Assessment-Lien Foreclosure | CC&R Enforcement | CV2018-090922
In this Maricopa County Superior Court case, a homeowners association filed a foreclosure complaint against a homeowner who had become significantly delinquent on her monthly assessments, asserting contractual lien rights under the community’s recorded CC&Rs and statutory lien rights under Arizona law. The self-represented homeowner’s response rested on a large partial payment she made after the complaint was filed. The court held that the recorded CC&Rs created a binding obligation to pay assessments on time, that the association had convincingly shown she failed to stay current, and that her written response and oral argument stated no factual or legal defense — so the association was entitled to summary judgment, with the post-complaint payment credited against the amount awarded.
Last updated July 1, 2026. Case: Palm Valley Community Association v. Stella Benton, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2018-090922.
Scope note: This page covers Palm Valley Community Association v. Stella Benton (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2018-090922) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s own filed minute entries, including the September 26, 2018 under-advisement ruling granting the association summary judgment; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: the collected minute entries end with the September 26, 2018 ruling, which directed the association to lodge a proposed form of judgment by October 12, 2018 and permitted an attorneys’-fee application upon entry of judgment. The entry of final judgment, any fee award, and anything that happened afterward are not reflected in the collected record or on this page. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The takeaway
The superior court granted the Association summary judgment on its assessment-lien foreclosure complaint. It found the Association had firmly established that, as a property owner in the Palm Valley Community subject to the recorded CC&Rs, the homeowner had an ongoing, binding, and absolute legal obligation to make timely assessment payments — with failure carrying strict penalties up to and including foreclosure — and had convincingly shown she failed to remain current. Her written response and oral argument stated no factual or legal defense. The court awarded the Association the $4,622.64 principal balance sought in the complaint, less her post-complaint payment of $4,095.50, plus assessments, late charges, or fees incurred after the complaint was filed, and held the Association entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in collection.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Palm Valley Community Association (Plaintiff)
Homeowners association for the Palm Valley Community that filed the May 2018 foreclosure complaint to collect delinquent assessments and prevailed on summary judgment. - Mark W. Waldron (Counsel)
Counsel of record listed for the Association in the minute-entry captions and the court’s party records. - Samuel C. Richardson (Counsel)
Counsel who appeared for the Association at the September 19, 2018 oral argument and is named in the under-advisement ruling.
Respondent Side
- Stella Benton (Defendant)
Homeowner in the Palm Valley Community who became delinquent on monthly assessments; she represented herself throughout the collected minute entries, including at the September 19, 2018 oral argument.
Neutral Parties
- David J. Palmer (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court judge who set and heard the summary-judgment oral argument and issued the September 26, 2018 under-advisement ruling.
What happened
Stella Benton owned a home in the Palm Valley Community, a development governed by duly recorded Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Under the CC&Rs, she was obligated to pay monthly fees assessed by the Palm Valley Community Association. According to the court’s later ruling, she became delinquent in those obligations “to a significant degree.”
On May 3, 2018, the Association filed a complaint seeking foreclosure on its contractual lien rights under the CC&Rs and its statutory lien rights under applicable Arizona statutory provisions. The principal balance at the time of filing was $4,622.64, which included unpaid assessments plus interest, late charges, and other fees imposed because of the missed payments.
On June 14, 2018, the Association moved for summary judgment with an accompanying statement of facts. Benton, representing herself, filed a “Request to Deny Motion for Summary Judgment,” which the court treated as her response; the Association filed a reply on June 21, 2018. Benton’s response pointed to a significant payment of $4,095.50 she made on May 31, 2018 — a few weeks after the complaint was filed — which the Association characterized as four months late and less than the full amount owed.
Judge David J. Palmer set oral argument for September 19, 2018. At the hearing, attorney Samuel C. Richardson appeared for the Association and Benton appeared on her own behalf; after roughly sixteen minutes of argument, the court took the motion under advisement.
In a September 26, 2018 under-advisement ruling, the court recited Arizona’s summary-judgment standard — judgment is appropriate only when no genuine issues of material fact exist and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party — and found that the Association had firmly established Benton’s ongoing, binding, and absolute obligation to make timely assessment payments, with failure carrying strict penalties up to and including foreclosure. It further found the Association had convincingly shown she failed to remain current, and that her written response and oral argument stated no factual or legal defense to the complaint or the motion.
The court therefore granted summary judgment in the amount of $4,622.64, less the $4,095.50 payment made since the case began, plus any assessments, late charges, or fees incurred between the filing of the complaint and the date of judgment. It directed the Association to lodge a proposed form of judgment by October 12, 2018 — with Benton free to object — and held the Association entitled to collect the attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred in its collection efforts, to be sought by application upon entry of judgment. The collected minute entries end with this ruling.
Procedural timeline
Complete uploaded source-document index
This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/palm-valley-community-association-v-stella-benton/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.
Oral Argument Set
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Oral Argument
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Under Advisement Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
FAQ
What was this case about?
Delinquent HOA assessments. Stella Benton owned a home in the Palm Valley Community subject to recorded CC&Rs that required her to pay monthly assessments to the Association. After she became significantly delinquent, the Association filed a complaint in May 2018 seeking to foreclose on its contractual lien rights under the CC&Rs and its statutory lien rights under Arizona law, with a principal balance of $4,622.64 at filing.
Didn’t the homeowner pay most of what she owed?
She made a significant payment — $4,095.50 on May 31, 2018 — but only after the complaint had been filed on May 3, and the Association characterized the payment as four months late and less than the full amount owed. The court credited the payment against the judgment amount, but it did not defeat the case: summary judgment was still granted for the remaining balance plus assessments, late charges, or fees incurred after the complaint was filed.
Why did the homeowner lose at summary judgment?
Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court found the Association had firmly established Benton’s binding obligation to pay assessments on time and had convincingly shown she failed to remain current — and, in the court’s words, her “own written Response, as well as her oral argument, fails to state any factual or legal defense” to the complaint or the motion. With no disputed material facts, the Association was entitled to judgment.
What exactly did the court order?
The September 26, 2018 under-advisement ruling granted the Association’s motion for summary judgment in the amount of $4,622.64, less the $4,095.50 payment made since the case began, plus any subsequently incurred assessments, late charges, or fees through the date of judgment. The Association was ordered to lodge a proposed form of judgment by October 12, 2018, with Benton able to file timely objections, and was held entitled to collect the attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred in its collection efforts, to be sought by application upon entry of judgment.
Was the home actually foreclosed?
The collected minute entries do not say. The complaint sought foreclosure on the Association’s lien rights, and the ruling granted summary judgment on the amounts owed and set up the judgment and fee-application process — but the collected record ends with the September 26, 2018 ruling, before entry of a final judgment. Whether a foreclosure sale, payoff, or other resolution followed is not reflected in the minute entries this page is built from.
Is this decision binding on other Arizona HOA disputes?
No. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties to the case and are not precedent. The case is still useful reading: it shows how an Arizona assessment-lien foreclosure case proceeds from complaint to summary judgment, how a court treats a large partial payment made after suit is filed (credited against the judgment, but not a defense), and that a losing homeowner can also be ordered to pay the association’s collection attorneys’ fees.
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 / citation | CV2018-090922 (Maricopa County Superior Court) |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Superior Court |
| Decision / key date | September 26, 2018 |
| Judge / panel | Hon. David J. Palmer |
| Parties | Palm Valley Community Association (Plaintiff, homeowners association) v. Stella Benton (Defendant, homeowner) |
| Topics | foreclosureassessmentscc-and-rsattorneys-fees |
| Outcome / holding | The superior court granted the Association summary judgment on its assessment-lien foreclosure complaint, finding no genuine issue of material fact: the recorded CC&Rs imposed an ongoing, binding, and absolute obligation to pay assessments on time, the Association convincingly showed the homeowner failed to remain current, and her response and oral argument stated no factual or legal defense. Judgment was awarded for the $4,622.64 principal balance less her $4,095.50 post-complaint payment, plus subsequently incurred assessments, late charges, or fees, with the Association entitled to its reasonable collection attorneys’ fees. |
| Primary public source | View source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Uploaded source package | 3 PDFs |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 7 roadmap entries |
| Video overview | No video embed currently configured |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 6 questions |
| Curated download aliases | 1 download link |
Key Issues & Findings
Palm Valley Community Association sued homeowner Stella Benton in May 2018 to foreclose on its contractual lien rights under the community’s recorded CC&Rs and its statutory lien rights under Arizona law, after she became significantly delinquent on her monthly assessments; the principal balance at filing was $4,622.64, including unpaid assessments, interest, late charges, and other fees. The Association moved for summary judgment in June 2018. Benton, representing herself, responded by pointing to a $4,095.50 payment she made on May 31, 2018 — after the complaint was filed — which the Association characterized as four months late and less than the full amount owed. After a September 19, 2018 oral argument, the court issued a September 26, 2018 under-advisement ruling granting the Association summary judgment for $4,622.64 less the $4,095.50 payment, plus post-complaint assessments, late charges, or fees, and held the Association entitled to apply for its reasonable collection attorneys’ fees upon entry of judgment. The collected minute entries end with that ruling.
The court began from Arizona’s summary-judgment standard, quoting Johnson v. Earnhardt’s Gilbert Dodge, Inc. and Orme School v. Reeves: judgment is appropriate only if no genuine issues of material fact exist and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, with the facts viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and the motion denied if the opposing evidence would let reasonable people reach a different conclusion.
Applying that standard, the court found the Association had “firmly established” that Benton, as a property owner in the Palm Valley Community subject to the duly recorded CC&Rs, had an ongoing, binding, and absolute legal obligation to make timely assessment payments — an obligation whose breach carries strict penalties including late fees, fines, and other financial sanctions, up to and including foreclosure by the Association to collect the unpaid amounts. The Association had further established convincingly that Benton failed to remain current on her assessments.
Benton’s defense reduced to the $4,095.50 payment she made on May 31, 2018, roughly four weeks after the complaint was filed — a payment the Association characterized as four months late and less than the full amount owed. The court found that her written response and her oral argument failed to state any factual or legal defense to the complaint or the summary-judgment motion. With no genuine issue of material fact, the court granted judgment for the $4,622.64 principal balance less the $4,095.50 payment, plus any assessments, late charges, or fees incurred between the complaint and the date of judgment, directed the Association to lodge a proposed form of judgment by October 12, 2018 (with Benton able to object), and held the Association entitled to collect the attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred in its collection efforts by application upon entry of judgment.
This case is a compact, real-world example of the most common kind of Arizona HOA litigation: an assessment-lien collection and foreclosure action against a delinquent homeowner. It shows how quickly such a case can move — complaint in May, summary-judgment motion six weeks later, judgment granted within five months — and how little a homeowner’s position matters at summary judgment unless it raises an actual factual or legal defense to the delinquency itself.
The treatment of the homeowner’s $4,095.50 payment is the practical lesson. Paying most of the arrears after the association has already sued reduces the judgment (the court credited every dollar) but does not undo the case: the association still recovered the remaining balance, everything that accrued after filing, and its reasonable collection attorneys’ fees. For homeowners, the economics favor resolving delinquencies before a complaint is filed; for associations, the ruling illustrates that recorded CC&Rs plus a documented payment history is ordinarily enough to carry a summary-judgment motion. As a superior-court decision it binds only these parties, and the collected minute entries end at the ruling stage, before entry of final judgment.