dispute. Marx argued that the subpoenaed Colby materials go to direct claims already recognized by the June 26, 2025 ruling.
The court later granted Tara’s stay request in a July 16, 2026 minute entry, reasoning that deciding Rule 12(c) first could promote efficiency and might make the discovery request moot. The court said it would address Marx’s pending discovery issues after the Rule 12(c) ruling.
The October 6 ruling decided the Rule 12(c) motion in part. The October 20 order then denied reconsideration. The reviewed later orders do not resolve the separate Colby discovery dispute; the July stay should not be described as a merits denial of discovery.
The June packet’s two proposed orders remain only proposed forms of relief. They are not signed rulings.
The October 6, 2026 ruling on judgment on the pleadings
On October 6, 2026 (minute entry filed October 12, 2026), Hon. Adele Ponce ruled on Tara’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted it in part. The court first denied Marx’s motion to file a sur-reply, adding that the sur-reply would not have changed the result.
The ruling applies Iqtunheimr, LLC v. Val Vista Lakes Community Association, 586 P.3d 1081 (Ariz. App. 2026), which distinguishes an injury belonging to the association from an injury to an individual owner. A derivative action enforces a corporate claim and has separate standing and demand requirements. That does not prevent every individual claim involving the same subject matter.
Applying that framework, the court dismissed the claims it found derivative and let the individual-right claims proceed. It dismissed Count IV and Declaratory Judgment Count IV (unit boundaries, A.R.S. § 33-1212) and Count V and Declaratory Judgment Count V (upkeep, A.R.S. § 33-1247), reasoning that they concern a roof-repair assessment against a different owner and master-policy claims for unit damage—harm to the association or to another owner, not a particularized injury to Marx. In its analysis the court also agreed that Count VI (insurance, A.R.S. § 33-1253) alleging improper master-policy claims is derivative, though the court’s ordering paragraph enumerated only Counts IV and V and the fiduciary-duty claim.
The court declined to dismiss Marx’s open-meeting claims. It held that Counts I and III, and their declaratory counterparts, which allege violations of open-meeting requirements in the declaration and statutes, are not automatically derivative just because every owner was similarly affected; Marx clarified she seeks only to vindicate her own participation rights, to invalidate actions improperly taken, and to recover costs she personally bore. The court noted it will still need to consider whether any proven violation was merely technical and whether later board action ratified the challenged decisions.
The court also declined to dismiss the consolidated insurance-change claims at this stage. Marx challenges an amendment of governing documents that ended master-policy coverage for portions of units and alleges she must now pay for replacement coverage. The court treated the alleged insurance cost as distributed among individual holders. It separately dismissed the consolidated breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim as not valid under Rohde v. Beztak of Arizona.
The final ordering paragraphs expressly dismiss Count IV/DJ IV, Count V/DJ V, and the consolidated fiduciary-duty claim. Although the analysis describes Count VI as derivative, those paragraphs do not separately name Count VI. Counts II (inspection), VII (corporate records) and VIII (voting) are discussed in the complaint summary but not named in the final dismissal paragraphs. Neither that omission nor the survival of Counts I and III decides the truth, remedy or ultimate viability of every overlapping allegation. The October 20 reconsideration denial does not supply a new explanation or additional disposition.
What the October 6, 2026 ruling decided, claim by claim
Another owner’s roof-repair assessment and unit-damage master-policy claims. Count IV/DJ IV was expressly dismissed: the court found Marx lacked standing for the other owner’s assessment and no particularized injury for these pleaded theories. The complaint alleges personal harm elsewhere; this ruling concerns these specific acts and theories.
Common-element upkeep and the repeated assessment/master-policy allegations. Count V/DJ V was expressly dismissed as derivative because the court found no particularized harm for those pleaded theories. That is not a finding that the entire complaint contains no allegations of personal injury.
Improper master-policy claims said to raise premiums. The analysis describes the theory as derivative; the final ordering paragraphs do not separately name Count VI/DJ VI among the dismissed counts.
Participation, notice, meetings and votes concerning association decisions. The court declined to dismiss the challenged individual-right theories at this pleading stage. Technical violations, prejudice and potential later ratification remained reserved; no liability finding followed.
Records inspection, accurate minutes and records of actions, and ballot information/voting opportunities. Tara’s specified motion did not seek judgment on these counts, and the final dismissal paragraphs do not name them. This does not establish every allegation or requested remedy.
A governing-document amendment ending portions of master-policy coverage and shifting insurance costs to owners. The court declined dismissal because the alleged cost was distributed among individual holders. It did not decide the amendment invalid or award damages.
A fiduciary-duty claim against the association. The court separately dismissed it as not a valid claim under Rohde v. Beztak, rather than applying the IV/V derivative-claim reasoning to this claim.
A request to add further briefing. Denied; the court noted that considering the proposed sur-reply would not have changed its ruling.
A request to reconsider the October ruling. Denied October 20, filed October 22, without further reasoning or any additional claim disposition.
September withdrawals and the latest reconsideration order
The August 28, 2026 trial-setting conference minute entry directed withdrawal of fourteen partial-summary-judgment motions or they would be denied as moot. The September 11 order, filed September 17, then recorded thirteen motions withdrawn without prejudice in response to Marx’s September 2 notice. Eight are from the nine-motion July 5–21 group summarized below; five were filed from July 24 through August 2. The order states that the court will take no further action on the withdrawn motions.
The July 5 motion concerning the 2025 declaration amendment is not on that withdrawal list. The September order’s introductory description expressly distinguishes the fully briefed declaration motion. None of the reviewed orders decides that motion on its merits. The absence of that disposition is a limit of the reviewed record, not a prediction of the outcome.
On October 20, in a minute entry filed October 22, the court denied Marx’s October 13 motion for reconsideration. The one-page order provides no further reasoning. The docket checked October 26 also lists an October 16 clarification motion and Marx’s response; their contents and any later resolution have not been incorporated here.
These distinctions matter: a withdrawn motion is not a judgment against the underlying claim; a claim surviving Rule 12(c) is not a finding of liability; and an analytical discussion of a count is not a substitute for the final ordering paragraphs.
What the June 2026 response packet adds
Marx argues her claims seek direct relief for her own Condominium Act, declaration, voting, inspection, and fair-administration rights, not recovery of association funds or generalized damages for all units.
Marx argued the court should not pause her motion to compel Colby Management records. The court later granted Tara’s stay request, leaving the discovery issues for after the Rule 12(c) ruling.
Exhibit D is Marx’s organizational aid. It asserts that 89 of 103 listed claim paragraphs are open-meeting violations and that Tara’s motion targets 60 open-meeting items.
The proposed orders asked the court to deny Rule 12(c) and the discovery stay. They are not rulings; the July 16 minute entry instead granted the stay request.
June 2026 filings added to the record guide
| Date | Document | What it adds | Download |
|---|---|---|---|
| June 2, 2026 | Plaintiff’s response opposing stay of Colby Management production | Argues the Colby subpoena remains relevant to direct claims and should not be paused while Tara’s Rule 12(c) motion is pending. | Response opposing Colby stay |
| June 2, 2026 | Plaintiff’s opposition to Tara’s Rule 12(c) motion | Argues Iqtunheimr does not eliminate direct member-right claims over open meetings, voting, records, insurance accounting, declaration amendments, or individualized statutory relief. | Rule 12(c) opposition |
| June 2, 2026 | Exhibit D – Organization of Claims for Presentation | Organizes 103 claim paragraphs for presentation. Treat this as plaintiff’s categorization aid, not an independent court finding. | Claim organization exhibit |
| June 2, 2026 | Proposed order denying Tara’s Rule 12(c) motion | Proposed form of relief that would deny judgment on the pleadings or, alternatively, narrow relief/allow amendment rather than dismiss with prejudice. | Proposed Rule 12(c) order |
| June 2, 2026 | Proposed order denying Tara’s motion to stay Colby discovery ruling | Proposed form of relief that would deny the stay and leave the pending Colby motion to compel for ordinary-course decision. | Proposed Colby stay order |
The July 2026 motion packet and its later withdrawals
The earlier public packet contains nine partial-summary-judgment motions filed July 5–21, 2026, with supporting statements, declarations and exhibit indexes. They divide the dispute into claim groups rather than seek judgment on the whole case. The later September 11 order records withdrawal without prejudice of eight of those nine motions; it does not list the July 5 declaration-amendment motion.
The table below preserves the history of what Marx asked the court to decide, with the later status made explicit. Party arguments and descriptions of evidence do not establish a legal violation. Withdrawal of these motions did not dismiss the underlying pleaded claims or adjudicate them for either side.
The exhibit notices and master index are public below. The 71 loose exhibit copies delivered with this update were reviewed for context but are not republished here because many are discovery or Bates-labeled materials containing private identifiers, and their status as public docket attachments was not independently established.
What the July motions argued, and what happened next
| Filed | Claim group | Plaintiff's theory | Evidence map in the packet | Motion | Later status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| July 5 | 2025 declaration amendment | Marx argues the recorded amendment improperly shifted property-insurance duties, changed unit or common-element burdens without the required consent, used an invalid written-consent process, and imposed an unforeseeable covenant burden. | Original and recorded declarations, amendment materials, written-consent and vote communications, Tara’s March response, and insurance/cancellation records. | Amendment motion | Not listed withdrawn in the September 11 order; no merits disposition identified in the reviewed orders. |
| July 10 | Claims 120 and 121 | Marx argues Tara failed to keep accurate June 2024 minutes and records of actions taken without a meeting, contrary to A.R.S. § 10-11601. | Meeting notice, minutes, audio/transcript, later minutes and emails, financial records, discovery responses, and the Marx declaration. | Corporate-records motion | Withdrawn without prejudice, as recorded in the September 11 order; no merits decision on this motion. |
| July 11 | Claims 46/91, 42/87/127, 98/126 | Marx challenges a master-policy deductible increase, adoption of the 2025 budget and assessment by mail-only ballot, and ballot access or timing. | Governing documents, insurance renewals and minutes, budget records, ballots, vote results, owner communications, and objections. | Insurance, budget, and ballot motion | Withdrawn without prejudice, as recorded in the September 11 order; no merits decision on this motion. |
| July 13 | Claims 30/47/74/103/108, 48/92 | Marx argues the chair negotiated roof-repair cost allocation before an authorized vote, shifted a common-element cost without owner culpability, and released a repair lien without full payment or proper approval. | Governing documents, roof-repair affidavit and communications, notices and minutes, financial records, lien documents, and executive-session materials. | Roof and lien motion | Withdrawn without prejudice, as recorded in the September 11 order; no merits decision on this motion. |
| July 16 | Claims 26/70, 27/71, 28/72, 29/73, 43/88 | Marx challenges a reserve transfer, restrictions on correcting minutes, workers’ compensation coverage, Bermuda-grass spending, and a lighting reimbursement as actions lacking an open board vote. | Financials, notices, minutes and audio, policy records, seed invoices, vouchers, and the Marx declaration. | Reserve, minutes, policy, and spending motion | Withdrawn without prejudice, as recorded in the September 11 order; no merits decision on this motion. |
| July 16 | Claims 23/67, 24/68, 25/69, 33/34/77/78, 49/93 | Marx challenges officer and director appointments, dissolution of a landscaping committee, and creation or enforcement of a two-minute owner-comment rule. | Bylaws, executive-session and open-meeting records, announcements, emails, admissions, audio/transcripts, and the Marx declaration. | Appointments and speaking-rule motion | Withdrawn without prejudice, as recorded in the September 11 order; no merits decision on this motion. |
| July 19 | Claims 32/76, 39/84, 83, 44/89 | Marx challenges common-area work, a Home Depot purchase, creation and funding of a second bank account, and tree work outside the landscaping contract as actions taken without a majority vote in an open meeting. | Executive-session material, meetings, newsletters, affidavits/photos, records requests, vouchers, financials, bank records, and landscaping contracts. | Landscaping and spending motion | Withdrawn without prejudice, as recorded in the September 11 order; no merits decision on this motion. |
| July 20 | Claims 31/75, 35/79, 36/80, 37/81, 38/82, 45/90 | Marx challenges sprinkler-trench work, retention and payment of association counsel, retroactive approval or preauthorization of work, and an association payment to Marx. | Work photos and affidavit, counsel engagement and invoices, financials, meeting records, demand/payment materials, and the Marx declaration. | Common-area work and legal-expense motion | Withdrawn without prejudice, as recorded in the September 11 order; no merits decision on this motion. |
| July 21 | Claims 40/85, 41/86, 51/95, 53/97 | Marx challenges off-record budget development, the board chair’s role in budget-committee meetings and membership, and landscaping or maintenance work and spending without a vote. | Executive and budget-committee records, audio/transcripts, competing budgets, emails, agreements, vouchers, bank statements, photos, and 2026 budget materials. | Budget-committee and maintenance motion | Withdrawn without prejudice, as recorded in the September 11 order; no merits decision on this motion. |
How the July packet was incorporated
The docket confirms the filings; the September 11 order supplies the later withdrawal status. Historical filing dates alone do not prove motions remain pending.
Separate statements and declarations explain what Marx says the evidence proves. The page does not convert those assertions into judicial findings.
The intake contained nine distinct unsigned proposed orders, including an editable Count VII form. None is presented or indexed as an entered court order.
The master index and filing notices show the exhibit structure. Loose discovery, financial, insurance, correspondence, affidavit, contract, and image copies remain outside the public download set pending privacy and public-status review.
Timeline highlights
| Date | Event | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| April 2025 | Original complaint packet begins the CV2025-012980 record. | The initial claims focused heavily on open meetings, board authority, records, committee action, and association governance. |
| June 23, 2025 | The court held an evidentiary hearing on preliminary injunctive relief. | The hearing created the record for the June 2025 emergency-relief ruling. |
| June 24, 2025 (filed June 25) | The court denied the motion for preliminary injunction. | The ruling matters because it separates alleged procedural defects from the emergency showing needed for immediate injunctive relief. |
| June 24, 2025 (filed June 26) | The court denied Tara’s partial motion to dismiss association claims as derivative. | This is the key early ruling treating the claims against the association as member-right claims rather than derivative claims, at least for that motion. |
| July 31, 2025 | The court dismissed Mark Gottmann and Dennis Anderson. | The ruling draws a line between claims against the association and personal liability theories against individual directors. |
| October 2025 | The record includes emergency TRO filings over master insurance, amendments, and owner insurance obligations. | The case expanded from meeting and records issues into insurance/amendment governance disputes. |
| March 30, 2026 | Tara responded to Marx’s Rule 15(d) supplemental complaint. | The response acknowledges the amendment vote and expiration of the prior property policy while denying illegality and asserting defenses. |
| May 27, 2026 | Tara filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. | The motion asks the court to treat many community-wide claims as derivative after newer Arizona appellate authority. |
| June 2, 2026 | Marx filed opposition papers and proposed orders addressing the Rule 12(c) motion and the Colby discovery stay. | These were Marx’s arguments opposing Rule 12(c) and a discovery stay. Later July, September and October orders must be read alongside them. |
| July 5-21, 2026 | Marx filed nine partial-summary-judgment motions on grouped claims. | These papers explain the requested partial relief. Eight of these nine motions were later withdrawn without prejudice; the declaration-amendment motion was not on the withdrawal list. |
| July 16, 2026 (filed July 20) | The court granted Tara’s request to postpone the Colby discovery ruling. | The court will address the discovery issues after deciding Rule 12(c); the order does not resolve Rule 12(c) or the merits. |
| August 28, 2026 (filed September 2) | The court directed withdrawal of fourteen partial-summary-judgment motions or they would be denied as moot. | A case-management direction, not a merits adjudication of each underlying claim. |
| September 11, 2026 (filed September 17) | The court recorded thirteen motions withdrawn without prejudice. | Eight of the featured July motions were withdrawn. The July 5 declaration-amendment motion was not on the list. |
| October 6, 2026 (filed October 12) | The court granted Tara’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in part. | The court dismissed the unit-boundary and upkeep claims under Iqtunheimr, and separately dismissed the fiduciary-duty claim as not a valid claim. The open-meeting and insurance-cancellation claims may proceed; the case remains pending. |
| October 20, 2026 (filed October 22) | The court denied the October 13 reconsideration motion. | The one-page order adds no reasoning or additional claim disposition. |
Curated document roadmap
The complete source index below lists the reviewed public files. This earlier document-by-document roadmap preserves the chronology, document type, and stated case relevance supplied with the original packet so readers can understand how the pre-July materials fit together.
The separate July motion map above covers the new 2026 summary-judgment filings. This earlier roadmap intentionally excludes drafts that were not confirmed as part of the court record.
Reference numbers in the final column come from the supplied roadmap. They are not legal findings, and the linked court filings and orders remain the controlling sources.
Earlier document-by-document roadmap
| Date | Document | Type | How it fits the case | Roadmap refs |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| February 19, 1970 | Declaration of Restrictions, Establishment of Board of Management and Lien Rights | CC&Rs | Foundational governing document defining common elements, board authority, maintenance, lien, and insurance duties. Marx uses it as the contract source for alleged breaches involving board authority, maintenance, and building-structure insurance. | 1-7 |
| March 29, 2022 | CC&R Amendment Update from the Arizona Supreme Court – CHDB Law | Article / news | Kalway-related legal analysis used by Marx to argue that the 2025 insurance amendments were not reasonable or foreseeable enough to bind owners. | 8 |
| July 31, 2023 | Homeowner Tara COA July 2023 Financials | Financial statement | Historical association financial record used as a comparison point for later disputed budget, insurance, and expense decisions. | 7 |
| January 11, 2024 | Organizational Meeting Minutes | Meeting minutes | Board organizational minutes. Marx cites them to show board-position decisions, knowledge of meeting requirements, and alleged inaccuracies about leadership and procedure. | 9, 10 |
| January 20, 2024 | January 20, 2024 Board Meeting Minutes | Meeting minutes | Documents committee-volunteer discussion and the Landscaping Committee, which Marx later uses to challenge the committee’s dissolution and her removal. | 7, 9 |
| January 30, 2024 | Trench on Newcastle done by Mark and Dennis | Evidence / report | Maintenance-work documentation used to support claims that individual board members acted unilaterally or performed unauthorized maintenance work. | 7 |
| February 1, 2024 | Email removing Lisa from committees and dissolving them | Evidence that Marx was removed from the Landscaping Committee and committees were dissolved, supporting alleged open-meeting violations and selective targeting. | 7, 10 | |
| February 5, 2024 | Email announcing new board member | Announcement of a new board member without a recorded open board vote, supporting the A.R.S. § 33-1248 board-action theory. | 7, 11 | |
| February 5, 2024 | Gmail – Claim Message from USAA | Insurance-claim correspondence used to support allegations about improper insurance handling and board-member maintenance involvement. | 7 | |
| February 17, 2024 | February 17, 2024 Board Meeting Minutes | Meeting minutes | Minutes reflecting discussion and speaking limits. Marx alleges those rules were used selectively and that board-membership status was misdocumented. | 7, 9 |
| March 16, 2024 | March 16, 2024 Board Meeting Minutes | Meeting minutes | Minutes referencing a workers-comp policy and Bermuda-grass plan, cited as examples of alleged unilateral chair action without open meeting votes. | 7, 9 |
| March 17, 2024 | Spring newsletter 3-17-24 | Newsletter | Association communication to residents, used as evidence of public board statements and owner-facing messaging. | 7 |
| May 27, 2024 | Dennis working on the shutters | Evidence / report | Documentation of Dennis Anderson performing maintenance work, supporting allegations that board members acted outside authorized roles. | 7 |
| June 15, 2024 | June 15, 2024 Tara Board Meeting Minutes | Meeting minutes | Procedural record of board actions during summer 2024. | 7 |
| July 2, 2024 | DAnderson 07 02 24 Expense Voucher | Expense voucher | Financial record used to test whether board-member reimbursement and expenditures were properly authorized. | 7 |
| July 16, 2024 | 07 16 24 Letter to Lisa Marx re Petition Response | Letter | Association correspondence to Marx about a petition, part of the pre-litigation governance-dispute history. | 7 |
| July 23, 2024 | American Family Master Insurance Policy Invoice Voucher 2024 2025 | Financial document | Shows prior master-insurance cost and coverage before the disputed 2025 insurance amendments and policy changes. | 7 |
| July 27, 2024 | July 27 2024 Tara Board Meeting Minutes | Meeting minutes | Procedural record of board actions and decisions. | 7 |
| July 31, 2024 | Travis Law Firm July Inv Voucher | Invoice voucher | Legal-fee invoice used to support claims about association legal spending and approval procedure. | 7 |
| August 29, 2024 | Travis Law Firm August 2024 Invoice Voucher | Invoice voucher | Additional legal-fee record used in the unauthorized-expenditure and approval-procedure theory. | 7 |
| November 1, 2024 | 2025 Tara Condominiums Budget Letter | Budget letter | Board letter recommending a $50 assessment increase due to insurance, sewer, and legal-fee increases; part of the financial buildup to the insurance dispute. | 12 |
| November 3, 2024 | Issues regarding the 2025 Budget Vote | Marx email arguing that the budget-vote process violated statute, used to show an earlier voting-procedure objection. | 13 | |
| April 11, 2025 | Civil Complaint for Breach of Contract | Complaint | Original filing against the association and individual board members, opening the litigation and asserting governance and CC&R breach theories. | 14-16 |
| April 14, 2025 | Minute Entry Denying TRO | Court order | Early ruling denying temporary restraining relief because emergency TRO requirements were not met. | 17 |
| April 16, 2025 | Amended Emergency Orders: TRO and Temporary Injunctive Relief | Motion for injunctive relief | Request to preserve declaration and insurance status quo while the case proceeded. | 18, 19 |
| May 28, 2025 | Association’s Partial Motion to Dismiss | Motion | Association argued many claims were derivative and Marx lacked individual standing to pursue community-wide harms. | 20 |
| June 4, 2025 | Responsive Memorandum to Association’s Partial Motion to Dismiss | Responsive memorandum | Marx opposed dismissal by arguing the claims asserted direct individual harms and member-right violations. | 14-16 |
| June 6, 2025 | Reply to Response to Request for TRO and Injunctive Relief | Reply memorandum | Reply supporting emergency relief and addressing alleged service-delay and response-timing issues. | 18 |
| June 26, 2025 | Minute Entry – Claim not Derivative | Court order | Key early ruling treating Marx’s claims against the association as direct member-right claims rather than derivative claims for that motion. | 21, 22 |
| July 15, 2025 | Motion to Dismiss Defendants Mark Gottmann and Dennis Anderson | Motion | Individual board members sought dismissal based on director protections and lack of personal liability. | 23 |
| July 20, 2025 | Response Memorandum to Motion to Dismiss Individual Defendants | Responsive memorandum | Marx opposed dismissal by arguing Gottmann and Anderson acted in bad faith and outside their authority. | 14, 24, 25 |
| July 25, 2025 | Minute entry order to file amended complaint | Court order | Order requiring a more definite statement, leading to amended pleadings. | 26 |
| July 31, 2025 | Ruling dismissing Mark and Dennis | Court order | Dismissed individual defendants, creating a major procedural setback for the personal-liability claims. | 27, 28 |
| August 6, 2025 | Travis Law Firm Budget Letter / Proposing Amendments | Budget letter / letter | Counsel letter explaining proposed amendments to shift insurance responsibilities to owners, initiating the core insurance-amendment dispute. | 4-6, 29-31 |
| August 10, 2025 | Motion for Partial Reconsideration of July 31, 2025 Ruling | Motion | Marx sought reconsideration of the dismissal of the individual board members. | 32 |
| August 11, 2025 | Exhibit N Cert of Ins for 25 26 | Certificate of liability insurance | Insurance certificate showing property coverage effective August 1, 2025 to August 1, 2026, used to contrast later claimed coverage changes. | 6, 33 |
| August 12, 2025 | Order Denying Motion for reconsideration | Court order | Maintained dismissal of Gottmann and Anderson. | 34 |
| August 15, 2025 | First Amended Complaint (FAC) | Amended complaint | Updated pleading reasserting claims and refining the legal counts against the association and directors. | 2, 14 |
| September 6, 2025 | Plaintiff’s Initial Rule 26.1 Disclosure Statement | Discovery disclosure | Mandatory disclosure identifying factual bases, witnesses, and evidence Marx expected to use. | 35, 36 |
| September 11, 2025 | Stipulation for Extension of Time | Legal stipulation | Agreement extending Marx’s deadline to respond to fee applications; later relevant to arguments about premature fee rulings. | 28, 37 |
| September 15, 2025 | Order Denying Motion to Strike Reply | Court order | Denied Marx’s request to strike Tara’s reply regarding the amended complaint. | 38 |
| September 15, 2025 | Second Amended Complaint (SAC) | Amended complaint | Operative complaint against the association after dismissal of the individual defendants. | 28, 39-41 |
| September 15, 2025 | Order on Stipulation to Extend Time | Court order | Granted an extension to respond to attorney-fee requests. | 42 |
| September 20, 2025 | Minutes for a Board Meeting of the Tara Condominiums Association | Meeting minutes | Board minutes covering approval of the plan to present CC&R amendments for owner vote. | 43 |
| September 22, 2025 | Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint | Motion | Marx sought to reinstate direct claims against individual board members and add alleged post-filing violations. | 14, 44, 45 |
| September 24, 2025 | Urgent Concerns on Proposed CC&R Amendments | Email / letter | Marx letter to owners identifying claimed risks of the proposed amendments, including costs, title, loan, and insurance issues. | 4, 46 |
| September 25, 2025 | Meeting needs to be called to turn in ballots | Marx demanded an open meeting for the amendment vote, preserving her objection to the voting process. | 6, 47 | |
| September 27, 2025 | Proposed Insurance amendments (Board/Owner Emails) | Correspondence framing the association’s justification for the insurance shift and Marx’s objections under statutory and declaration duties. | 5, 6, 30, 48 | |
| September 30, 2025 (filed October 2) | Historical fee minute entry — later vacated | Court order | Initially granted the individual defendants’ fee/cost application and denied Marx’s motion to vacate. The October 3 order, filed October 7, vacated this minute entry as premature. The October 15 ruling ultimately allowed $13.40 in costs only on that application. | 49 |
| October 1, 2025 | Initial individual-defendant fee judgment — superseded | Court order | The initial judgment stated $5,957.70 in fees plus $13.40 costs. The court then vacated its September 30 fee minute entry as premature on October 3, filed October 7. Its October 15 ruling rejected attorneys’ fees for those dismissed individuals on this application and allowed only $13.40 costs; the modified signed judgment reflects that result. | 28, 49, 50 |
| October 3, 2025 (filed October 7) | Fee minute entry vacated | Court order | The court acknowledged that it granted the fee request prematurely under the parties’ stipulation and vacated the September 30 minute entry. It separately denied the September 7 motion to vacate and did not revive the dismissed individual defendants. | Later court order |
| October 5, 2025 | Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction | Motion | Attempt to block implementation of proposed amendments based on alleged statutory and declaration violations. | 6, 51 |
| October 9, 2025 | Motion for Expedited Hearing | Motion | Request for a hearing within five days before the amendment-vote deadline. | 31, 52, 53 |
| October 14, 2025 (filed October 15) | Historical scheduling order | Court order | Set Tier 2 deadlines and an August 6, 2026 trial-setting conference. Section 7 records the parties’ proposed trial target of no later than September 14, 2026; it does not set trial on that date. Later conference orders superseded the scheduling history, and the August 28, 2026 minute entry says trial would not be set until pending motions were addressed. | 54 |
| October 15, 2025 (minute entry filed October 17) | Individual-defendant costs ruling and modified judgment | Court order | On the September 4 application, the court found the cited CC&Rs did not authorize attorneys’ fees for Gottmann and Anderson. It granted $13.40 costs only and entered a modified Rule 54(b) judgment, leaving the association claims to continue. This addresses that application, not every potential fee question in the case. | Later court order |
| October 15, 2025 | Action by Written Consent | Voting form | Owner written-consent form used for three proposed declaration amendments. | 55 |
| October 17, 2025 | Amendment to Declaration of Restrictions | Recorded amendment | Recorded amendment No. 2025-0605584 shifting insurance responsibility to owners; Marx challenges its validity. | 31, 56, 57 |
| October 18, 2025 | Results of Tara CC&R amendment vote | Announcement that amendments passed and owners had to obtain insurance by November 15, 2025. | 58, 59 | |
| October 22, 2025 | Stipulation to Continue Case Deadlines | Legal stipulation | Joint extension of deadlines due to Marx’s medical hospitalization. | 60 |
| October 26, 2025 | Meeting to view ballots (Transcript) | Transcript | Transcript in which Gottmann allegedly refused to show owner signatures or vote choices, supporting A.R.S. § 33-1258 inspection-right claims. | 61, 62 |
| October 29, 2025 | Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order | Motion | Emergency request to stop cancellation of master insurance and implementation of recorded amendments. | 31, 63 |
| October 30, 2025 | 2025 Budget | Financial document | Association budget showing a $50 assessment increase for insurance premiums, part of the financial basis for the amendment dispute. | 64 |
| October 30, 2025 | Order Granting Leave to File Reply Out of Time | Court order | Procedural relief allowing Marx to file a late reply related to the third amended complaint. | 65 |
| November 6, 2025 | Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Set Evidentiary Hearing | Motion | Request for an evidentiary hearing on the voting process and alleged harm from insurance lapse. | 66, 67 |
| November 10, 2025 | Reminder to obtain homeowner insurance | Board email setting a December 1, 2025 proof-of-structural-insurance deadline. | 68 | |
| November 12, 2025 | Notice of Appeal | Legal notice | Notice concerning dismissal of individual defendants and cost/fee issues. | 69, 70 |
| November 13, 2025 | Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant’s Consolidated Response | Motion / reply | Reply supporting preliminary-injunction relief based on claimed individualized harm and flawed amendment process. | 71 |
| November 17, 2025 | Minute Entry (Dismissing TAC and Injunction) | Court order | Denied leave to file the Third Amended Complaint and denied injunction relief, prompting later judge-change efforts. | 70, 72 |
| November 21, 2025 | Official Ballot 2026 Budget Ratification | Ballot | Budget ballot showing a proposed $15 assessment decrease after removing association insurance duties. | 73, 74 |
| November 21, 2025 | Civil Complaint for Declaratory Judgment | Complaint | New action CV2025-062973 challenging the October 2025 amendments and potential master-policy cancellation. | 75 |
| November 23, 2025 | Motion for Change of Judge for Cause | Motion | Marx sought to remove Judge Warner, leading to reassignment to Judge Adele Ponce. | 72, 76 |
| November 24, 2025 | Request for Answers to Interrogatories | Discovery request | Interrogatories targeting board decisions and maintenance work to develop the ultra vires theory. | 11 |
| November 25, 2025 | Case Reassignment / First Amended Civil Complaint | Court order / complaint | Case reassignment to Judge Ponce and amended pleading in the second insurance-shift action. | 70, 75, 77-79 |
| December 1, 2025 | Motion for Reconsideration of Nov 17 Minute Entry | Motion | Marx asked Judge Ponce to reconsider denial of the third amended complaint and injunction relief. | 70, 80 |
| December 3, 2025 | Minute Entry Case Consolidation | Court order | Consolidated CV2025-062973 with CV2025-012980, folding the insurance-amendment dispute into the main litigation path. | 81 |
| December 3, 2025 | Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Consolidation | Motion | Marx opposed consolidation, arguing the actions involved distinct facts and emergency concerns. | 82 |
| December 4, 2025 | Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification and Expedited Hearing | Motion | Challenge to characterization of the complaint and request for expedited hearing on insurance risk. | 75 |
| December 5, 2025 | Joint Notice of Outstanding Motions and Hearings | Legal notice | Catalog of pending matters for Judge Ponce after reassignment. | 70 |
| January 4, 2026 | Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss | Response memorandum | Opposition to dismissal of the second action, arguing insurance termination was a new occurrence requiring separate attention. | 19 |
| January 20, 2026 | Certificate of Liability Insurance (Master Policy 2025-2026) | Insurance certificate | Certificate showing liability and D&O coverage but no building property insurance, used as key evidence that buildings became uninsured. | 83, 84 |
| January 20, 2026 | Notice of Intent to Serve Amended Subpoena | Discovery notice | Notice for records subpoena to Colby Management, part of the discovery fight over association records. | 85 |
| January 30, 2026 | Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Reconsideration | Legal memorandum | Filing using the January 20 insurance certificate as new evidence of claimed statutory insurance violations. | 83 |
| February 26, 2026 | Notice of Withdrawal of Motion to Compel | Legal notice | Procedural withdrawal of a discovery motion. | 86 |
| March 16, 2026 | Minute Entry (Oral Argument and Rule 15d conversion) | Court order | Converted the second lawsuit into a Rule 15(d) supplemental-pleading path in the main case. | 41, 87 |
| May 27, 2026 | Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings | Motion | Tara’s attempt to dismiss asserted community-wide claims as derivative after newer appellate authority. | 88 |
| June 2, 2026 | Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Motion to Stay Colby Management Discovery | Response memorandum | Marx opposes Tara’s request to stay a ruling on the Colby Management subpoena dispute, arguing the requested insurance-claim accounting, communications, checks, and board-directive materials remain relevant to direct claims and that discovery deadlines were approaching. | 166 |
| June 2, 2026 | Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings | Response memorandum | Marx argues Iqtunheimr does not convert her open-meeting, notice, voting, records, insurance-accounting, amendment-validity, and individualized statutory-right claims into derivative claims, and asks the court to deny dismissal or narrow relief/allow amendment. | 167 |
| June 2, 2026 | Exhibit D – Organization of Claims for Presentation | Exhibit / organizational aid | Marx’s exhibit groups 103 claim paragraphs for presentation, including her assertion that 89 are open-meeting violations and that Tara’s motion targets 60 open-meeting items. | 168 |
| June 2, 2026 | Proposed Order Denying Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings | Proposed order | Proposed form of order submitted by Marx. It is not a ruling unless and until the court signs or enters an order. | 169 |
| June 2, 2026 | Proposed Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Stay Ruling on Colby Production | Proposed order | Proposed form of order submitted by Marx to deny Tara’s requested stay of the Colby discovery ruling. It is not a court ruling. | 170 |
| Not dated in CSV | Plaintiff’s First Requests for Production of Documents | Discovery request | Formal request for insurance, financial, and related records, aimed at evidence about the 2024 insurance claim and policy-rate increases. | 90 |
| September 10, 2020 | Marx Warranty Deed | Deed | Warranty deed conveying Unit 5 to Lisa Marx, establishing her standing as unit owner and association member. | 2, 91, 92 |
How to read this case without overclaiming it
- Treat interim rulings as interim rulings. The June and July 2025 orders are important, but they do not equal a final merits judgment on every later claim.
- Separate association claims from individual-director claims. The uploaded record shows the court was willing to let some claims proceed against the association while dismissing individual board members.
- Track the exact injury theory. The direct-versus-derivative question turns on whether the claim seeks to remedy a member’s individual statutory/contractual injury or a generalized association injury.
- Do not skip the procedural posture. Preliminary injunction, motion to dismiss, judgment on the pleadings, and final judgment apply different standards.
- Use the source index. The upload is large. The normalized roadmap and complete source-document index are the safest way to follow the record in order.
Practical lessons for condo disputes
- Tie each claim to the specific statute, declaration section, bylaw, vote, notice, record request, or personal harm.
- Preserve agendas, minutes, emails, insurance notices, amendment materials, ballots, and records-request correspondence.
- Do not assume that proving a board process defect automatically proves irreparable harm.
- Keep direct personal injury theories separate from generalized association harm.
- Document board authorization, open-meeting votes, executive-session limits, and ratification steps.
- Handle records requests with clear statutory deadlines, production logs, and written explanations.
- Treat insurance and amendment changes as high-risk governance events requiring clean notices, votes, and member communications.
- Do not rely on derivative-action arguments without addressing member-right statutes and declaration enforcement language.
Complete source set
Earlier filing roadmap and updated official orders
The public index contains 218 distinct PDFs after adding the August 28, September 11 and October 20 official minute entries. The July 22 roadmap is a historical cross-reference to the earlier packet, not a current list of pending motions. Loose discovery exhibits and unsigned July proposed orders remain outside the approved public source set.
FAQ
Is this case finally decided?
No final disposition of the entire case appears in the reviewed orders. The October 6 ruling dismissed specified claims and allowed specified theories to proceed. The latest reviewed order, dated October 20 and filed October 22, denied reconsideration without further explanation. The docket was checked October 26, 2026.
Did the court say all of Marx's claims are direct claims?
No. The October 6 court dismissed Count IV/DJ IV and Count V/DJ V and separately dismissed the consolidated fiduciary-duty claim as not valid. Its analysis also treats Count VI as derivative, although the final dismissal paragraphs do not separately name that count. It declined to dismiss the challenged open-meeting and insurance-change claims. Counts II, VII and VIII concern records and voting and are not enumerated in those final dismissal paragraphs; that is not a finding that every allegation succeeds.
Are records and voting part of this case?
Yes. The Second Amended Complaint separately pleads records inspection under A.R.S. § 33-1258, corporate recordkeeping under § 10-11601 and voting rights under § 33-1250, alongside contract and open-meeting theories. The complaint alleges personal injury from losing these rights. Those allegations must be distinguished from what any particular order actually decided.
Were the individual board members kept in the case?
No. The uploaded July 31, 2025 ruling dismissed Mark Gottmann and Dennis Anderson, while distinguishing those personal-liability theories from claims against the association.
Why does insurance appear in an open-meeting case?
The record expanded beyond early open-meeting and records allegations. Later filings challenged master-insurance changes, declaration amendments, owner insurance obligations, and related voting/notice procedures.
Did Marx win the July 2026 summary-judgment motions?
The September 11 order records thirteen motions withdrawn without prejudice, including eight of the nine July 5–21 motions featured here. Withdrawal is not a merits victory or loss on the underlying claims. The July 5 declaration-amendment motion is not on that list, and no merits disposition of it was identified in the reviewed orders.
Why are the loose July exhibits not all available for download?
The master index and filed notices identify the exhibit sets, and the materials were reviewed for this update. The loose copies include discovery, financial, insurance, correspondence, affidavit, contract, and image records with private identifiers, and their status as independently public docket attachments was not established. They remain outside the public source index pending that review.
What should be added next?
The next source-based update should incorporate any clarification ruling, any disposition of the declaration-amendment motion or remaining Colby discovery issue, later trial-setting or merits orders, and any relevant appeal disposition. The docket lists a clarification motion and response, but their contents and any later resolution have not been verified for this guide.
Complete source-document index
This index contains 218 PDFs, 1 other source file 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.
1 Minute Entry 4 14 25
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
1 2025 05 28 Partial Mtd Plaintiffs Derivative Claims 1
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
2 Minute Entry 6 23 25 From Court Hearing Same Date
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
3 6 25 25 Minute Entry Denying The Motion For Preliminary Injunction
Type: Court order/minute entry
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
4 Minute Entry 6 26 25 Claim Not Derivative
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Responsive Memo 7 18 25
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
5 Minute Entry 7 25 25 Order To File Amended Complaint
Type: Court order/minute entry
Order granting the motion for a short and plain statement and directing the homeowner to file an amended complaint complying with Rule 8.
6 Ruling 7 31 25 Dismissing Mark And Dennis
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling granting the motion to dismiss and dismissing all claims against individual board members Mark Gottmann and Dennis Anderson.
7 Order 8 12 25 Denying Motion For Reconsideration Filed The 14 Th
Type: Court order/minute entry
Order denying the homeowner’s motion for reconsideration of the ruling dismissing the individual board members.
Affidavit In Support Of Attorneys Fees 9 4 25
Type: Declaration or affidavit
Witness statement submitted under oath or declaration; its assertions are evidence offered by a party, not court findings.
Application For Attorneys Fees 9 4 25
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
Statement Of Costs 9 4 25
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
9 Order 9 10 25 To File Amended Complaint
Type: Court order/minute entry
Order granting the motion to require an amended complaint and directing the homeowner to remove dismissed individual parties.
10 Order 9 15 25 Denying Motion To Strike Reply In Support Of Motion To Strike Portions Of Amended Complaint
Type: Court order/minute entry
Starts or reframes the case and identifies the claims or relief requested.
11 Order 9 15 25 On Stipulation To Extend Time To File Response For Attorneys Fees
Type: Court order/minute entry
Opposing or responsive paper; compare it to the motion or request filed immediately before it.
1 Exhibit I 9 20 25 Minutes
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
1 Exhibit U Ltr To Bd 9 27 25
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
12 Order Granting Defendants Application For Attorneys Fees 10 1 25
Type: Court order/minute entry
Initial judgment stating $5,957.70 attorneys’ fees and $13.40 costs for the dismissed individual defendants. Superseded fee history: the September 30 fee minute entry was vacated October 3 (filed October 7); the October 15 ruling and modified judgment allowed only $13.40 costs on that application.
13 Minute Entry 10 2 2025 Vacated 10 7 25
Type: Court order/minute entry
September 30, 2025 fee minute entry, filed October 2, later vacated October 3 (filed October 7) as premature. The later October 15 ruling allowed the individual defendants $13.40 costs only on the September 4 application.
4 Ex F Email 10 5 25 From Lisa Marx To View Voting Materials
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Ex F Email 10 5 25 From Lisa Marx To View Voting Materials
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
14 Minute Entry Ruling 10 7 25 Vacating The September 30 2025 Minute Entry Filed October 2 2025
Type: Court order/minute entry
Order dated October 3, 2025 and filed October 7: vacates the September 30 fee minute entry as premature under the parties’ stipulation. Separately denies the September 7 motion to vacate; dismissal of the individual defendants remains effective.
2 Request For Expedited Hearing 10 9 25
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
26 Request For Expedited Hearing 10 9 25
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
Joint Report 10 10 25 1
Type: Court/source PDF
Case-management filing; it tells the court how the parties propose to schedule and manage the case.
15 10 14 25 Adr Referral
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
16 Minute Entry 10 15 25 Regarding Attorneys Fees And Costs
Type: Court/source PDF
October 15, 2025 minute entry filed October 17: cited CC&R provisions do not authorize attorneys’ fees to the dismissed individual defendants; grants their September 4 application as to $13.40 costs only and enters a modified Rule 54(b) judgment.
19 Scheduling Order 10 15 25
Type: Court order/minute entry
Scheduling order signed October 14, 2025 and filed October 15: sets Tier 2 deadlines and an August 6, 2026 trial-setting conference. It records a proposed trial target no later than September 14, 2026, not a set trial date. Later conference orders superseded this history; this document is not the separate costs judgment.
17 Minute Entry Order 10 16 25 Docketed 10 17 25 Correcting Adr Referral
Type: Court order/minute entry
Order correcting the ADR referral minute entry and leaving the remainder of the referral order in effect.
4 Ex D Amendment Change 10 17 25 Recorded
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Ex D Amendment Change 10 17 25 Recorded
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
4 Ex A Email 10 18 25 Announcing Amendment Vote Tally
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Ex A Email 10 18 25 Announcing Amendment Vote Tally
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
4 Ex B Email From Mark 10 22 25 To Review Voting Materials
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
27 2025 10 22 Proposed Order Extending Case Deadlines
Type: Proposed order (not a ruling)
Unsigned form of relief requested by a party. It is not a ruling unless the judge signs and enters it.
27 2025 10 22 Stipulation To Continue Case Deadlines
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Ex B Email From Mark 10 22 25 To Review Voting Materials
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
4 Ex C 10 23 25 Email From Mark Re Viewing Ballots
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Ex C 10 23 25 Email From Mark Re Viewing Ballots
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
20 Proposed Order Granting Leave Reply To Third Amended Complaint 10 31 25
Type: Proposed order (not a ruling)
Unsigned form of relief requested by a party. It is not a ruling unless the judge signs and enters it.
21 Proposed Order To File Reply Late For Temporary Injunction 11 4 25
Type: Proposed order (not a ruling)
Unsigned form of relief requested by a party. It is not a ruling unless the judge signs and enters it.
6 Ex A Email 11 10 25 From Board With 12 1 25 Deadline For Insurance Proof
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
23 Minute Entry 11 18 25
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
24 Case Reassignment Civil Presiding Judge 11 26 25
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
25 Minute Entry 12 4 25 Case Consolidation
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
26 Alternative Dispute Resolution Vacated 12 19 25
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
27 Minute Entry 1 9 26 Motion For Reconsideration No Authority Due To Appeal
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
Subpoena For Casey Bell American Family Ins 1 20 26
Type: Motion/application
Discovery or evidence request material; read it with the later order to see what was allowed or denied.
Subpoena To Colby 1 20 26
Type: Motion/application
Discovery or evidence request material; read it with the later order to see what was allowed or denied.
Affidavit Of Service Civil Subpoena Colby Management 1 23 26
Type: Declaration or affidavit
Proof-of-service material; check it to understand who was served and when deadlines started.
Affidavit Of Service Of Civil Subpoena Casey Bell Agency 1 23 26
Type: Declaration or affidavit
Proof-of-service material; check it to understand who was served and when deadlines started.
1 30 26 Supplemental Memorandum In Support Of Pending Motions
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
28 Minute Entry Order 2 12 26
Type: Court order/minute entry
Order addressing pending preliminary-injunction and amendment-related filings while the remaining Tara condominium claims continued.
29 Minute Entry 2 27 26 Motion To Compel Withdrawan Wo Prejudice
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
30 Minute Entry 3 16 2026 Hearing
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
31 Minute Entry 3 16 26
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
32 Minute Entry 3 30 26
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Defendant Response To Rule 15 D Supplemental Complaint
Type: Opening pleading
Tara's filed response to Marx's Rule 15(d) supplemental complaint, admitting that amendment and insurance events occurred while denying that they were unlawful.
2026 05 27 Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings
Type: Decision or judgment
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
Response Opposition Motion Stay Colby Management Discovery
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
Opposition Motion Judgment On Pleadings Rule 12 C
Type: Decision or judgment
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
Exhibit D Organization Of Claims For Presentation
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Proposed Order Denying Motion Judgment On Pleadings Rule 12 C
Type: Proposed order (not a ruling)
Unsigned form of relief requested by a party. It is not a ruling unless the judge signs and enters it.
Proposed Order Denying Motion Stay Colby Management Discovery
Type: Proposed order (not a ruling)
Unsigned form of relief requested by a party. It is not a ruling unless the judge signs and enters it.
Plaintiff Partial Summary Judgment 2025 Declaration Amendment
Type: Motion/application
Marx's motion asking the court to invalidate the 2025 declaration amendment. The statutory, voting, and foreseeability theories are plaintiff's arguments, not findings.
Plaintiff Separate Statement 2025 Declaration Amendment
Type: Statement of facts
Moving party's asserted facts and cited evidence. These are not findings made by the court.
Lisa Marx Declaration 2025 Declaration Amendment
Type: Declaration or affidavit
Witness statement submitted under oath or declaration; its assertions are evidence offered by a party, not court findings.
Exhibit Index 2025 Declaration Amendment
Type: Declaration or affidavit
Witness statement submitted under oath or declaration; its assertions are evidence offered by a party, not court findings.
Plaintiff Partial Summary Judgment Claims 120 121
Type: Motion/application
Marx’s motion on corporate-records claims 120 and 121, alleging incomplete meeting minutes and unrecorded board action. Recorded withdrawn without prejudice by the September 11 order filed September 17; no merits decision on this motion.
Plaintiff Separate Statement Claims 120 121
Type: Statement of facts
Moving party's asserted facts and cited evidence. These are not findings made by the court.
Lisa Marx Declaration Claims 120 121
Type: Declaration or affidavit
Witness statement submitted under oath or declaration; its assertions are evidence offered by a party, not court findings.
Exhibit Index Claims 120 121
Type: Exhibit index
Index identifying the supporting exhibits cited by a party; use it to trace the evidence without treating the descriptions as findings.
Plaintiff Partial Summary Judgment Claims 46 91 42 87 127 98 126
Type: Motion/application
Marx's motion challenging an insurance-deductible change, 2025 budget and assessment procedures, and ballot access or timing. These are disputed party positions.
Plaintiff Separate Statement Claims 46 91 42 87 127 98 126
Type: Statement of facts
Moving party's asserted facts and cited evidence. These are not findings made by the court.
Lisa Marx Declaration Claims 46 91 42 87 127 98 126
Type: Declaration or affidavit
Witness statement submitted under oath or declaration; its assertions are evidence offered by a party, not court findings.
Exhibit Index Claims 46 91 42 87 127 98 126
Type: Exhibit index
Index identifying the supporting exhibits cited by a party; use it to trace the evidence without treating the descriptions as findings.
Plaintiff Partial Summary Judgment Claims 30 47 74 103 108 48 92
Type: Motion/application
Marx's motion concerning roof-repair cost allocation and release of a repair lien. It requests a ruling; it is not one.
Plaintiff Separate Statement Claims 30 47 74 103 108 48 92
Type: Statement of facts
Moving party's asserted facts and cited evidence. These are not findings made by the court.
Lisa Marx Declaration Claims 30 47 74 103 108 48 92
Type: Declaration or affidavit
Witness statement submitted under oath or declaration; its assertions are evidence offered by a party, not court findings.
Exhibit Index Claims 30 47 74 103 108 48 92
Type: Exhibit index
Index identifying the supporting exhibits cited by a party; use it to trace the evidence without treating the descriptions as findings.
Minute Entry Granting Discovery Stay Until Rule 12 C Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Official minute entry granting Tara's request to postpone the Colby Management discovery ruling until after the court decides the pending Rule 12(c) motion.
Plaintiff Partial Summary Judgment Claims 26 70 27 71 28 72 29 73 43 88
Type: Motion/application
Marx's motion concerning a reserve transfer, meeting-minute corrections, workers' compensation coverage, Bermuda-grass spending, and a lighting reimbursement.
Plaintiff Separate Statement Claims 26 70 27 71 28 72 29 73 43 88
Type: Statement of facts
Moving party's asserted facts and cited evidence. These are not findings made by the court.
Lisa Marx Declaration Claims 26 70 27 71 28 72 29 73 43 88
Type: Declaration or affidavit
Witness statement submitted under oath or declaration; its assertions are evidence offered by a party, not court findings.
Exhibit Index Claims 26 70 27 71 28 72 29 73 43 88
Type: Exhibit index
Index identifying the supporting exhibits cited by a party; use it to trace the evidence without treating the descriptions as findings.
Plaintiff Partial Summary Judgment Claims 23 67 24 68 25 69 33 34 77 78 49 93
Type: Motion/application
Marx's motion concerning officer and director appointments, dissolution of a landscaping committee, and a two-minute owner-comment rule.
Plaintiff Separate Statement Claims 23 67 24 68 25 69 33 34 77 78 49 93
Type: Statement of facts
Moving party's asserted facts and cited evidence. These are not findings made by the court.
Lisa Marx Declaration Claims 23 67 24 68 25 69 33 34 77 78 49 93
Type: Declaration or affidavit
Witness statement submitted under oath or declaration; its assertions are evidence offered by a party, not court findings.
Exhibit Index Claims 23 67 24 68 25 69 33 34 77 78 49 93
Type: Exhibit index
Index identifying the supporting exhibits cited by a party; use it to trace the evidence without treating the descriptions as findings.
Master Index Of Exhibits
Type: Exhibit index
Plaintiff's master index grouping proposed supporting evidence into governing-document, meeting, financial, audio, executive-session, and discovery sets. The index descriptions are not court findings.
Notice Exhibits Set 1 Governing Documents
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
Notice Exhibits Set 2 2024 Meetings
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
Notice Exhibits Set 2 Continued 2024 Meetings
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
Notice Exhibits Set 3 2025 Meetings
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
Notice Exhibits Set 4 2023 2024 Financials
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
Notice Exhibits Set 5 2025 Financials
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
Notice Exhibits Set 6 Audio Transcripts Authentication
Type: Procedural/service filing
Adds hearing transcript material to the record for later review or appeal.
Notice Exhibits Set 6 Continued
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
Notice Exhibits Sets 7 And 8 Executive Session Minutes
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
Notice Exhibits Set 9 Discovery Financials
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
Notice Conventional Filing Exhibit Set 9
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
Plaintiff Partial Summary Judgment Claims 32 76 39 84 83 44 89
Type: Motion/application
Marx's motion concerning common-area work, a Home Depot purchase, a second bank account and transfer, and tree work outside the landscaping contract.
Plaintiff Separate Statement Claims 32 76 39 84 83 44 89
Type: Statement of facts
Moving party's asserted facts and cited evidence. These are not findings made by the court.
Lisa Marx Declaration Claims 32 76 39 84 83 44 89
Type: Declaration or affidavit
Witness statement submitted under oath or declaration; its assertions are evidence offered by a party, not court findings.
Exhibit Index Claims 32 76 39 84 83 44 89
Type: Exhibit index
Index identifying the supporting exhibits cited by a party; use it to trace the evidence without treating the descriptions as findings.
Plaintiff Partial Summary Judgment Claims 31 75 35 79 36 80 37 81 38 82 45 90
Type: Motion/application
Marx's motion concerning sprinkler-trench work, retention and payment of association counsel, retroactive work approval, and a payment to Marx.
Plaintiff Separate Statement Claims 31 75 35 79 36 80 37 81 38 82 45 90
Type: Statement of facts
Moving party's asserted facts and cited evidence. These are not findings made by the court.
Lisa Marx Declaration Claims 31 75 35 79 36 80 37 81 38 82 45 90
Type: Declaration or affidavit
Witness statement submitted under oath or declaration; its assertions are evidence offered by a party, not court findings.
Exhibit Index Claims 31 75 35 79 36 80 37 81 38 82 45 90
Type: Exhibit index
Index identifying the supporting exhibits cited by a party; use it to trace the evidence without treating the descriptions as findings.
Plaintiff Partial Summary Judgment Claims 40 85 41 86 51 95 53 97
Type: Motion/application
Marx's motion concerning preparation of the 2025 budget, budget-committee leadership and membership, and landscaping or maintenance spending.
Plaintiff Separate Statement Claims 40 85 41 86 51 95 53 97
Type: Statement of facts
Moving party's asserted facts and cited evidence. These are not findings made by the court.
Lisa Marx Declaration Claims 40 85 41 86 51 95 53 97
Type: Declaration or affidavit
Witness statement submitted under oath or declaration; its assertions are evidence offered by a party, not court findings.
Exhibit Index Claims 40 85 41 86 51 95 53 97
Type: Exhibit index
Index identifying the supporting exhibits cited by a party; use it to trace the evidence without treating the descriptions as findings.
Minute Entry Summary Judgment Withdrawal Direction
Type: Motion/application
August 28, 2026 trial-setting conference: directs withdrawal of fourteen partial-summary-judgment motions or they will be denied as moot; this does not adjudicate those claims on their merits.
Minute Entry Thirteen Summary Judgment Motions Withdrawn
Type: Motion/application
September 11, 2026 minute entry, filed September 17: lists thirteen motions withdrawn without prejudice, including eight of the nine July 5–21 motions discussed here; the declaration-amendment motion is not on that list.
Minute Entry Judgment On Pleadings Iqtunheimr Derivative
Type: Decision or judgment
Official minute entry (Hon. Adele Ponce, filed October 12, 2026) granting Tara's motion for judgment on the pleadings in part. Applying the 2026 Court of Appeals decision in Iqtunheimr v. Val Vista Lakes, the court dismissed Count IV and DJ IV (unit boundaries) and Count V and DJ V (upkeep) as derivative, and dismissed the breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim in the consolidated CV2025-062973. The court declined to dismiss the open-meeting claims (Counts I and III and their declaratory counts) and the consolidated insurance-cancellation claims, holding they are direct, not derivative.
Minute Entry Denying Reconsideration
Type: Court order/minute entry
October 20, 2026 minute entry, filed October 22: denies the October 13 motion for reconsideration without further reasoning or additional disposition.
1 Exhibit A Marx Warranty Deed
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
1 Exhibit B Tara Ccrs
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
1 Exhibit C Travis Law Firm
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
1 Exhibit D Proposed Amendments
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
1 Exhibit E Plaintiff Email
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
1 Exhibit F Statement Read
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
1 Exhibit G Plaintiff Letter
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
1 Exhibit H Email To Homeowners
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
1 Exhibit J Action
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
1 Exhibit K Changes To Ccr Ltr
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
1 Exhibit L Differences
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
1 Exhibit M Board Email
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
1 Exhibit N Cert Of Ins For 25 26
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
1 Exhibit O Cert Of Ins Ltr 25 26
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
1 Exhibit P Tara 2025 Budgetletter
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
1 Exhibit Q Budget Vote 24 Email
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
1 Exhibit R 2025 Budget
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
1 Exhibit S Tara 25 Bud Ballot
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
1 Exhibit T Pl Motion For Leave
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
1 Plaintiffs Motion For Preliminary Inj Copy
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
1 St Amended Complaint 8 15 25
Type: Opening pleading
Starts or reframes the case and identifies the claims or relief requested.
3 Plaint 1 PDF 1
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
4 Emergency Motion For Temporary Restraining Order Arcp 65 B
Type: Court order/minute entry
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
4 November 5 2025 Minute Entry Denying Emergency Motion Tro
Type: Court order/minute entry
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
4 Ex E 251025 001 Meeting To View Ballots
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
5 Ex V Tara 2026 Budget Ballot
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
5 Ex W 2026 Budget Tara Condominium Association 15 Reduction
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
5 Plaintiffs Amended Motion To Set Evidentiary Hearing On Motion For Preliminary Injunction
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
8 Proposed Order To Extend Time Joint Report And Scheduling
Type: Proposed order (not a ruling)
Unsigned form of relief requested by a party. It is not a ruling unless the judge signs and enters it.
11 Motion To Dismiss Defendants Mark Gottmann And Dennis Anderson
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
15 Plaintiffs Initial Rule 26 1 Disclosure Statement
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
16 Noti 1
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
16 1 Order Granting Defendants Application For Costs Oct 15 2025
Type: Court order/minute entry
Modified judgment signed and filed October 15, 2025: the $5,957.70 attorneys’ fee language is struck, leaving $13.40 costs and Rule 54(b) judgment for the dismissed individual defendants. Does not resolve the continuing association claims.
18 Order Extending Case Deadlines Oct 24 2025
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
18 1 Response To Motion To Vacate Order On Attorneys Fees
Type: Court order/minute entry
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
22 November 5 2025 Minute Entry Denying Emergency Motion Tro
Type: Court order/minute entry
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
Affidavit Of Lisa Marx In Support Of Motion For Change Of Judge For Cause
Type: Declaration or affidavit
Witness statement submitted under oath or declaration; its assertions are evidence offered by a party, not court findings.
Affida 1 1
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Affida 1
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Case No CV 2025 012980 Responsive Memorandum To Associations Partial Motion To Dismiss Plaintiffs Claims That Are Derivi
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
Cc And R Amendment Update From The Arizona Supreme Court Chdb Law
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Colby Subpoena
Type: Motion/application
Discovery or evidence request material; read it with the later order to see what was allowed or denied.
Colbyn 1
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
CV 2025 1
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
CV 2025 1
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Defendants Reply To Plaintiffs Response To Motion
Type: Motion/application
Reply paper; usually the final written response before the court takes the issue under advisement.
Emergency Motion For Temporary Restraining Order Arcp 65 B Expedited Consideration Requested
Type: Court order/minute entry
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
Ex A Copy Second Amended Complaint
Type: Opening pleading
Starts or reframes the case and identifies the claims or relief requested.
Ex A Master Insurance As Of Dec 1 2025
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Ex B Copy First Amended Civil Complaint For Declaratory Judgment And Injunctive Relief
Type: Decision or judgment
Starts or reframes the case and identifies the claims or relief requested.
Ex D Organization Of Claims For Presentation
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Ex E 251025 001 Meeting To View Ballots
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Ex W 2026 Budget Tara Condominium Association 15 Reduction
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Ex V Tara 2026 Budget Ballot
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Exapla 1 1
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Exapla 1 2
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Exapla 1
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Exbaff 1
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Exhibit A Email Requesting Reply To Motion Be Rescinded
Type: Motion/application
Reply paper; usually the final written response before the court takes the issue under advisement.
Exhibit B Email Requesting Stipulated Extension
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
First Amended Civil Complaint For Declaratory Judgment And Injunctive Relief
Type: Decision or judgment
First amended complaint in CV2025-062973, dated November 25, 2025: plaintiff’s allegations concerning declaration-amendment, insurance, voting and records issues. The March 2026 conversion order governs the accepted scope of supplementation; this filing is not a merits finding.
Insurance Subpoena
Type: Motion/application
Discovery or evidence request material; read it with the later order to see what was allowed or denied.
Insura 2
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Jointn 1
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Minute 1
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Motion For Change Of Judge For Cause Pursuant To Arcp 42 2
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
Motion For Leave For 3 Rd Complaint
Type: Opening pleading
Starts or reframes the case and identifies the claims or relief requested.
Motion For Reconsideration Of October 1 2025 Order
Type: Court order/minute entry
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
Motion To Strike Defendants Reply In Support Of Motion To Strike Portions Of Amended Complaint
Type: Opening pleading
Starts or reframes the case and identifies the claims or relief requested.
Motion To Vacate Order On Attorney Fees
Type: Court order/minute entry
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
Motion 1 1
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
Motion 1
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
Notice Of Withdrawal Of Motion To Compel
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
Objection To Plaintiffs Notice
Type: Briefing paper
Opposing or responsive paper; compare it to the motion or request filed immediately before it.
Object 1
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Plain Reply To 3 Rd Amended Complaint
Type: Opening pleading
Starts or reframes the case and identifies the claims or relief requested.
Plaintiffs First Supplemental Disclosure Statement
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Plaintiffs Motion For Preliminary Inj Copy
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
Plaint 1 1
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Plaint 1 10
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Plaint 1 11
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Plaint 1 12
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Plaint 1 2
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Plaint 1 3
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Plaint 1 4
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Plaint 1 5
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Plaint 1 6
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Plaint 1 7
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Plaint 1 8
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Plaint 1
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Plares 1
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Reply To Resp And Obj To Mot For Lea
Type: Briefing paper
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Reques 1 1
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Reques 1
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Reques 2
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Response To Motion To Dismiss Mark Gottmann And Dennis Anderson 1
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
Response To Motion To Strike Portions Of Amended Complaint
Type: Opening pleading
Starts or reframes the case and identifies the claims or relief requested.
Respon 1
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Second Amended Complaint
Type: Opening pleading
Starts or reframes the case and identifies the claims or relief requested.
Stipul 1
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Supplemental Verified Affidavit Of Lisa Marx
Type: Declaration or affidavit
Witness statement submitted under oath or declaration; its assertions are evidence offered by a party, not court findings.
Source File Roadmap 2026 07 22
Type: Source roadmap CSV
Upload/source spreadsheet that helps cross-check filing order, source names, or AI review notes.
Primary sources
- Original complaint packet
- Second Amended Complaint
- June 25, 2025 preliminary-injunction minute entry
- June 26, 2025 derivative-claim minute entry
- July 31, 2025 ruling dismissing individual board members
- May 27, 2026 motion for judgment on the pleadings
- June 2, 2026 response opposing Colby discovery stay
- June 2, 2026 opposition to Rule 12(c) motion
- June 2, 2026 Exhibit D claim organization
- June 2, 2026 unsigned proposed order denying Rule 12(c) motion
- June 2, 2026 unsigned proposed order denying Colby discovery stay
- March 30, 2026 Tara response to supplemental complaint
- July 16, 2026 minute entry granting Colby discovery stay
- October 6, 2026 ruling granting judgment on the pleadings in part
- July 5 motion on 2025 declaration amendment
- July 10 motion on corporate-records claims 120 and 121
- July 11 insurance, budget, and ballot motion
- July 13 roof and lien motion
- July 16 reserve, minutes, policy, and spending motion
- July 16 appointments and speaking-rule motion
- July 19 landscaping and spending motion
- July 20 common-area work and legal-expense motion
- July 21 budget-committee and maintenance motion
- July 16 master index of plaintiff's exhibits
- Normalized source-file roadmap
- Public first amended complaint in consolidated CV2025-062973
- August 28, 2026 trial-setting conference
- September 11, 2026 minute entry, filed September 17
- October 20, 2026 minute entry, filed October 22
- October 3, 2025 fee-minute vacatur (filed October 7)
- October 15, 2025 individual-defendant costs ruling
- October 15, 2025 signed judgment — $13.40 costs only
- Historical October 2025 scheduling order — proposed target, not a set trial
Reviewed through the October 20, 2026 order filed October 22 and the docket checked October 26. The September 11 withdrawal order corrects the earlier description of all nine featured July motions as pending. The public pleadings describe records, voting, participation and individual-harm theories; their allegations, statements, declarations and proposed orders are not treated as findings. No final disposition of the whole case is identified in the reviewed orders. This page is educational information, not legal advice.