ADRE Appeals | Trial De Novo | LC2025-000288
Represented by Jonathan A. Dessaules, homeowner Nicholas Thomas appealed an adverse ADRE ruling to Maricopa County Superior Court under A.R.S. § 12-904. Through strategic coordination with parallel litigation, the parties reached a settlement and the owner’s appeal was dismissed with prejudice on his own voluntary dismissal.
Last updated September 17, 2026. Case: Nicholas Thomas v. Tanglewood Association, Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2025-000288 (minute entries use LC2025-000288-001 DT); ADRE / OAH Agency Case No. 25F-H037-REL; Hon. Joseph P. Mikitish & Hon. Jillian Francis.
Scope note: This page covers Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2025-000288, an appeal under the Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions Act (A.R.S. § 12-904) from ADRE Agency Case No. 25F-H037-REL. Homeowner Nicholas Thomas, represented by Jonathan A. Dessaules and Thomas E. Raccuia of the Dessaules Law Group, petitioned for review and moved for a trial de novo. Following proceedings before Judge Joseph P. Mikitish and Judge Jillian Francis regarding parallel litigation and service, the parties executed a comprehensive settlement agreement, resulting in a formal dismissal with prejudice under J.R.A.D. 13 and Ariz. R. Civ. P. 54(c). This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The takeaway
Dismissed with prejudice. Following administrative appeal under A.R.S. § 12-904 and motion for trial de novo regarding an ADRE decision, the parties achieved a comprehensive settlement resolving their parallel disputes, resulting in final dismissal with prejudice under J.R.A.D. 13 and Ariz. R. Civ. P. 54(c).
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Nicholas Thomas (Petitioner/Appellant)
Sun City homeowner; represented by Jonathan A. Dessaules; petitioned for judicial review of ADRE decision. - Jonathan A. Dessaules (Counsel)
Dessaules Law Group
Counsel of record for Petitioner/Appellant Nicholas Thomas. - Thomas E. Raccuia (Counsel)
Dessaules Law Group
Associate counsel for Petitioner/Appellant Nicholas Thomas who appeared at status conferences.
Respondent Side
- Tanglewood Association (Respondent/Appellee)
Arizona nonprofit corporation
HOA respondent; represented pro per by president Jason Mendoza; resolved dispute via settlement. - Jason Mendoza (Association President)
Tanglewood Association
President of Tanglewood Association who appeared at virtual hearings on behalf of the HOA.
Neutral Parties
- Hon. Joseph P. Mikitish (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court
Superior Court Judge who oversaw initial administrative review and trial de novo proceedings. - Hon. Jillian Francis (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court
Superior Court Judge who presided over settlement conferences and entered final dismissal order. - Arizona Department of Real Estate (Originating Agency)
State regulatory agency (Case No. 25F-H037-REL) whose decision was appealed for judicial review.
What happened
Homeowner Nicholas Thomas initiated administrative proceedings before the Arizona Department of Real Estate against Tanglewood Association (Agency Case No. 25F-H037-REL).
Following the agency’s administrative decision, Thomas retained Jonathan A. Dessaules and filed a timely Complaint for Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions under A.R.S. § 12-904 in Maricopa County Superior Court (LC2025-000288), requesting a trial de novo under § 12-910.
Assigned to Judge Joseph P. Mikitish, the court stayed briefing while addressing service of process and coordinating with a parallel superior court civil action.
The case was reassigned to Judge Jillian Francis. On April 22, 2026, Judge Francis granted Thomas’s motion for reconsideration, vacating an impending dismissal order and scheduling a virtual status conference.
At the status conference on May 26, 2026, associate counsel Thomas E. Raccuia and Tanglewood president Jason Mendoza confirmed that a settlement agreement had been reached resolving both cases. On June 8, 2026, Judge Francis signed a final order dismissing the appeal with prejudice.
Video overview of the case record
An AI-generated video overview of Nicholas Thomas v. Tanglewood Association (Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2025-000288). Dismissed with prejudice. Judicial review of ADRE decision resulted in settlement agreement and formal dismissal. This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own records control.
Listen: audio deep dive on the case record
An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the case record in Nicholas Thomas v. Tanglewood Association. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked records below.
Procedural timeline
Homeowner Nicholas Thomas files complaint for judicial review under A.R.S. § 12-904 (LC2025-000288).
Judge Joseph P. Mikitish orders appellant to file motion for trial de novo.
Court stays briefing pending status conference regarding trial de novo process.
Status conference held regarding service of process and parallel litigation.
Court resets status conference on motion for trial de novo before Judge Jillian Francis.
Judge Francis grants motion for reconsideration and vacates impending dismissal.
Status conference held where counsel reports complete settlement agreement reached.
Judge Francis signs formal order dismissing appeal with prejudice under J.R.A.D. 13 and Rule 54(c).
Complete source-document index
This index contains 9 PDFs 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.
Minute Entry Complaint For Judicial Review
Type: Court order/minute entry
Initial minute entry ordering motion for trial de novo following complaint for judicial review.
Minute Entry Setting Trial De Novo Status Conference
Type: Court order/minute entry
Minute entry staying briefing and setting status conference regarding trial de novo.
Minute Entry Status Conference On Service
Type: Court order/minute entry
Minute entry addressing service of process and parallel superior court litigation.
Minute Entry Resetting Status Conference
Type: Court order/minute entry
Minute entry resetting status conference before Judge Jillian Francis.
Minute Entry Order Hearing Vacated
Type: Court order/minute entry
Minute entry ordering request for hearing under A.R.S. § 12-904.
Minute Entry Granting Motion For Reconsideration
Type: Court order/minute entry
Minute entry granting motion for reconsideration and vacating impending dismissal.
Minute Entry Resetting Virtual Status Conference
Type: Court order/minute entry
Minute entry resetting virtual status conference via Court Connect.
Minute Entry Status Conference Settlement Noted
Type: Court order/minute entry
Minute entry recording report of settlement agreement and setting dismissal deadline.
Final Order Dismissing Appeal With Prejudice
Type: Court order/minute entry
Final formal order signed by Judge Jillian Francis dismissing appeal with prejudice.
FAQ
What was the origin of Nicholas Thomas v. Tanglewood Association?
The dispute originated as an administrative complaint before the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE / OAH Agency Case No. 25F-H037-REL). Dissatisfied with the agency’s administrative decision, homeowner Nicholas Thomas exercised his statutory right under A.R.S. § 12-904 to appeal to Maricopa County Superior Court.
What is a motion for trial de novo in an administrative appeal?
Under the Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions Act (A.R.S. § 12-910), if an administrative proceeding was conducted without a full evidentiary record or where statutory criteria are met, an appellant may request a trial de novo, requiring the Superior Court to hear testimony and receive evidence as an original trial.
How did the Superior Court handle parallel proceedings?
Judges Joseph P. Mikitish and Jillian Francis stayed briefing and conducted multiple virtual status conferences with counsel Thomas E. Raccuia and association president Jason Mendoza to coordinate the administrative review with a parallel civil action in superior court.
How was the case ultimately resolved?
The parties executed a comprehensive settlement agreement resolving both the administrative claims and the parallel litigation. On June 8, 2026, Judge Jillian Francis entered a final judgment under J.R.A.D. 13 and Ariz. R. Civ. P. 54(c) dismissing the appeal with prejudice.
Why is this case noteworthy for homeowners challenging ADRE decisions?
It illustrates that an unfavorable ADRE administrative ruling is not the end of the road. With competent counsel, an owner can file a timely appeal under § 12-904, seek a trial de novo, and leverage superior court oversight to negotiate a settlement.
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 | Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2025-000288 |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Superior Court |
| Decision / key date | June 8, 2026 |
| Judge / panel | Hon. Joseph P. Mikitish, Hon. Jillian Francis |
| Parties | Nicholas Thomas (Appellant) v. Tanglewood Association (Appellee) |
| Governing law |
|
| Topics | ProcedureBoard GovernanceCC&Rs |
| Outcome / holding | Dismissed with prejudice. Following administrative appeal under A.R.S. § 12-904 and motion for trial de novo regarding an ADRE decision, the parties achieved a comprehensive settlement resolving their parallel disputes, resulting in final dismissal with prejudice under J.R.A.D. 13 and Ariz. R. Civ. P. 54(c). |
| Primary public source | View hosted source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Reviewed source package | 9 PDFs |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 8 roadmap entries |
| Video overview | Nicholas Thomas v. Tanglewood Association |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 5 questions |
| Featured download links | 2 download links |
Key Issues & Findings
Homeowner Nicholas Thomas challenged an administrative ruling of the Arizona Department of Real Estate (Agency Case No. 25F-H037-REL) concerning Tanglewood Association. Retaining the Dessaules Law Group, Thomas filed a timely notice of appeal and complaint for judicial review under A.R.S. § 12-904 in Maricopa County Superior Court, requesting a trial de novo under § 12-910. The matter was initially assigned to Judge Joseph P. Mikitish, who stayed formal briefing while addressing service of process and parallel litigation. The case was reassigned to Judge Jillian Francis. Following virtual status conferences between homeowner counsel Thomas E. Raccuia and HOA president Jason Mendoza, the parties reached a comprehensive settlement agreement. On June 8, 2026, Judge Francis entered a final appealable order under J.R.A.D. 13 and Rule 54(c) dismissing the appeal with prejudice.
Under Arizona Revised Statutes § 12-904, an action to review a final administrative decision must be commenced by filing a notice of appeal within 35 days, identifying the decision sought to be reviewed and setting forth the issues. Appellant filed a complaint for judicial review and requested a trial de novo pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-910.
The Superior Court managed the administrative appeal in tandem with parallel superior court litigation between the parties. Judge Mikitish stayed briefing to allow service completion and coordination. When procedural issues arose regarding agency rehearing, Judge Francis granted reconsideration on April 22, 2026, vacating an impending dismissal notice and convening a status conference. At the May 26, 2026 conference, counsel for Thomas confirmed that a settlement agreement had been finalized resolving all parallel matters. The court placed the matter on the dismissal calendar, and after Appellant filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, Judge Francis entered a formal order on June 8, 2026, dismissing the appeal with prejudice with Rule 54(c) finality.
This docket provides a clear template for homeowners navigating the complex transition from an ADRE administrative hearing to Superior Court judicial review. Filing for judicial review under A.R.S. § 12-904 preserves an owner's legal remedies and creates significant settlement leverage, particularly when accompanied by a request for trial de novo. It demonstrates the importance of legal representation in coordinating administrative review with parallel civil claims to achieve a final, binding resolution.