Case Header

Maricopa County Superior Court Case TJ2013-003854: public docket details, parties, minute entries, documents, and official source links for Velda Rose Estates Homeowners Association.

Case Number

TJ2013-003854

County

Maricopa

Caption

Not captured

Filed

4/5/2013

Case Type

Transcript Judgment

Judge

Owen, Addison

Location

Downtown

Official Court Record

Official Court Record

Parties

Minute Entries

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

04/15/2014 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

TJ 2013-003854

04/10/2014

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
COMMISSIONER JAMES R. MORROW
S. Stulz

Deputy

VELDA ROSE ESTATES HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION
CHARLES E MAXWELL

v.

EDITH POGGI
C ADAM BUCK

KATHY COLE
6429 E UNIVERSITY DR, #1
MESA AZ 85205
JAMES HANLEY
6429 E UNIVERSITY DR
# 2
MESA AZ 85205
NONI JOHNSON
6429 E UNIVERSITY, #3
MESA AZ 85205
EDITH POGGI P L L C
4111 N 54TH ST
CAVE CREEK AZ 85331
COLETTE M THOMPSON
6429 E UNIVERSITY DR
#4
MESA AZ 85205

MINUTE ENTRY

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

TJ 2013-003854

04/10/2014

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2

Plaintiff Velda Rose Estates Homeowners Association (Plaintiff) filed its Third
Supplemental Post-Judgment Application for Amount of Attorney Fees (Application) on
February 13, 2014, supported by a Supplemental China Doll Affidavit of Charles E. Maxwell in
Support of Post-Judgment Award of Attorney’s Fees. In addition, Plaintiff filed a Supplemental
Post-Judgment Statement of Costs and Notice of Taxation. Defendant Edith Poggi filed her
Objection to Any and All Requests for Post Judgment Relief Including Plaintiff’s Application for
Attorney’s Fees and Supplemental Post-Judgment Statement of Costs and Notice of Taxation
(Response) on March 5, 2014. Along with her Response, Defendant filed a Motion for
Accelerated Ruling on Motion to Stay and Motion for Extension of Time Nunc Pro Tunc
(Motion for Accelerated Ruling) and a Motion to Stay Pending Appeal Which Has Been filed
(Motion to Stay). Plaintiff, in turn, filed its Reply in Support of Plaintiff’s Third Supplemental
Post-Judgment Application for Amount of Attorney Fees and Supplemental Post-Judgment
Statement of Costs and Notice of Taxation (Reply) on March 10, 2014. Plaintiff also filed its
Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time Nunc pro Tunc (Response
to Motion for Accelerated Ruling), and its Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to
Stay Pending Appeal (Response to Motion to Stay). Also on March 10, 2014, Plaintiff filed a
Motion to Strike concerning a Report and Order Imposing Sanctions which Defendant included
as an exhibit to her Response. Defendant, in turn, filed her Reply to Motion to Stay and a
Response to Motion to Strike on March 27, 2014. The time period for Plaintiff to file a reply
memorandum in support of the Motion to Strike has now elapsed.

In its Application, Plaintiff seeks an award of $15,255.00 in attorney’s fees and $2,649.86
in costs, relying on A.R.S. § 33-1807(H) (“A judgment or decree in any action brought under this
section shall include costs and reasonable attorney fees for the prevailing party.”). The Judgment
entered by the Justice Court did provide for an award of “all costs and attorney fees incurred by
Plaintiff after submission of this Judgment for entry by the Court in collecting the amounts listed
in this Judgment.” Although Plaintiff presents this language as determinative with respect to the
issue before the Court, Plaintiff did not present its current Application to the Justice Court.
Instead, it elected to present the issue to this Court, which will review the Application for
reasonableness. Attorney Charles E. Maxwell submitted his affidavit dated February 12, 2014,
attesting that he “reviewed the records and file maintained by the firm, as well as the substantive
pleadings and legal services necessary in order to pursue post-judgment collections” and he
“avow[ed] . . . that the supplemental sum of $15,255.00 as and for post-judgment attorney fees,
is, in my opinion, in compliance with the applicable ethical standards for attorney fees and
constitutes a fair and reasonable fee.” Attorney Maxwell also attested that the “disbursements in
the amount of $2,649.86 have been expended in advance on behalf of Plaintiff.” Attorney
Maxwell’s credibility is, therefore, before the Court.

Defendant challenges the Application, in part, by attacking the credibility of attorney
Maxwell. Defendant provided the Court with the Report and Order Imposing Sanctions in PDJ-

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

TJ 2013-003854

04/10/2014

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 3

2012-9112 (Report), in which the disciplinary panel found “clear and convincing evidence that
Mr. Maxwell violated ERs 3.3(a)(1) and 8.4(c).” According to the Report, Mr. Maxwell
knowingly made a false representation to Commissioner Kongable that there was no legislative
history regarding A.R.S. 33-1807.” Report at 14. Plaintiff moved to strike the Report arguing
that it is “immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike is denied,
as the credibility of attorney Maxwell is material to the consideration of his February 12, 2014,
affidavit.

Defendant argues that the judgment issued against her by the Justice Court was the result
of fraud. This issue, however, was presumably raised before the Justice Court in Defendant’s
motion to set aside the judgment, the denial of which Defendant is pursuing through an appeal.
Defendant asks that this matter be stayed pending the resolution of her appeal. She does not
provide the Court, however, with any legal basis for granting this request. Although on appeal,
Defendant does not suggest to this Court that she has posted an appropriate bond on appeal with
the Justice Court or has otherwise obtained a stay of execution from the Justice Court. As no
legal basis is presented by Defendant to support her request that this Court stay the collection
proceedings pending her appeal, her Motion for Stay is denied. If Defendant does obtain a stay
from the Justice Court or from the court hearing her appeal in that matter, she should promptly
alert this Court.

Defendant broadly asserts that the expenditure of “over $25,000.00 in attorney’s fees . . .
as a result of approximately $1,979.77 in association dues” is not reasonable. Response at 8.
Defendant’s argument may become very persuasive to Plaintiff in the event Defendant’s
assertion that she cannot afford to pay additional fees is borne out and an award becomes
uncollectible or is discharged in bankruptcy. That being said, Plaintiff did obtain a judgment
against Defendant, which Defendant failed to pay. Plaintiff then faced the difficult choice of
expending monies to collect on the judgment or not. Defendant has not provided any legal
authority holding that expending a disproportionate amount in fees relative to the amount
awarded in the underlying judgment makes the fees unreasonable.

Plaintiff improperly seeks an award from this Court for work done before the Justice
Court, defending the Justice Court’s ruling on appeal, and in supporting its Application with
vague and commingled time entries. The Court has reviewed the billing statement attached to
attorney Maxwell’s affidavit and the statement of costs to determine if the amounts sought relate
to the limited collections issues before this Court. Many do not. Plaintiff included a number of
entries not directly related to post-judgment proceedings before this Court, such as entries related
to the post-judgment proceedings in the Justice Court, interactions with various renters, the lower
court appeal of the Justice Court matter, and entries too vague to discern whether they related to
the post-judgment collection matters before this Court or combined with non-collections issues:
2013 entries–10/23, $67.50; 10/23, $660.00; 10/24, $20.00; 10/25, $45.00; 10/25, $860.00; 11/6,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

TJ 2013-003854

04/10/2014

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 4

$60; 11/13, $80.00; 11/14, $700.00; 11/15 $20.00; 11/15 $20.00; 11/18, $100.00; 11/18, $80.00;
11/19, $20.00; 11/20, $60.00; 11/22, $180.00; 11/22, $45.00; 12/2, $80.00; 12/3, $20.00; 12/5,
$60.00; 12/5, $240.00; 12/5 $40.00; 12/5, $67.50; 12/9, $40.00; 12/11, $40.00; 12/16, $360.00;
12/16, $45.00, 12/18, $40.00; 12/24, $40.00; 12/27, $40.00; 12/27, $20.00; 12/30, $100.00; 2014
entries: 1/2, $67.50; 1/7, $45.00; 1/8, $45.00; 1/10, $45.00; 1/10, $135.00; 1/13, $112.50; 1/15,
$22.50; 1/27, $67.50; 1/28, $67.50; 1/28, $337.50; 2/3, $450.00; 2/6, $225.00; 2/6, $75.00; 2/6,
$247.50; 2/7, $112.50, 2/7, $25.00; 2/14, $45.00. The Court reduced the award of attorney’s fees
by these amounts. If it is timely to do so and appropriate under the rules, Plaintiff may pursue an
award in Justice Court concerning the post-judgment proceedings before that tribunal or before
the court handling the lower court appeal. Plaintiff is cautioned that it should have its attorney
track tasks in a manner that allows a subsequent reviewing Court to discern to which proceeding
a specific charge relates.

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike filed March 10, 2014.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Defendant’s Motion to Stay Pending Appeal.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot Defendant’s Motion for Accelerated
Ruling on Motion to Stay and Motion for Extension of Time Nunc Pro Tunc.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting, in part, the Third Supplemental Post-Judgment
Application for Amount of Attorney Fees, and awarding Plaintiff $8,880.00 in fees and
$2,649.86 in costs against Defendant, all in accordance with the formal written modified Order
signed by the Court on April 10, 2014 and filed (entered) by the Clerk on April 10, 2014.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

05/22/2014 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

TJ 2013-003854

05/20/2014

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
COMMISSIONER JAMES R. MORROW
S. Stulz

Deputy

VELDA ROSE ESTATES HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION
CHARLES E MAXWELL

v.

EDITH POGGI
EDITH POGGI
4132 N 3RD AVE #2
PHOENIX AZ 85327

KATHY COLE
6429 E UNIVERSITY DR, #1
MESA AZ 85205
JAMES HANLEY
6429 E UNIVERSITY DR
# 2
MESA AZ 85205
NONI JOHNSON
6429 E UNIVERSITY, #3
MESA AZ 85205
EDITH POGGI P L L C
4111 N 54TH ST
CAVE CREEK AZ 85331
COLETTE M THOMPSON
6429 E UNIVERSITY DR
#4
MESA AZ 85205
FINANCIAL SERVICES - TRUST CCC

MINUTE ENTRY

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

TJ 2013-003854

05/20/2014

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2

Judgment Creditor filed a Motion for Release of Monies on April 18, 2014. Judgment
Debtor filed a Response on May 5, 2014. Judgment Creditor, in turn, filed its reply
memorandum on May 8, 2014. Having considered the arguments of the parties and good cause
appearing,

IT IS ORDERED granting Judgment Creditor’s Motion for Release of Monies.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court release the $2,500.00 posted by
Judgment Debtor in the matter to Judgment Creditor through its attorney, Charles E. Maxwell,
4854 East Baseline Road, Suite 104, Mesa, Arizona 85206.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
06/27/2013 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
TJ 2013-003854
06/25/2013
Docket Code 046
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
COMMISSIONER JAMES R. MORROW
S. Stulz
Deputy
VELDA ROSE ESTATES HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION
CHARLES E MAXWELL
v.
EDITH POGGI
EDITH POGGI
P O BOX 4103
CAVE CREEK AZ 85327
KATHY COLE
6429 E UNIVERSITY DR, #1
MESA AZ 85205
JAMES HANLEY
6429 E UNIVERSITY DR
# 2
MESA AZ 85205
NONI JOHNSON
6429 E UNIVERSITY, #3
MESA AZ 85205
COLETTE M THOMPSON
6429 E UNIVERSITY DR
#4
MESA AZ 85205
MINUTE ENTRY

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
TJ 2013-003854
06/25/2013
Docket Code 046
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS ORDERED setting Hearing on Objection to Writs of Garnishment and Applications
for Orders of Continuing Lien filed by the Judgment Debtor, Edith Poggi, on July 1, 2013 at
2:00 p.m. in this division:
Maricopa County Superior Court
Old Court House
125 W. Washington
Courtroom 001
Phoenix, AZ 85003
LET THE RECORD REFLECT that notification of the above hearing is given to:
Judgment Creditor via: electronic mail and minute entry.
Judgment Debtor via: telephone and minute entry.
Garnishee/Defendant via: minute entry.
ALERT: The Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 2011-140 directs the Clerk's
Office not to accept paper filings from attorneys in civil cases. Civil cases must still be initiated
on paper; however, subsequent documents must be eFiled through AZTurboCourt unless an
exception defined in the Administrative Order applies.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
07/05/2013 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
TJ 2013-003854
07/01/2013
Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
COMMISSIONER JAMES R. MORROW
S. Stulz
Deputy
VELDA ROSE ESTATES HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION
CHARLES E MAXWELL
v.
EDITH POGGI
EDITH POGGI
P O BOX 4103
CAVE CREEK AZ 85327
KATHY COLE
6429 E UNIVERSITY DR, #1
MESA AZ 85205
JAMES HANLEY
6429 E UNIVERSITY DR
# 2
MESA AZ 85205
NONI JOHNSON
6429 E UNIVERSITY, #3
MESA AZ 85205
COLETTE M THOMPSON
6429 E UNIVERSITY DR
#4
MESA AZ 85205
MINUTE ENTRY
Courtroom: OCH 001.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
TJ 2013-003854
07/01/2013
Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 2
2:01 p.m. This is the time set for Hearing on Judgment Debtor’s Objection to Writs of
Garnishment and Applications for Orders of Continuing Lien. Counsel, Alan Quist, is present on
behalf of Judgment Creditor. Judgment Debtor, Edith Poggi, is present on her own behalf.
A record of the proceedings is made by audio and/or videotape in lieu of a court reporter.
Discussion is held regarding Judgment Creditor’s Motion to Strike Objection as
Untimely.
Based upon the matters presented,
IT IS ORDERED denying in part, Judgment Creditor’s Motion to Strike Objection as
Untimely in respect to future rents and to whether an order of continuing lien should be issued.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting in part Judgment Creditor’s Motion to Strike
Objection as Untimely as to whether issuance of the Writ is appropriate.
Argument is presented.
Judgment Debtor’s Exhibits 1-3 are marked for identification.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED overruling Judgment Creditor’s objection as to the
assignment of rents.
Further argument is presented.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED taking this matter under advisement.
2:52 p.m. Matter concludes.
LATER:
This matter having been under advisement,
One objection remained unresolved at the conclusion of the garnishment hearing.
Judgment Debtor raised an issue in her Objection to Writs of Garnishment and Application for
Orders of Continuing Lien concerning whether the A.R.S. § 12-1584(A) only allows judgment to
be entered against garnishees for the amount due to the debtor as of the time that the Writ was
served and does not authorize a continuing lien for future payments. During the garnishment

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
TJ 2013-003854
07/01/2013
Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 3
hearing, Judgment Creditor referred the Court to Weir v. Galbraith, 92 Ariz. 279, 376 P.2d 396
(1962). The Court has now had an opportunity to consider this authority. The Arizona Supreme
Court, in Weir, stated that unmatured installments under a contract would be subject to a writ of
garnishment “if the payment thereof is not contingent on the occurrence of any act or event.”
Weir, 92 Ariz. at 287, 376 P.2d at 404.
In the case at issue, the garnishees are tenants renting residences from the Judgment
Debtor. Continued rent payments are contingent upon the individual garnishees remaining
tenants of the Judgment Debtor. According to the Judgment Debtor, one of the garnishees has
already stopped renting from the Judgment Debtor since the writ of garnishment was served
upon her.
Given the contingent nature of the landlord-tenant relationship,
THE COURT FINDS that garnishment of the future stream of rent payments is not
appropriate in this case.
As discussed during the garnishment hearing, Judgment Creditor is free to periodically
have issued and served writs of garnishment upon Judgment Debtor’s tenants seeking to garnish
owed, but unpaid rents.
IT IS ORDERED sustaining the objection as to the continuing nature of the garnishment
on future, contingent rents.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating the Orders of Continuing Lien filed on June 21,
2013, as to the withholding and delivery of future rental payments concerning the following
Garnishees: Colette M. Thompson, James Hanley, Noni Johnson, and Kathy Cole.
There being no further need to retain the exhibits not offered in evidence in the custody
of the Clerk of the Court,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel/party or written designee shall take possession
of what has been marked as Defendant’s exhibits 1-3 not offered or received in evidence to the
counsel/party causing it/them to be marked, or to their written designee by August 1, 2013;
thereafter, the Clerk is authorized to dispose of the exhibits. The party shall have the right to re-
file relevant exhibits as needed in support of any appeal. Re-filed exhibits must be accompanied
by a Notice of Re-filing Exhibits and presented to the Exhibits Room of the Clerk of Court. The
Court’s tag must remain intact on all re-filed exhibits. Said exhibits are currently in the
possession of the Division Clerk, located at:

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
TJ 2013-003854
07/01/2013
Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 4
Maricopa County Superior Court
Old Court House
125 W. Washington
Courtroom 001
Phoenix, AZ 85003
ALERT: The Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 2011-140 directs the Clerk's
Office not to accept paper filings from attorneys in civil cases. Civil cases must still be initiated
on paper; however, subsequent documents must be eFiled through AZTurboCourt unless an
exception defined in the Administrative Order applies.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
07/29/2013 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
TJ 2013-003854
07/26/2013
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
COMMISSIONER JAMES R. MORROW
S. Stulz
Deputy
VELDA ROSE ESTATES HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION
CHARLES E MAXWELL
v.
EDITH POGGI
EDITH POGGI
5025 N CENTRAL AVE # 218
PHOENIX AZ 85012
KATHY COLE
6429 E UNIVERSITY DR, #1
MESA AZ 85205
JAMES HANLEY
6429 E UNIVERSITY DR
# 2
MESA AZ 85205
NONI JOHNSON
6429 E UNIVERSITY, #3
MESA AZ 85205
COLETTE M THOMPSON
6429 E UNIVERSITY DR
#4
MESA AZ 85205
MINUTE ENTRY

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
TJ 2013-003854
07/26/2013
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
Plaintiff filed on July 2, 2013, a Supplemental Post-Judgment Application for Amount of
Attorney Fees, along with a Supplemental China Doll Affidavit. Plaintiff also filed a
Supplemental Post-Judgment Statement of Costs and Notice of Taxation. Plaintiff mailed a copy
of each of these documents to Kent S. Berk indicating that he is the attorney for Defendants. The
Court has not received a response on behalf of any defendant.
The Court notes that no attorney has filed a notice of appearance on behalf of any
defendant in this matter since the transcript judgment was filed with this Court. The file also
reflects that the attorneys for Plaintiff have previously served defendants in this case my mailing
documents to “Edith Poggi and John Doe Poggi, P.O. Box 4103, Cave Creek, Arizona 85327.”
See four Applications for Order of Continuing Lien filed June 14, 2013. Plaintiff also
purportedly served Defendants with an Application for Attorney Fees and a Statement of Costs
filed on May 16, 2013, by mailing copies to Kent S. Berk indicating that he was the attorney for
defendants in this matter. It is not clear from the Court’s file whether these documents, which
resulted in an order awarding post-judgment fees and costs, were ever properly served on the
defendants.1
Defendant Edith Poggi entered an appearance in this post-judgment matter on her own
behalf on June 20, 2013, when she filed an Objection to Writs of Garnishment and Applications
for Orders of Continuing Lien. Ms. Poggi listed her address on the objection as “Edith Poggi,
5025 N. Central Ave. #218, Phoenix, Arizona 85012-1520.” In the body of this document, Ms.
Poggi stated:
Plaintiff’s attorneys know that my correct address is as listed above, yet they continue to
send mail to my old address. Plaintiff’s attorney has been advised of my new address.
Attached as Exhibit 1 is a letter dated April 2, 2013, that Plaintiff’s attorney set to Credit
Data Southwest, which contains in the body of the letter my correct/new address. Yet, in
the Writs and Applications and other paperwork, they continue to send me mail to my old
address, which I do not timely receive.
In moving to strike Ms. Poggi’s objection on June 25, 2013, Plaintiff’s counsel used the
“5025 N. Central Ave. #218” address to serve Ms. Poggi. Plaintiff’s counsel provided no
explanation as to why–seven days later–he failed to use the “5025 N. Central Ave. #218” address
to mail Defendants the July 2, 2013, Supplemental Post-Judgment Application for Amount of

1 If defendants were not properly served with the May 16, 2013, application and statement, the
Court will entertain a motion from defendants to set aside the subsequent award.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
TJ 2013-003854
07/26/2013
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 3
Attorney Fees, along with a Supplemental China Doll Affidavit, Supplemental Post-Judgment
Statement of Costs and Notice of Taxation.
As Plaintiff, through its counsel, failed to serve the July 2, 2013, documents on
Defendant Poggi at 5025 N. Central Ave. #218, Phoenix, Arizona 85012-1520, even after she
had made a post-judgment appearance in this matter in which she noted Plaintiff’s history of
mailing documents to her at an incorrect address, the application for an award of fees and costs
are denied without prejudice to refilling the documents and properly serving them.
IT IS ORDERED denying, without prejudice, Plaintiff’s Supplemental Post-Judgment
Application for Amount of Attorney Fees and Supplemental Post-Judgment Statement of Costs
and Notice of Taxation filed July 2, 2013.
ALERT: The Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 2011-140 directs the Clerk's
Office not to accept paper filings from attorneys in civil cases. Civil cases must still be initiated
on paper; however, subsequent documents must be eFiled through AZTurboCourt unless an
exception defined in the Administrative Order applies.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
08/05/2013 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
TJ 2013-003854
08/02/2013
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
COMMISSIONER JAMES R. MORROW
S. Stulz
Deputy
VELDA ROSE ESTATES HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION
CHARLES E MAXWELL
v.
EDITH POGGI
EDITH POGGI
5025 N CENTRAL AVE # 218
PHOENIX AZ 85012
KATHY COLE
6429 E UNIVERSITY DR, #1
MESA AZ 85205
JAMES HANLEY
6429 E UNIVERSITY DR
# 2
MESA AZ 85205
NONI JOHNSON
6429 E UNIVERSITY, #3
MESA AZ 85205
COLETTE M THOMPSON
6429 E UNIVERSITY DR
#4
MESA AZ 85205
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court having issued a Minute Entry dated July 1, 2013 ordering the disposal of
exhibits should counsel/party or written designee not take possession of the exhibits within thirty

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
TJ 2013-003854
08/02/2013
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
(30) days, and no counsel/parties having retrieved the exhibits, Defendant’s exhibits 1-3are
disposed of by the courtroom clerk.
FILED: Exhibit Worksheet.
ALERT: The Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 2011-140 directs the Clerk's
Office not to accept paper filings from attorneys in civil cases. Civil cases must still be initiated
on paper; however, subsequent documents must be eFiled through AZTurboCourt unless an
exception defined in the Administrative Order applies.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
09/17/2013 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
TJ 2013-003854
09/16/2013
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
COMMISSIONER JAMES R. MORROW
S. Stulz
Deputy
VELDA ROSE ESTATES HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION
CHARLES E MAXWELL
v.
EDITH POGGI
C ADAM BUCK
KATHY COLE
6429 E UNIVERSITY DR, #1
MESA AZ 85205
JAMES HANLEY
6429 E UNIVERSITY DR
# 2
MESA AZ 85205
NONI JOHNSON
6429 E UNIVERSITY, #3
MESA AZ 85205
COLETTE M THOMPSON
6429 E UNIVERSITY DR
#4
MESA AZ 85205
MINUTE ENTRY
IT IS ORDERED setting an Oral Argument Re: Defendants’ Motion to Stay on
September 18, 2013 at 10:00 a.m., (time allotted: 30 minutes), in this Division:

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
TJ 2013-003854
09/16/2013
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 2
Maricopa County Superior Court
Old Court House
125 W. Washington
Courtroom 001
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Defendants are directed to electronically mail or hand deliver the Motion to Stay to
Plaintiff.
ALERT: The Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 2011-140 directs the Clerk's
Office not to accept paper filings from attorneys in civil cases. Civil cases must still be initiated
on paper; however, subsequent documents must be eFiled through AZTurboCourt unless an
exception defined in the Administrative Order applies.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
09/19/2013 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
TJ 2013-003854
09/18/2013
Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
COMMISSIONER JAMES R. MORROW
S. Stulz
Deputy
VELDA ROSE ESTATES HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION
CHARLES E MAXWELL
v.
EDITH POGGI
C ADAM BUCK
KATHY COLE
6429 E UNIVERSITY DR, #1
MESA AZ 85205
JAMES HANLEY
6429 E UNIVERSITY DR
# 2
MESA AZ 85205
NONI JOHNSON
6429 E UNIVERSITY, #3
MESA AZ 85205
COLETTE M THOMPSON
6429 E UNIVERSITY DR
#4
MESA AZ 85205
FINANCIAL SERVICES-CCC
MINUTE ENTRY
Courtroom: OCH 001.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
TJ 2013-003854
09/18/2013
Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 2
9:55 a.m. This is the time set for Oral Argument Re: Defendant’s Motion to Stay
Sheriff’s Sale. Counsels, Charles Maxwell and Alan Quist, are present on behalf of Plaintiff.
Counsel, Travis Williams, is present with Defendant, Edith Poggi.
A record of the proceedings is made by audio and/or videotape in lieu of a court reporter.
Argument is presented.
Based upon the matters presented,
IT IS ORDERED staying the Sherriff’s Sale scheduled for September 19, 2013, pursuant
to the following conditions:
1.
Defendant is to post with the Clerk of Court $2,500.00 by close of
business, today.
2.
Copy of the receipt is to be electronically or hand delivered to Plaintiff
the same day posted.
3.
Defendant is to file with the Court a notice of posting.
In the event Defendant posts the monies ordered above, the Court will issue an order
addressing additional security as a condition for the stay in accordance with Rule 62(B).
Plaintiff’s motion concerning the jurisdictional issue is to be filed with the Court no later
than close of business September 25, 2013.
Any response to Plaintiff’s motion is to be filed with the Court no later than close of
business, October 2, 2013.
Any reply to Defendant’s response is to be filed with the Court no later than close of
business, October 9, 2013 with a copy of same hand delivered to this division the same day
filed.
10:42 a.m. Matter concludes.
ALERT: The Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 2011-140 directs the Clerk's
Office not to accept paper filings from attorneys in civil cases. Civil cases must still be initiated
on paper; however, subsequent documents must be eFiled through AZTurboCourt unless an
exception defined in the Administrative Order applies.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
09/20/2013 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
TJ 2013-003854
09/19/2013
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
COMMISSIONER JAMES R. MORROW
S. Stulz
Deputy
VELDA ROSE ESTATES HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION
CHARLES E MAXWELL
v.
EDITH POGGI
C ADAM BUCK
KATHY COLE
6429 E UNIVERSITY DR, #1
MESA AZ 85205
JAMES HANLEY
6429 E UNIVERSITY DR
# 2
MESA AZ 85205
NONI JOHNSON
6429 E UNIVERSITY, #3
MESA AZ 85205
COLETTE M THOMPSON
6429 E UNIVERSITY DR
#4
MESA AZ 85205
MINUTE ENTRY
Judgment Debtor Edith Poggi filed a Motion to Stay Sheriff’s Sale in combination with
her Rule 60(c) Motion to Set Aside Judgment. On September 18, 2013, the Court stayed the
sheriff’s sale scheduled to be held on September 19, 2013, conditioned initially on Judgment

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
TJ 2013-003854
09/19/2013
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
Debtor’s posting $2,500.00 with the Clerk of Court on September 18, 2013. The Court noted
that it would issue an order addressing additional security to maintain the stay.
Rule 62(b) provides that “[i]n its discretion and on such conditions for the security of the
adverse party as are proper, the court may stay the execution of or any proceedings to enforce a
judgment pending the disposition of a . . . motion for relief from a judgment or order made
pursuant to subdivisions (a) and (c) of Rule 60.” Based upon the information provided during
the oral argument on September 18, 2013, the Court understands that Judgment Debtor receives
$2,500.00 a month in rent from the property subject to the sheriff’s sale. If the property is sold,
she would no longer be entitled to receive these monies. If the sale goes forward, there is no
assurance that Judgment Creditor would receive any monies from the sale, as Judgment Debtor
has asserted that the property is “under water.” Allowing Judgment Debtor to continue to
receive these monies during a stay of the Judgment Creditor’s attempt to collect on its judgment,
however, would appear to present the Judgment Debtor with a windfall. Therefore, in the
exercise of its discretion under Rule 62(b), the Court orders as a condition of the continued stay
of the sheriff’s sale that Judgment Debtor deposit $2,500.00 a month with the Clerk of Court.1 If
Judgment Debtor fails to meet the conditions for the stay, the Court will entertain an emergency
motion to lift the stay.
IT IS ORDERED setting the following conditions for the continued stay of the sheriff’s
sale pending the resolution of Judgment Debtor’s Rule 60(c) motion in this matter:
1.
Commencing in September, 2013, Judgment Debtor shall pay the sum of
$2,500.00 by the eighteenth day of each month to the Clerk of Court (cash or bond). If
the eighteenth day of the month falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the
payment is due on the next day the Clerk’s office is open to receive payments.
2.
The payments must be delivered on or before the due date (not mailed), so
Judgment Debtor may obtain a receipt for the payment from the Clerk. Judgment Debtor
must provide a copy of the Clerk’s receipt to the Judgment Creditor by email, hand-
delivering or faxing it to Judgment Creditor, through its attorney, on the same day that
the payment is made.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in the event Judgment Creditor believes that Judgment
Debtor has failed to comply with the conditions for the continuation of the sheriff’s sale, the

1 See Williams v. Miles, 212 Ariz. 155, 156, ¶ 6, 128 P.3d 778, 779, ¶ 6 (App. 2006)
(concerning stay of execution of a writ of restitution based on the deposit of monthly
rent payments in the context of an eviction action).

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
TJ 2013-003854
09/19/2013
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 3
Judgment Creditor shall file an emergency motion to lift the stay, which the Court intends to
address on an expedited basis.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties may file a motion for release asserting their
interest in the monies deposited with the Clerk upon the resolution of the Rule 60(c) motion.
ALERT: The Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 2011-140 directs the Clerk's
Office not to accept paper filings from attorneys in civil cases. Civil cases must still be initiated
on paper; however, subsequent documents must be eFiled through AZTurboCourt unless an
exception defined in the Administrative Order applies.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
10/11/2013 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
TJ 2013-003854
10/10/2013
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
COMMISSIONER JAMES R. MORROW
S. Stulz
Deputy
VELDA ROSE ESTATES HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION
CHARLES E MAXWELL
v.
EDITH POGGI
C ADAM BUCK
KATHY COLE
6429 E UNIVERSITY DR, #1
MESA AZ 85205
JAMES HANLEY
6429 E UNIVERSITY DR
# 2
MESA AZ 85205
NONI JOHNSON
6429 E UNIVERSITY, #3
MESA AZ 85205
EDITH POGGI P L L C
4111 N 54TH ST
CAVE CREEK AZ 85331
COLETTE M THOMPSON
6429 E UNIVERSITY DR
#4
MESA AZ 85205
MINUTE ENTRY

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
TJ 2013-003854
10/10/2013
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
Judgment Debtor Edith Poggi filed a Motion to Stay Sheriff’s Sale in combination with
her Rule 60(c) Motion to Set Aside Judgment. A conditional stay was granted (Minute Entries
filed September 19 and 20, 2013. Plaintiff filed a Motion Regarding Jurisdiction on September
25, 2013, and the Court has reviewed the response and reply memoranda.
To the extent she wishes to do so, Defendant needs to pursue her motion to set aside the
judgment before the court that issued the judgment. Plaintiff relied on Marquez v. Perez, 14
Ariz. App. 451, 484 P.2d 220 (1971), to support its argument that “only the court wherein the
judgment was rendered may vacate and set it aside in a proper case.” Defendant did not
distinguish the present situation from that addressed in Marquez. Based on the information
presented, Marquez is controlling.
IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant’s Motion to set Aside Judgment filed on September
13, 2013, without prejudice to Defendant raising these arguments before the court that issued the
judgment.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion Regarding Jurisdiction.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED lifting the stay of the Sheriff’s Sale previously ordered in
minute entries filed on September 19 and 20, 2013.
ALERT: The Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 2011-140 directs the Clerk's
Office not to accept paper filings from attorneys in civil cases. Civil cases must still be initiated
on paper; however, subsequent documents must be eFiled through AZTurboCourt unless an
exception defined in the Administrative Order applies.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
11/08/2013 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
TJ 2013-003854
11/07/2013
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
COMMISSIONER JAMES R. MORROW
S. Stulz
Deputy
VELDA ROSE ESTATES HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION
CHARLES E MAXWELL
v.
EDITH POGGI
C ADAM BUCK
KATHY COLE
6429 E UNIVERSITY DR, #1
MESA AZ 85205
JAMES HANLEY
6429 E UNIVERSITY DR
# 2
MESA AZ 85205
NONI JOHNSON
6429 E UNIVERSITY, #3
MESA AZ 85205
EDITH POGGI P L L C
4111 N 54TH ST
CAVE CREEK AZ 85331
COLETTE M THOMPSON
6429 E UNIVERSITY DR
#4
MESA AZ 85205
FINANCIAL SERVICES - TRUST CCC
MINUTE ENTRY

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
TJ 2013-003854
11/07/2013
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
Judgment Creditor Velda Rose Estates Homeowners Association filed a Motion for
Release of Monies on October 14, 2013. Judgment Debtor Edith Poggi filed a response, and
Judgment Creditor filed reply. Having considered the arguments of the parties and good cause
appearing,
IT IS ORDERED granting Judgment Creditor’s Motion for Release of Monies.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court release the $2,500.00 posted on
October 17, 2013, by Judgment Debtor to Judgment Creditor through its attorney, Charles E.
Maxell, 4854 East Baseline Road, Suite 104, Mesa, Arizona 85206.
ALERT: The Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 2011-140 directs the Clerk's
Office not to accept paper filings from attorneys in civil cases. Civil cases must still be initiated
on paper; however, subsequent documents must be eFiled through AZTurboCourt unless an
exception defined in the Administrative Order applies.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Filed ***

11/12/2014 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

TJ 2013-003854

11/07/2014

Docket Code 042
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
COMMISSIONER JAMES R. MORROW
S. Ortega/W. Thompson

Deputy

VELDA ROSE ESTATES HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION
CHARLES E MAXWELL

v.

EDITH POGGI
EDITH POGGI
4132 N 3RD AVE #2
PHOENIX AZ 85327

KATHY COLE
6429 E UNIVERSITY DR, #1
MESA AZ 85205
JAMES HANLEY
6429 E UNIVERSITY DR
# 2
MESA AZ 85205
NONI JOHNSON
6429 E UNIVERSITY, #3
MESA AZ 85205
EDITH POGGI P L L C
4111 N 54TH ST
CAVE CREEK AZ 85331
COLETTE M THOMPSON
6429 E UNIVERSITY DR
#4
MESA AZ 85205

MINUTE ENTRY

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

TJ 2013-003854

11/07/2014

Docket Code 042
Form V000A
Page 2

The parties filed a Stipulation to (1) Vacate All Judgments, Garnishments, Orders and
Decrees and (2) to Dismiss with Prejudice (Stipulation) on October 17, 2014.1

This matter is before this Court as a transcript of a judgment rendered by another court.
This Court’s authority concerning the judgment rendered by another court is limited. For
example, although the superior court may strike off a transcribed judgment when it shows on its
face that it is void for want of jurisdiction, Field Enterprises Educational Corp. v. Golatt, 199
Pa.Super. 422, 185 A.2d 666 (1962), it has no jurisdiction to do so when the judgment is valid on
the face of the record, and only the court wherein the judgment was rendered may vacate and set
it aside in a proper case. Howard v. Boyce, 245 N.C. 255, 118 S.E.2d 897 (1961); Keys v.
Schultz, 212 Minn. 109, 2 N.W.2d 549 (1942); 49 C.J.S. Judgments s 235; 21 C.J.S. Courts s
501. See, Marquez v. Perez, 14 Ariz. App. 451, 484 P.2d 220 (1971). The parties did not include
citation to any legal authority to the contrary in their Stipulation. Therefore, this Court leaves it
to the parties to re-urge their Stipulation to vacate and set aside the judgment rendered by the
Justice Court in the proper forum.

With respect to the collection matters litigated in this Court based on the transcript of
judgment, the Court grants the relief requested by the parties.

IT IS ORDERED vacating any writs and/or collection orders issued in this matter,
pursuant to the Stipulation of the parties.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any bonds currently held by the Clerk of the Superior
Court in this matter are exonerated and may be released to Defendant through her attorney
pursuant to the Stipulation of the parties (Defendant’s attorney to submit a proposed form of
order by November 24, 2014, specifying the bonds/monies Defendants seeks to have released by
the Clerk in this matter).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is dismissed with prejudice, each party to
bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs.

/ s / COMMISSIONER JAMES R. MORROW

JUDICIAL OFFICER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

1 The Stipulation was filed by attorneys Kent S. Berk and Clint G. Goodman on behalf of their respective
clients. The Court is not aware of either attorney previously appearing in this matter.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
12/18/2013 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
TJ 2013-003854
12/17/2013
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
COMMISSIONER JAMES R. MORROW
S. Stulz
Deputy
VELDA ROSE ESTATES HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION
CHARLES E MAXWELL
v.
EDITH POGGI
C ADAM BUCK
KATHY COLE
6429 E UNIVERSITY DR, #1
MESA AZ 85205
JAMES HANLEY
6429 E UNIVERSITY DR
# 2
MESA AZ 85205
NONI JOHNSON
6429 E UNIVERSITY, #3
MESA AZ 85205
EDITH POGGI P L L C
4111 N 54TH ST
CAVE CREEK AZ 85331
COLETTE M THOMPSON
6429 E UNIVERSITY DR
#4
MESA AZ 85205
MINUTE ENTRY

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
TJ 2013-003854
12/17/2013
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
The Court has received and reviewed Defendants’ Motion to Release / Exonerate Funds.
The Court notes that the monies were released November 8, 2013 per this Court’s
November 7, 2013 minute entry. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED Denying Defendant’s Motion as moot.
ALERT: The Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 2011-140 directs the Clerk's
Office not to accept paper filings from attorneys in civil cases. Civil cases must still be initiated
on paper; however, subsequent documents must be eFiled through AZTurboCourt unless an
exception defined in the Administrative Order applies.

Documents