Assessments & Records | A.R.S. §§ 33-1255, 33-1258 | CV2021-018876
In this Maricopa County Superior Court case, a condominium owner whose unit has no balcony argued she could not be assessed for balcony repairs and that the association mishandled her records requests. The court held the recorded Declaration—not the Condominium Act’s default rule—controls how limited-common-element costs are allocated, found the 2020 balcony work was repair rather than structural alteration, and rejected the records claim because A.R.S. § 33-1258 creates no private right of action and no specific withheld document was identified.
Last updated July 1, 2026. Case: Pat Mah v. Canterra at Squaw Peak Condominium Association, Inc., Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2021-018876.
Scope note: This page covers Pat Mah v. Canterra at Squaw Peak Condominium Association, Inc. (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2021-018876) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s own filed minute entries, including the September 26, 2022 under-advisement ruling and the December 29, 2025 summary-judgment ruling; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: final judgment was entered April 30, 2026 and the homeowner’s appeal was pending when this page was last updated — the outcome could change on appeal. 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 every remaining claim. It held that the recorded Declaration makes maintenance, repair, and replacement of limited common elements such as balconies a Common Expense shared equally by all unit owners — a permissible deviation from the default allocation in A.R.S. § 33-1255(C) — and that the 2020 balcony work was repair rather than a structural alteration requiring a special assessment. The homeowner’s records claim failed because A.R.S. § 33-1258 does not create a private right of action and, in any event, most requested documents had already been disclosed and no specific improperly withheld document was identified.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Pat Mah (Plaintiff)
Condominium owner in the Canterra at Squaw Peak community whose unit has patios rather than a balcony; represented by counsel for most of the case and self-represented by the time of the 2025 summary-judgment ruling. - John Sud (Counsel)
Counsel for Plaintiff Pat Mah in the early phase of the case, including the 2022 motion-to-dismiss briefing and argument. - Andrew B. Turk (Counsel)
Counsel appearing for Plaintiff Pat Mah at the September 26, 2022 oral argument. - Jonathan A. Dessaules (Counsel)
Dessaules Law Group
Counsel of record for Plaintiff Pat Mah during the 2024 amended-complaint phase.
Respondent Side
- Canterra at Squaw Peak Condominium Association, Inc. (Defendant)
Phoenix condominium association that assessed the 2020 balcony repair work to all unit owners as a Common Expense and prevailed on every claim. - Henry Nickolas Eicher (Counsel)
Counsel of record for the Association through the motion-to-dismiss and amended-complaint phases. - Jonathan D. Ebertshauser (Counsel)
Counsel appearing for the Association, including at the September 26, 2022 oral argument. - Kyle Banfield (Counsel)
Counsel for the Association in the summary-judgment and post-judgment phase, including the fee application.
Neutral Parties
- Scott A. Blaney (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court judge who issued the September 2022 under-advisement ruling, the December 2025 summary-judgment ruling, and the post-judgment rulings. - Margaret R. Mahoney (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court judge assigned earlier in the case; set the 2022 oral argument on the partial motion to dismiss.
What happened
Canterra at Squaw Peak is a Phoenix condominium community governed by a recorded Declaration (CC&Rs). Some units have balconies and walk decks, which the Declaration classifies as limited common elements serving a single unit; other units, including Pat Mah’s, have patios instead. Under Section 4.2 of the Declaration, the Association is responsible for maintaining, repairing, and replacing the limited common elements as part of the community’s Common Expenses, and under Section 6.7 all regular assessments are fixed at an equal amount for every unit.
In 2020 the Association performed repair work on certain balconies and walk decks and assessed the cost against all unit owners. Mah sued the Association in late 2021. She sought a declaratory judgment that she could not be assessed for balcony repairs — arguing that a 1996 amendment to the CC&Rs limited those costs to the owners who actually benefit from the balconies — and that the work should have been funded through a special assessment on the benefited owners.
The Association moved to dismiss. After full briefing and an oral argument at which the court struck improper attachments from both sides, Judge Scott Blaney issued an under-advisement ruling on September 26, 2022. The court found that the Declaration allocates limited-common-element repair costs to all owners as a Common Expense, and that this deviation from the default allocation in A.R.S. § 33-1255(C) — which would assign such costs to the benefited units — is expressly permitted by the statute’s opening qualifier, “[u]nless otherwise provided for in the declaration.” The court dismissed the 1996-amendment claim and ordered the parties to meet and confer or mediate.
In February 2024 the court granted Mah leave to file a first amended complaint, but only in part: the dismissed 1996-amendment claim could not be revived. The amended complaint asserted declaratory relief, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and a claim that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 by failing to allow reasonable access to association records. The claims rested on allegations that the Association paid for balcony repairs without authority, owed her reimbursement for window and door maintenance, and used improper budgeting to create a “slush fund.”
The Association moved for summary judgment on all remaining claims. After an October 29, 2025 oral argument, the court granted the motion in a December 29, 2025 under-advisement ruling. It found the 2020 balcony work was “repair, maintenance, and/or replacement” rather than a structural alteration or addition, so the Association was authorized to pay for it with regular assessments; the contract and good-faith claims failed for the same reasons, and the slush-fund arguments were “confusing and unsupported by the record.” On the records claim, the court held that A.R.S. § 33-1258 does not create a private right of action, that most of the requested documents had already been disclosed before and during the litigation, and that Mah identified no specific document the Association improperly withheld.
The endgame ran through spring 2026. The court denied Mah’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion for relief in January, rejected her attempt to supplement it in February, and on April 30, 2026 entered a formal judgment against her that included the Association’s attorneys’ fees and costs. In May 2026 the court denied her motion for a stay pending appeal and to set a bond, and her appeal remained pending when this page was last updated.
Procedural timeline
Complete uploaded source-document index
This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/pat-mah-v-canterra-at-squaw-peak-condominium-association/raw/: 24 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.
Under Advisement Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
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.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Under Advisement Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
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 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.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Judgment Entered
Type: Decision or judgment
Decision document; read it to understand the controlling result before moving to later filings.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
FAQ
Why did a unit owner without a balcony have to help pay for balcony repairs?
Because the community’s recorded Declaration says so. The Declaration classifies balconies and walk decks as limited common elements, makes their maintenance, repair, and replacement a Common Expense of the Association, and fixes regular assessments at an equal amount for every unit. The court held that this allocation is a permissible deviation from A.R.S. § 33-1255(C), whose default rule assigning limited-common-element costs to the benefited units applies only “[u]nless otherwise provided for in the declaration.”
What is the difference between a regular assessment and a special assessment in this case?
Under the Declaration, ordinary maintenance, repair, and replacement of common and limited common elements is funded through equal regular assessments on all units. Structural alterations or additions to a building require prior approval by a majority of owners and first mortgagees and are funded through a special assessment allocated by ownership interest. The case turned in part on this line: the court found the 2020 balcony work was repair, maintenance, and/or replacement — not a structural alteration — so regular assessments were the proper funding mechanism.
Why did the records claim under A.R.S. § 33-1258 fail?
Two independent reasons. First, the court held the statute does not create a private right of action for an allegedly aggrieved party. Second, the Association showed through the record that most of the documents Mah sought had already been disclosed to her before and during the litigation, and her remaining requests were vague, broad categories; she identified no specific document that was improperly withheld.
What is an under-advisement ruling?
When an Arizona superior-court judge takes a motion “under advisement” after briefing or argument, the later written decision is filed as an under-advisement ruling in the court’s minute entries. These rulings are the trial court’s substantive written decisions — the September 2022 and December 2025 rulings in this case each set out findings, legal analysis, and orders — and they are public records available through the Clerk of the Superior Court.
Did the homeowner recover anything?
No. The court dismissed her core declaratory theory in 2022, granted the Association summary judgment on every remaining claim in December 2025, denied her Rule 60(b)(6) motion, and in April 2026 entered judgment against her that included the Association’s attorneys’ fees and costs. In May 2026 the court also denied her request for a stay pending appeal.
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 courts apply a condominium declaration’s cost-allocation provisions over the Condominium Act’s defaults, and what a records-access claim under A.R.S. § 33-1258 needs to survive. Note that an appeal was pending when this page was last updated, so the outcome could still change.
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 | CV2021-018876 (Maricopa County Superior Court) |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Superior Court |
| Decision / key date | December 29, 2025 |
| Judge / panel | Hon. Scott A. Blaney, Hon. Margaret R. Mahoney |
| Parties | Pat Mah (Plaintiff, condominium owner) v. Canterra at Squaw Peak Condominium Association, Inc. (Defendant) |
| Governing law | |
| Topics | assessmentscc-and-rsrecords-requestsprocedureattorneys-fees |
| Outcome / holding | The superior court granted the association summary judgment on all remaining claims, holding that the Declaration permissibly allocates limited-common-element repair costs to all unit owners as an equal Common Expense notwithstanding A.R.S. § 33-1255(C)’s default rule, that the 2020 balcony work was repair rather than a structural alteration requiring a special assessment, and that the A.R.S. § 33-1258 records claim failed both because the statute creates no private right of action and because no specific improperly withheld document was identified. |
| Primary public source | View source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Uploaded source package | 24 PDFs |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 10 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
A Phoenix condominium owner whose unit has patios rather than a balcony sued her association after it assessed 2020 balcony and walk-deck repair costs against all unit owners. She sought a declaratory judgment that a 1996 CC&R amendment limited those costs to the owners who benefit from the balconies, and later added claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant, and denial of records access under A.R.S. § 33-1258. In a September 2022 under-advisement ruling the court dismissed the core declaratory theory, holding that the recorded Declaration makes limited-common-element repairs a Common Expense shared equally by all units and that this deviation from A.R.S. § 33-1255(C)’s default allocation is expressly permitted by the statute. In a December 2025 under-advisement ruling the court granted the association summary judgment on all remaining claims, finding the 2020 balcony work was repair rather than structural alteration and that the records claim failed because the statute creates no private right of action and no specific withheld document was identified. Judgment with attorneys’ fees and costs was entered against the owner in April 2026; her appeal is pending.
On the assessment question, the court’s September 2022 under-advisement ruling walked through the Declaration: Section 3.5 classifies balconies and walk decks as limited common elements; Section 4.2 makes their maintenance, repair, and replacement part of the Common Expenses the association bears; and Section 6.7 fixes all regular assessments at an equal amount for every unit. The court acknowledged that the Arizona Condominium Act’s default rule, A.R.S. § 33-1255(C), would allocate limited-common-element expenses to the units that benefit from their exclusive use, but held the Declaration’s different allocation controls because the statute applies only “[u]nless otherwise provided for in the declaration.” On that basis the court dismissed the claim that a 1996 amendment restricted balcony-repair costs to benefited owners, adopting the association’s interpretation of the Declaration and declining to reach its res judicata and collateral estoppel defenses.
At summary judgment in December 2025, the court found the association had established through competent record evidence — and the court’s own earlier rulings — that the 2020 balcony work was repair, maintenance, and/or replacement rather than a structural alteration or addition, so the association was authorized to fund it through regular assessments rather than the special-assessment mechanism reserved for structural changes. The declaratory, breach-of-contract, and implied-covenant claims all failed on that same footing, and the court found the plaintiff’s “slush fund” budgeting arguments confusing and unsupported by the record.
On the records claim, the court gave two independent grounds: A.R.S. § 33-1258 does not create a private right of action for an allegedly aggrieved party, and the record showed most of the requested documents had already been disclosed before and during the litigation while the remaining requests were vague, broad categories. Because the plaintiff identified no specific document improperly withheld, summary judgment was warranted. The court then denied her Rule 60(b)(6) motion for lack of good cause, entered judgment including the association’s attorneys’ fees and costs in April 2026, and denied a stay pending appeal in May 2026.
This case is a clear, recent illustration of two recurring Arizona condominium fights. First, cost allocation: owners often assume the Condominium Act guarantees that only the units that benefit from a limited common element — a balcony, a walk deck — pay for its upkeep. The ruling shows that A.R.S. § 33-1255(C) is only a default; a recorded declaration that spreads those costs equally across all units controls, even for owners whose units lack the element entirely.
Second, records access: the court held A.R.S. § 33-1258 creates no private right of action and that a records plaintiff must point to specific documents actually withheld — broad categorical demands, or requests for material already produced, will not survive summary judgment. The decision also shows the financial risk of pressing weak claims: the owner ended the case with a judgment against her for the association’s attorneys’ fees and costs. As a superior-court decision it binds only the parties, and an appeal was pending as of mid-2026.