06/11/2018 — CV2018002502 CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, DEANNE COURT 06/11/2018 HON. TERESA SANDERS View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Chris DeRose, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
06/13/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-002502
06/11/2018
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. TERESA SANDERS
A. Durda
Deputy
DEANNE COURT CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION
AUGUSTUS H SHAW IV
v.
DENNIS M EMMERICH, et al.
DENNIS M EMMERICH
10430 WEST DEANNE DRIVE
SUN CITY AZ 85351
JAMES R HIENTON
GARY F URMAN
COMM. ABRAMSON
MINUTE ENTRY
This Court has received Plaintiff’s e-filed Application/Motion for Default against
defendant(s), Dennis M. Emmerich and Recreation Centers of Sun City, Inc., in the above-
captioned case.
IT IS ORDERED that no action will be taken by this division on the above-referenced
document(s).
The parties are advised that commissioners handle Rule 55(b) Default Judgment
proceedings and that the default proceedings in this matter are to be heard by Commissioner
Lindsay Abramson.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-002502
06/11/2018
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all documents necessary to support the entry of a
default judgment must be e-filed.
Pursuant to the Maricopa County eFiling Guidelines, section 2.09, attorneys shall
electronically file all the documents required to request a default judgment, such as the
Application for Entry of Default, Motion for Entry of Default Judgment, Sum Certain Affidavit,
and Application for Attorneys’ Fees when appropriate and Statement of Costs, but shall submit a
default judgment packet required by the Court, including the documents identified on the default
judgment packet coversheet in paper to the assigned commissioner’s division. A commissioner
will not act upon a Motion for Entry of Default Judgment until the default judgment packet with
all the required documents has been received by the division in paper form.
The parties/counsel can find additional information in the form of frequently asked
questions at:
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/SuperiorCourt/CivilDepartment/howDoI.asp
08/28/2018 — CV2018002502 CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, DEANNE COURT 08/28/2018 HON. TERESA SANDERS View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Chris DeRose, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
08/30/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-002502
08/28/2018
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. TERESA SANDERS
A. Durda
Deputy
DEANNE COURT CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION
AUGUSTUS H SHAW IV
v.
DENNIS M EMMERICH, et al.
GARY F URMAN
JUDGE SANDERS
ORAL ARGUMENT SET
IT IS ORDERED setting an oral argument on October 19, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. in this
division on the following motion,
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment Re: Arizona Health Care Cost Containment
System (AHCCCS).
HONORABLE TERESA SANDERS
JUDICIAL OFFICER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
EAST COURT BUILDING
COURTROOM 811
101 W. JEFFERSON
PHOENIX, AZ 85003
(602) 506-4791
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-002502
08/28/2018
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 2
Oral argument shall be limited to thirty (30) minutes with the time divided equally
between the sides.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED any motion or stipulation for continuance must be filed
with the Court no later than four court days prior to the date set for hearing. After that date, no
continuances will be granted except for extraordinary circumstances.
NOTE: All court proceedings are recorded by audio and video method and not by a court
reporter. Pursuant to Local Rule 2.22, if a party desires a court reporter for any proceeding in
which a court reporter is not mandated by Arizona Supreme Court Rule 30, the party must submit
a written request to the assigned judicial officer at least ten (10) judicial days in advance of the
hearing, and must pay the authorized fee to the Clerk of the Court at least two (2) judicial days
before the proceeding. The fee is $140 for a half-day and $280 for a full day.
10/19/2018 — CV2018002502 CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, DEANNE COURT 10/19/2018 HON. TERESA SANDERS View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Chris DeRose, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
10/24/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-002502
10/19/2018
Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. TERESA SANDERS
K. Cabral/A. Durda
Deputy
DEANNE COURT CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION
AUGUSTUS H SHAW IV
v.
DENNIS M EMMERICH, et al.
GARY F URMAN
ROBERT PATRICK WHELAN
JUDGE SANDERS
MINUTE ENTRY
Courtroom ECB 811
8:58 a.m. This is the time set for an Oral Argument regarding Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment RE: Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS). Plaintiff,
Deanne Court Condominium Association, is represented by counsel, Augustus H. Shaw IV and
Robert Patrick Whelan. Defendant, Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, is represented
by counsel, Gary F. Urman.
A record of the proceedings is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter.
Argument is presented.
For the reasons as stated on the record,
IT IS ORDERED taking this matter under advisement.
9:27 a.m. Matter concludes.
10/24/2018 — CV2018002502 CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, DEANNE COURT 10/24/2018 HON. TERESA SANDERS View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Chris DeRose, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
10/26/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-002502
10/24/2018
Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. TERESA SANDERS
A. Durda
Deputy
DEANNE COURT CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION
AUGUSTUS H SHAW IV
v.
DENNIS M EMMERICH, et al.
GARY F URMAN
JUDGE SANDERS
RULING
The Court has read and considered the following pleadings:
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment filed June 11, 2018.
Plaintiff’s Statement of Facts in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment
filed June 11, 2018.
Defendant AHCCCS’s Response filed July 16, 2018.
Plaintiff’s Reply filed August 13, 2018.
The Court has also considered the authorities cited by counsel, as well as arguments
made on October 19, 2018.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-002502
10/24/2018
Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 2
The issue to be resolved in this matter is whether Plaintiff or Defendant AHCCCS has the
priority lien on Defendant Dennis Emmerich’s real property located at 10430 West Deanne
Drive, Sun City, Arizona, 85351. Plaintiff, the Homeowner’s Association governing the
property, claims that it has the priority lien pursuant to its contract with Defendant Emmerich.
Defendant AHCCCS claims that it has the priority lien pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1256(B)(3).
Plaintiff contends that it is entitled to summary judgment on its claim because its lien was
perfected prior to AHCCC’s lien, and AHCCS is not entitled to priority pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-
1256(B)(3).
Defendant AHCCCS contends that A.R.S. § 33-1256(B)(3) leaves no doubt that its lien
constitutes “governmental assessments or charges against the unit”, and takes priority over
Plaintiff’s HOA lien.
Pursuant to Ariz. R. Civ. P. Rule 56(a), “[t]he court shall grant summary judgment if the
moving party shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party. Sanchez v. City of Tucson, 191 Ariz. 128, 953 P.2d 168 (1998). “It is only the
existence of uncontroverted competent evidence favorable to a movant, from which only one
inference can be drawn, that entitles a party to summary judgment.” Nemec v. Rollo, 114 Ariz.
589, 592, 562 Pl.2d 1087, 1090 (App. 1977) (citing Choisser v. State ex rel. Herman, 12
Ariz.App. 259, 469 P.2d 493 (1970)).
“When deciding a motion for summary judgment, ‘[c]redibility determinations, the
weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury
functions, not those of a judge.’” Allstate Indem. Co. v. Ridgely, 214 Ariz. 440, 444, ¶ 19, 153
P.3d 1069, 1073 (App. 2007) (quoting Thomspon v. Better-Bilt Aluminum Prds. Co., 171 Ariz.
550, 558, 832 P.2d 203, 211 (1992)). “Summary judgment is inappropriate where the facts, even
if undisputed, would allow reasonable minds to differ.” Nelson v. Phoenix Resort Corp., 181
Ariz. 188, 191, 888 P.2d 1375, 1378 (App. 1994).
In our case, both parties concede that there are no genuine issues of material fact, and that
the dispositive issue is a legal determination that must be made by the Court. Each party indicated
they were unaware of any specific authority regarding the issue of whether a claim by a HOA or
a governmental agency took priority in a case such as the one before the Court.
A.R.S. § 33-1256(B)(3) provides that a condominium homeowner’s association has a
priority lien for assessments against a property except for “liens for real estate taxes and other
governmental assessments or charges against the unit.” Plaintiff contends that AHCCC’s lien is
not a governmental assessment or charge against the unit.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-002502
10/24/2018
Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 3
A.R.S. § 36-2935 authorizes AHCCCS to file a claim “against a member’s estate to
recover paid assistance”, and that it is also “entitled to a lien on a member’s property to recover
paid assistance the member receives.” Defendant Emmerich is receiving “paid assistance” from
AHCCCS, and there is no dispute that AHCCCS is a governmental agency.
Based upon the matters presented, the Court finds that AHCCC’s lien on Defendant
Emmerich’s property is a “governmental assessment or charge” against it, and therefore takes
priority over Plaintiff’s lien.
For the reasons set forth above,
IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment filed June 11,
2018.
Defendant AHCCCS is directed to submit a form of order no later than 30 days from the
date of this minute entry.
