Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association v. Ismael Rivas: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

HOA Foreclosure Judgment | CV2024-037894

The court granted judgment and approved the formal foreclosure judgment and order of sale.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association v. Ismael Rivas, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2024-037894.

Scope note: This page covers Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association v. Ismael Rivas (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2024-037894) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s collected minute entries through 2025-07-08; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: later filings, satisfaction history, appeals, and the formal written orders referenced by the minutes may not be included in these records. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The court granted judgment and approved the formal foreclosure judgment and order of sale.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association (Plaintiff)
    Association party in the HOA-related dispute. Court party records list counsel as Charlene Cruz.

Respondent Side

  • Ismael Rivas (Defendant)
    Opposing homeowner or property-side party identified in the case caption.
  • Judy Rivas Armendariz (Defendant)
    Listed in the court party records as defendant.
  • Robert Armendariz (Defendant)
    Listed in the court party records as defendant.

Neutral Parties

  • Hon. Scott (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.
  • Hon. Brian (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.

What happened

The court granted judgment against the named defendants and entered a formal Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure and Order of Sale for Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association.

The minute entries identify the association and opposing property-side parties, then record the court’s disposition.

The collected record does not state a detailed legal analysis or full judgment terms, so this guide does not infer them.

Procedural timeline

Step 2025-04-07 IT IS ORDERED that no action will be taken by this Division on the above-referenced document(s).
Step 2025-07-07 IT IS ORDERED vacating the Default Hearing set for today, July 7, 2025, and resetting the same to July 8, 2025 at 1:30 p.
Step 2025-07-08 IT IS ORDERED granting judgment against the named Defendants, all in accordance with the formal written Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure and Order of Sale signed by the Court on July 8, 2025 and filed (entered) by the Clerk on July 9, 2025.

Complete uploaded source-document index

This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/mountain-vista-ranch-owners-association-v-ismael-rivas/raw/: 3 PDFs. Files are ordered by the date/sequence embedded in the normalized filename; AI-generated review materials are labeled separately and should not be treated as court filings.

Source 1 2025-04-07

Default Judgment

Type: Decision or judgment

Shows the filer trying to move the case forward because the opposing party had not timely appeared.

Source 2 2025-07-07

Default Judgment

Type: Decision or judgment

Shows the filer trying to move the case forward because the opposing party had not timely appeared.

Source 3 2025-07-08

Judgment Entered

Type: Decision or judgment

Judgment-entry minute entering or approving the formal written Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure and Order of Sale.

FAQ

What did the superior court decide?

The court granted judgment and approved the formal foreclosure judgment and order of sale.

Is this superior-court ruling precedent?

No. It binds the parties in this case but is useful only as a public record of how this dispute was handled.

Does the page summarize addresses or unit numbers?

No. Residential addresses and unit identifiers from the minute entries are intentionally omitted.

Who was the association party?

The association party identified in the collected court records was Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association.

Does this replace legal advice?

No. This is an educational case guide based on public minute entries, not legal advice.

Case Dossier

This generated dossier mirrors the structured data surfaced on the OAH/ADRE case pages. It is added from the curated court-case record and the custom page source package, while the hand-authored analysis below remains intact.

Case Summary

Case ID / citationCV2024-037894 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateJuly 8, 2025
Judge / panelHon. Scott, Hon. Brian
PartiesMountain Vista Ranch Owners Association (Plaintiff) v. Ismael Rivas (Defendant)
Topics
assessmentsliensprocedureforeclosure
Outcome / holding

The court granted judgment and approved the formal foreclosure judgment and order of sale.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package3 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap3 roadmap entries
Video overviewNo video embed currently configured
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Curated download aliases1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

The court granted judgment against the named defendants and entered a formal Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure and Order of Sale for Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association.

Key Issues & Findings

The court granted judgment against the named defendants and entered a formal Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure and Order of Sale for Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association.

The collected entries do not include substantive analysis of assessment calculations, lien priority, or CC&R interpretation. The page therefore treats the ruling as a procedural judgment record only.

Why It Matters

This case is useful as a public record of an HOA judgment or foreclosure disposition, but the collected minute entries are too thin to serve as guidance on contested HOA law.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Facebook Comments Box