Case Header

Maricopa County Superior Court Case CV2002-090335: public docket details, parties, minute entries, documents, and official source links for Torre Blanca Association.

Case Number

CV2002-090335

County

Maricopa

Caption

Not captured

Filed

2/11/2002

Case Type

Civil

Judge

Valenzuela, Michael

Location

Southeast

Official Court Record

Official Court Record

Parties

Minute Entries

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2002-090335
03/19/2003
Docket Code 042
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ROBERT L. GOTTSFIELD
M. Brady
Deputy
FILED: 03/27/2003
TORRE BLANCA ASSOCIATION
MARK E LINES
v.
DENNIS M NEWMAN, et al.
JACK H SIMON
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION - CCC
MINUTE ENTRY
On advice of counsel this matter has settled in its entirety,
IT IS ORDERED terminating and dismissing this matter in its entirety with prejudice on
04/21/2003 without further notice or order, unless any party requests a telephonic hearing prior
to said date. This matter shall not be considered an active or inactive case on this court’s
calendar from and after said date.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating pretrial conference on 03/19/2003 at 9:00 a.m. and
jury trial on 04/07/2003 at 9:30 a.m.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the requirements of Rule 58(d) are waived out of
necessity, on the part of the Court, to shorten the administrative time involved in the processing
of a separate written order and to conserve judicial resources. This minute entry is accordingly
signed as a formal written order of the Court.

JUDICIAL OFFICER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2002-090335
03/21/2003
Docket Code 042
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ROBERT L. GOTTSFIELD
M. Brady
Deputy
FILED: 03/28/2003
TORRE BLANCA ASSOCIATION
MARK E LINES
v.
DENNIS M NEWMAN, et al.
JACK H SIMON
MINUTE ENTRY
Upon stipulation of the parties and for good cause shown,
IT IS ORDERED dismissing this matter with prejudice, each party to bear their own
costs and attorney’s fees.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating the trial date of this matter previously set on
04/07/2003 at 9:30 a.m.
All in accordance with formal written Order signed by the Court on March 21, 2003 and
entered (filed) by the Clerk on March 27, 2003.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA *** FILED ***
MARICOPA COUNTY 07/02/2002
06/27/2002
CLERK OF THE COURT
FORM V000A
HONORABLE ROBERT L. GOTTSFIELD
M. Johnson
Deputy
CV 2002-090335
Docket Code 094
Page 1
FILED: _________________
TORRE BLANCA ASSOCIATION
CHARLES E MAXWELL
v.
DENNIS M NEWMAN, et al.
JACK H SIMON
MINUTE ENTRY
IT IS ORDERED setting oral argument on Plaintiff’s Motion to
Continue Rule 26.1 Disclosure Requirements on July 17, 2002 at
9:15 a.m. in this division. This division encourages telephonic
hearings. Counsel are to contact this division at 506-3132 to
confirm their telephonic appearance.
Judge Gottsfield’s division is located in the Old
Courthouse, 125 West Washington, 2nd Floor, Suite 202, Phoenix,
Arizona 85003 (Tel. 602-506-3132).

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA *** FILED ***
MARICOPA COUNTY 07/11/2002
07/09/2002
CLERK OF THE COURT
FORM V000A
HONORABLE ROBERT L. GOTTSFIELD
M. Johnson
Deputy
CV 2002-090335
Docket Code 094
Page 1
FILED: _________________
TORRE BLANCA ASSOCIATION
CHARLES E MAXWELL
v.
DENNIS M NEWMAN, et al.
JACK H SIMON
MINUTE ENTRY
Pursuant to Plaintiff’s request,
IT IS ORDERED setting oral argument on Plaintiff’s Motion
for Summary Judgment for on August 9, 2002 at 3:00 p.m. in this
division. This division encourages telephonic hearings.
Counsel are to contact this division to confirm their telephonic
appearance.
Judge Gottsfield’s division is located in the Old
Courthouse, 125 West Washington, 2nd Floor, Suite 202, Phoenix,
Arizona 85003 (Tel. 602-506-3132).

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA *** FILED ***
MARICOPA COUNTY 07/23/2002
07/17/2002
CLERK OF THE COURT
FORM V000A
HONORABLE ROBERT L. GOTTSFIELD
M. Johnson
Deputy
CV 2002-090335
Docket Code 005
Page 1
FILED: _________________
TORRE BLANCA ASSOCIATION
CHARLES E MAXWELL
v.
DENNIS M NEWMAN, et al.
JACK H SIMON
MINUTE ENTRY
9:10 a.m. This is the time set for Plaintiff’s Motion to
Continue Rule 26.1 disclosure requirements. Counsel Charles E.
Maxwell is present on behalf of Plaintiff. Counsel Jack H. Simon
is present on behalf of Defendant. All are present
telephonically.
Court Reporter, Lorraine Chalkey, is present.
Discussions are held.
After discussion,
IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue Rule
26.1 disclosure requirements and the Court will consider the
motion for summary judgment at the telephonic hearing already set
on 8/9/02 at 3:00 p.m. Defendant advises he has filed a Rule
56(f) motion requesting a delay in responding to the motion for
summary judgment until he can examine the disclosure statement
and conduct further discovery.
9:13 a.m. Matter concludes.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA *** FILED ***
MARICOPA COUNTY 08/27/2002
08/09/2002
CLERK OF THE COURT
FORM V000A
HONORABLE ROBERT L. GOTTSFIELD
M. Johnson
Deputy
CV 2002-090335
Docket Code 005
Page 1
FILED: _________________
TORRE BLANCA ASSOCIATION
CHARLES E MAXWELL
v.
DENNIS M NEWMAN, et al.
JACK H SIMON
MINUTE ENTRY
3:10 p.m. This is the time set for plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment. Counsel Brian Morgan is present
telephonically on behalf of plaintiff. Counsel Jack H. Simon is
present in person on behalf of defendant.
Court Reporter, Lorraine Chalkey, is present.
Discussions are held.
IT IS ORDERED setting a hearing on motion to compel on
September 23, 2002 at 8:45 a.m. and vacating the motion for
summary judgment hearing this date and resetting the same to
October 10, 2002 at 9:00 a.m.
3:27 p.m. Matter concludes.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA *** FILED ***
MARICOPA COUNTY 08/15/2002
08/09/2002
CLERK OF THE COURT
FORM V000A
HONORABLE ROBERT L. GOTTSFIELD
A. Rangel
Deputy
CV 2002-090335
Docket Code 004
Page 1
FILED: _________________
TORRE BLANCA ASSOCIATION
CHARLES E MAXWELL
v.
DENNIS M NEWMAN, et al.
JACK H SIMON
MINUTE ENTRY
3:10 p.m. This is the time set for oral argument on
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff’s Motion to
Continue Rule 26.1 Disclosure, and Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike
Defendant’s Alternative Motion to Enlarge Time for Filing
Response. Counsel Brian Morgan appears telephonically on behalf
of Plaintiff. Counsel Jack H. Simon appears in person on behalf
of Defendant.
Court reporter, Lorraine Chalkey, is present.
After argument,
The Court orders as follows:
1.
Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue Rule 26.1
Disclosure Statement as the Court needs this to be
produced before a hearing can be held on the Motion
for Summary Judgment.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA *** FILED ***
MARICOPA COUNTY 08/15/2002
08/09/2002
CLERK OF THE COURT
FORM V000A
HONORABLE ROBERT L. GOTTSFIELD
A. Rangel
Deputy
CV 2002-090335
Docket Code 004
Page 2
2.
Granting Defendant’s Alternative Motion to Enlarge
Time for Filing a Response and denying Plaintiff’s
Motion to Strike Defendant’s Alternative Motion.
3.
Continuing oral argument hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion
for Summary Judgment to October 10, 2002 at 9:00 a.m.
(15 minutes).
4.
Setting hearing on Defendant’s prospective Motion to
Compel Answers to Defendant’s Request for Production
on September 23, 2002 at 8:45 a.m. (15 minutes).
5.
The Court considers these hearings to be telephonic
but any party may appear in person. As a courtesy
counsel should advise the other party whether they
will appear in person rather than on the phone.
3:27 p.m. Matter concludes.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA *** FILED ***
MARICOPA COUNTY 08/21/2002
08/19/2002
CLERK OF THE COURT
FORM V000A
HONORABLE ROBERT L. GOTTSFIELD
M. Johnson
Deputy
CV 2002-090335
Docket Code 094
Page 1
FILED: _________________
TORRE BLANCA ASSOCIATION
CHARLES E MAXWELL
v.
DENNIS M NEWMAN, et al.
JACK H SIMON
MINUTE ENTRY
Due to the unavailability of the Court on September 23,
2002,
IT IS ORDERED vacating the hearing on defendant’s
prospective Motion to Compel answers to defendant’s request for
production set on September 23, 2002 and resetting the same to
September 24, 2002 at 8:15 a.m. in this division. This division
encourages telephonic hearings. Counsel are to contact this
division to confirm their telephonic appearance.
Judge Gottsfield’s division is located in the Old
Courthouse, 125 West Washington, 2nd Floor, Suite 202, Phoenix,
Arizona 85003 (Tel. 602-506-3132).

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA *** FILED ***
MARICOPA COUNTY 09/20/2002
09/17/2002
CLERK OF THE COURT
FORM V000A
HONORABLE ROBERT L. GOTTSFIELD
M. Johnson
Deputy
CV 2002-090335
Docket Code 094
Page 1
FILED: _________________
TORRE BLANCA ASSOCIATION
CHARLES E MAXWELL
v.
DENNIS M NEWMAN, et al.
JACK H SIMON
MINUTE ENTRY
Due to the unavailability of the Court,
IT IS ORDERED vacating the oral argument set on October 10,
2002 and resetting the same to October 16, 2002 at 9:00 a.m. (30
min.). This division encourages telephonic hearings. Counsel
are to contact this division to confirm their telephonic
appearance

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA *** FILED ***
MARICOPA COUNTY 09/27/2002
09/24/2002
CLERK OF THE COURT
FORM V000A
HONORABLE ROBERT L. GOTTSFIELD
M. Johnson
Deputy
CV 2002-090335
Docket Code 005
Page 1
FILED: _________________
TORRE BLANCA ASSOCIATION
CHARLES E MAXWELL
v.
DENNIS M NEWMAN, et al.
JACK H SIMON
MINUTE ENTRY
8:25 a.m. This is the time set for hearing defendants’
Motion to Compel and for Sanctions and plaintiff’s Cross Motion
to Compel and for Sanctions. Counsel Mark E. Lines is present in
person on behalf of plaintiff. Counsel Jack H. Simon is present
telephonically on behalf of defendants.
Court Reporter, Lorraine Chalkey, is present.
Arguments are held.
After extended argument the Court orders as follows:
1. Granting defendants’ request for occupant ledgers kept
by the association or its agents showing the charges
made and all payments received from July 19, 2001.
2. Granting defendants’ request that plaintiff provide
proof of all payments made by plaintiff to its attorneys
from the date of the judgment to the date of filing the
complaint only.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA *** FILED ***
MARICOPA COUNTY 09/27/2002
09/24/2002
CLERK OF THE COURT
FORM V000A
HONORABLE ROBERT L. GOTTSFIELD
M. Johnson
Deputy
CV 2002-090335
Docket Code 005
Page 2
3. Taking under advisement defendants’ request for
sanctions and plaintiff’s cross motion to compel and for
sanctions.
8:54 a.m. Matter concludes.
LATER:
The Court now denies defendants’ request for sanctions and
denies plaintiff’s cross motion to compel and for sanctions.
By way of explanation even though plaintiff has provided an
accounting on August 19, 2002 and that certainly is a help it is
the Court’s view that the defendants are entitled to actual
occupant ledgers in order to verify the accounting. The Court
also believes that proof of payments by plaintiff to its
attorneys is a reasonable request during the period above
ordered. Hopefully when these documents are provided it will
result in a settlement of this lawsuit. The Court does not
believe that sanctions are in order for either party under all
the circumstances. Defendants avow they have no records to turn
over as payments by Michelle Newman, the only person the judgment
has been entered against in Justice Court on April 19, 2001. Such
payments were made on her former boyfriend’s checking account and
are not available to Ms. Newman. The main dispute seems to be
that Ms. Newman feels she paid off the Justice Court judgment
which was in the total amount of $2067.00 and it was paid off
during the period of April 19, 2001 to the date plaintiff filed
its lawsuit to foreclose lien. Defendants just want to be
satisfied that all her payments were credited to the account and
want to be able to determine how a principal balance $4,357.12
accrued notwithstanding her alleged payment in full of the
judgment. Defendants advise they now have unredacted copies of
all attorneys’ fees billings to plaintiff and there is no need
for any in camera inspection by the Court.
The Court agrees with plaintiff that none of the three
defendants may collaterally attack the Justice Court judgment in

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA *** FILED ***
MARICOPA COUNTY 09/27/2002
09/24/2002
CLERK OF THE COURT
FORM V000A
HONORABLE ROBERT L. GOTTSFIELD
M. Johnson
Deputy
CV 2002-090335
Docket Code 005
Page 3
this action. They are only entitled, as now ordered by the
Court, to proof of sums allegedly assessed against them from the
date of the Justice Court judgment to the present.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA *** FILED ***
MARICOPA COUNTY 10/18/2002
10/16/2002
CLERK OF THE COURT
FORM V000A
HONORABLE ROBERT L. GOTTSFIELD
M. Johnson
Deputy
CV 2002-090335
Docket Code 005
Page 1
FILED: _________________
TORRE BLANCA ASSOCIATION
MARK E LINES
v.
DENNIS M NEWMAN, et al.
JACK H SIMON
MINUTE ENTRY
9:10 a.m. This is the time set for oral argument on
plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Counsel Mark E. Lines
is present on behalf of plaintiff. Counsel Jack H. Simon is
present on behalf of defendant. Both are present in person.
Court Reporter, Lorraine Chalkey, is present.
Discussions are held.
After discussion the Court grants defendant’s Motion to
Enlarge Time and defendants will file a response by November 22,
2002 and continuing the hearing on the Motion for Summary
judgment to December 4, 2002 at 9:00 a.m. (15 min.). The Court
believes there is a sufficient basis in which to give additional
time for the defendants to examine the occupant ledger which
they received about a week ago and to take the depositions of
pertinent individuals who can explain the discrepancy, if any,
between the occupant ledgers and the amounts sued upon.
In that connection plaintiff contends than any balance is
derived from a previously entered judgment and this Court on

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA *** FILED ***
MARICOPA COUNTY 10/18/2002
10/16/2002
CLERK OF THE COURT
FORM V000A
HONORABLE ROBERT L. GOTTSFIELD
M. Johnson
Deputy
CV 2002-090335
Docket Code 005
Page 2
September 24, 2002 determined that none of the three defendants
could collaterally attack the justice court judgment but were
only entitled to offer proof of sums allegedly assessed against
them from the date of the justice court judgment to the present.
Defendants contend that they believe this was an erroneous
determination and will also brief that and it will be argued at
the time of motion for summary judgment.
9:19 a.m. Matter concludes.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA *** FILED ***
MARICOPA COUNTY 11/15/2002
11/13/2002
CLERK OF THE COURT
FORM V000A
HONORABLE ROBERT L. GOTTSFIELD
M. Johnson
Deputy
CV 2002-090335
Docket Code 094
Page 1
FILED: _________________
TORRE BLANCA ASSOCIATION
MARK E LINES
v.
DENNIS M NEWMAN, et al.
JACK H SIMON
MINUTE ENTRY
Pursuant to defendant’s request,
IT IS ORDERED setting oral argument on Motion to Vacate
Portion of the September 24, 2002 minute order on December 4,
2002 at 9:00 a.m. in this division. This will be set in
conjunction with Motion for Summary Judgment, already set that
date. This division encourages telephonic hearings. Counsel
are to contact this division at 506-3132 to confirm their
telephonic appearance.
Judge Gottsfield’s division is located in the Old
Courthouse, 125 West Washington, 2nd Floor, Suite 202, Phoenix,
Arizona 85003 (Tel. 602-506-3132).

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2002-090335
12/04/2002
Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ROBERT L. GOTTSFIELD
M. Johnson
Deputy
FILED: 12/10/2002
TORRE BLANCA ASSOCIATION
MARK E LINES
v.
DENNIS M NEWMAN, et al.
JACK H SIMON
MINUTE ENTRY
9:00 a.m. This is the time set of continued argument on plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment and defendant’s Motion to Vacate Portion of court’s September 24, 2002 minute entry
order. Counsel Charles Maxwell and co-counsel Mark E. Lines are present on behalf of plaintiff.
Counsel Jack H. Simon is present on behalf of defendant. All are present in person.
Court Reporter, Lorraine Chalkey, is present.
Arguments are held.
After argument,
IT IS ORDERED taking this matter under advisement.
9:54 a.m. Matter concludes.
LATER:
Denying plaintiff’s Motion To Strike Response as the court would rather determine this
matter on the merits of the controversy. The court agrees with plaintiff, however, that the
defendants’ late response has precluded plaintiff from filing a supplemental reply brief directed
to the issues raised in the response accordingly,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2002-090335
12/04/2002
Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS ORDERED continuing hearing on plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment to
December 20, 2002 at 8:00 a.m. at which time the court will also hear defendants’ Motion to
Strike Molly Spector’s Affidavit.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2002-090335
12/20/2002
Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ROBERT L. GOTTSFIELD
M. Johnson
Deputy
FILED: 12/25/2002
TORRE BLANCA ASSOCIATION
MARK E LINES
v.
DENNIS M NEWMAN, et al.
JACK H SIMON
MINUTE ENTRY
8:00 a.m. This is the time of continued hearing on various motions. Counsel Charles
Maxwell is present telephonically on behalf of plaintiff. Counsel Jack H. Simon is present in
person on behalf of defendant.
Court Reporter, Mike Haley, is present.
Arguments are held.
After argument,
IT IS ORDERED taking the matter under advisement.
8:35 a.m. Matter concludes.
LATER:
The court has received and read: plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Judgment, defendants’
Response, plaintiff’s Reply, Notice Of Filing Accounting Pursuant To Court Order and Amended
Accounting, plaintiff’s Statement Of Facts, plaintiff’s Motion To Strike Response, defendants’
Response To Plaintiff’s Statement Etc., defendants’ Evidence Index Etc., defendants’ Motion To
Strike Molly Spector’s Affidavit, defendants’ Motion to Accelerate Hearing On Motion (re
Molly Spector), defendants’ Motion To Vacate Portion Of The September 24, 2002 Minute
Order, plaintiff’s Response thereto, and defendants’ Reply. The court has also received and read

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2002-090335
12/20/2002
Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 2
plaintiff’s additional Reply dated December 17, 2002 and Response to Motion to Strike of same
date and defendants’ Reply to Response of December 18, 2002. The court has also reviewed its
prior Orders and in particular the Orders of July 17, August 9, August 19, September 24 and
October 16, 2002.
The court now Finds, Determines and Orders as follows:
1. Granting, in part, defendants’ Motion to Vacate a portion of the court’s September 24,
2002 minute entry, in that the court agrees with defendants that Dennis and Marcia
Newman are not bound by the justice court judgment and that their interest in the real
property is not included in the lien of the judgment. Until the justice court judgment
is set aside as void for some reason it would continue to bar Michelle from contesting
the justice court judgment and any lien assessed on the property in connection
therewith except Michelle should always have the right to contest that any amounts
accruing since the date of the judgment are improper. As the court understands it
Commissioner Woodburn has denied a motion by Michelle Newman to set aside the
justice court judgment without prejudice to her contesting the same in the justice
court and that the subsequent motion to set aside judgment as void was denied in the
justice court. If that determination was not appealed then the validity of that
judgment is the law of the case in this matter as to Michelle Newman. This court
assumes that the justice court held that the original judgment was valid as against
Michelle so that Michelle may still contest, as she is doing in the instant pleadings,
the present amount of the judgment and lien impressed on the real property. This
court specifically determines that Michelle’s co-tenants, her parents Dennis and
Marcia Newman, are not, based on this record, in privity with Michelle or bound in
any manner by the judgment or judgment lien, except that the judgment lien may
constitute a valid lien against an undivided one-third interest (i.e. Michelle’s interest)
in the real property. (Although the judgment reflects it is entered against Michelle
Newman and John Doe Newman, plaintiff has never claimed a judgment was entered
against any other person but Michelle. The defendants also apparently hold the real
property in fee as tenants in common.)
2. The court has previously denied plaintiff’s Motion to Continue Rule 26.1 Disclosure
Requirements agreeing with defendants it would be helpful in framing a response to
plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment; has granted defendants’ Rule 56 (f) motion
to permit further discovery before the court held argument on the motion for
summary judgment; granted defendants’ motion to compel production of the occupant
ledgers showing charges made and payments received and proof of payments made
by plaintiff to its attorneys (i.e. plaintiff’s Amended accounting dated October 8,
2002 advises that of the amended amount now claimed of $3,888.21, a certain portion
(in addition to the $500 attorney’s fees awarded in the justice court judgment) are
continuing and accruing attorney’s fees of $122.50, 56.00, 274.50, 835.50, 487.10, or
$1,775.60); denied mutual requests for sanctions,; and permitted a further delay for
defendants to respond to the motion for summary judgment (their having just received

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2002-090335
12/20/2002
Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 3
the occupant ledger a week before the scheduled hearing). Plaintiff somehow feels
these decisions were improper and show a bias against plaintiff or its attorneys. The
court regards them as necessary in this hotly contested matter to determine what the
facts are in order to decide plaintiff’s motion for judgment. Thus in the latest
accounting in October plaintiff concedes that three additional payments made by
defendants have been credited (made during the period Jan-March 2002), so the delay
has been beneficial and important to both parties in this search for the truth.
3. With respect to plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Judgment the court determines as a
matter of law (based on its assumption the original judgment remains valid against
Michelle Newman) that fact issues remain with respect to all defendants as set forth
below:
A. With respect to Michelle the court finds as follows:
a. She is bound by the $130 specified in the judgment (as well as all other terms
therein) until the judgment is set aside. She may of course show that the $130
was no longer due on and after a certain day because the judgment by its terms
assesses $130 "until all amounts due and owing under this Judgment are paid in
full".
b. She is bound by the assessment of "all reasonable costs and attorney fees incurred
by Plaintiff after entry of this Judgment in collecting the amounts listed in this
Judgment". There will need to be further briefing of the issue whether she may
contest the reasonableness of the costs and attorney’s fees assessed or is she
foreclosed by res judicata, as argued by plaintiff, or collateral estoppel because of
an Order of Continuing Lien on Earnings Upon Answer of Garnishee entered
August 31, 2001. At the moment the court assumes she may contest
reasonableness. (As the court also understands it Michelle has argued to the
justice court and lost on the issue that the default judgment was void because the
complaint did not pray for accruing attorney’s fees and costs and thus was
erroneously set forth in the judgment. Apparently that justice court determination
was not appealed and thus is binding on this court so that no provision of the
judgment can now be claimed to be void.)
B. With respect to Dennis and Marcia the following questions of fact appear to
remain.
a. Is the amount of monthly assessment as to these defendants, $115 (year 2001),
$118 (2002) or the $130 charged by plaintiff as set forth in the Amended
Accounting? What is unpaid in connection therewith? Have they been assessed a
proper late fee and interest?
b. Is the assessment of costs and attorney’s fees by the plaintiff as reasonable to
them and properly assessed prior to a judgment being entered against them.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2002-090335
12/20/2002
Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 4
C. Fact issues common to all parties (and additional legal issues to be resolved)
a. Was there an agreement between Michelle and plaintiff whereby Michelle would
pay the amount of the judgment and the accruing monthly installments in return
for an itemization of amounts owed? If so was the itemization provided? What is
the effect of any failure to itemize if such failure is shown?
b. Did the property manager (Cuellar) give Michelle (Brian Galindo) a receipt
indicating all assessments were paid in full through February 28, 2002 (re waiver
and /or estoppel issues) or was the receipt solely to show she had paid for
February 2002 or for some other purpose?
c. Have the defendants paid all amounts due and owing ($3,888.21) and if not what
remains to be paid? What is the effect of the Cuellar Occupant Ledger allegedly
showing defendants had a credit balance of $17.50 as of the date the lawsuit was
filed if attorney’s fees were not included?
d. Were charges for attorney’s fees and costs demanded against all parties
reasonable under the circumstances? Could such a demand be made against
Dennis and Marcia who are not bound by any judgment requiring payment of fees
and costs prior to a court determination. Is an expert attorney witness required in
connection with plaintiff’s demand for attorney’s fees and costs assessed as part
of a judgment requiring payment of "reasonable costs and attorney fees" or for the
case against Dennis and Marcia?
e. Has plaintiff demanded that defendants pay all of the monthly assessments
coming due in 2002 in advance and at one time? If so, is this permissible under
the circumstances although permissible under statute (§33-1807A).
f. Is it true as alleged by plaintiff that $2275 of the amount requested ($3,888.21
now that three additional payments of $486.91 have been credited to defendants)
is attorney’s fees and, if so, is that reasonable under the circumstances?
g. Did plaintiff accelerate payment of the monthly assessment and if so was it
proper? If plaintiff has that right must notice be given of same prior to such
acceleration?
h. Is there any merit to defendants’ argument that a judgment lien is not a
foreclosable lien in this situation (pg. 12, Response to Summary Judgment)? Was
a lien waived by filing suit against only one of three debtors? Is it equitable to
permit a foreclosure under the circumstances?
i. What exactly was the issue (issues) decided in the recent justice court proceeding
and who does it bind (court has no pleadings re this).
j. Were defendants ever contacted prior to plaintiff commencing suit with a demand
for payment and statement of account? If not, what is the legal effect if any, of
same?
k. Have all assessments and late fees for the year 2002 been paid in fact as alleged
by defendants?

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2002-090335
12/20/2002
Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 5
4. Denying all motions not specifically referred to including defendants’ Motion to
Strike Molly Spector’s Affidavit which the court believes only goes to weight and not
admissibility.
5. Under the circumstances setting the following jury trial and deadlines:
IT IS ORDERED setting this case for a jury trial on March 26, 2003 at 9:30 a.m.
Estimated length of trial: 3 days.
THIS IS A FIRM TRIAL SETTING. A MOTION TO CONTINUE BASED ON LACK
OF PREPARATION WILL NOT BE GRANTED.
1. Discovery shall be completed on or before February 14, 2003.
2. Final Supplemental Disclosure statements shall be completed on or before February 3,
2003.
3. A final pre-trial conference is set for March 19, 2003 at 9:00 a.m.
4. A joint pretrial statement in accordance with Rule 16(d), Arizona Rules of Civil
Procedure, shall be due at the time of the pre-trial conference.
5. Jury Instructions are to be provided at the pre-trial conference.
6. All Motions in Limine shall be filed 30 actual days (Sun.-Sat.) before the trial date.
Responses shall be filed 10 actual days (calendar) before the trial date. No replies allowed. All
Motions in Limine shall be faxed to Court and counsel. All Motions in Limine shall be heard on
March 19, 2003 at 9:00 a.m. (30 min.).
7. At the pre-trial conference, counsel shall provide the Court with copies of any
deposition transcripts to be read to the jury. The offering party should highlight the portions to
be read. The other side should highlight Rule 106 additions. Any objections for the Court to rule
on should be clearly marked in the margin.

8. In the ordinary case, counsel may assume the jury will be picked and opening statements
will take place in the morning. Witnesses will then be called on the first day. Trial days are
normally 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., and 1:30 p.m. to 4:45 p.m., four days a week (Monday -
Thursday).

9. At the pre-trial conference, counsel shall be prepared to discuss:
(a) time limits in voir dire, opening statements, examination of witnesses and closing
statements.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2002-090335
12/20/2002
Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 6
(b) stipulation as to the foundation and authenticity of exhibits.
(c) preliminary jury instructions.

10. Counsel shall make arrangements with the Clerk of the Court for marking exhibits 5
days prior to trial date.

11. One day's jury fees will be assessed unless the Court is notified of settlement before
2:00 p.m. on the judicial day before trial.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall conduct a settlement conference on or
before March 3, 2003 with the Alternative Dispute Resolution section of the Superior Court
with a Judge Pro Tem.

Documents