Board Recall | A.R.S. § 33-1243(H) | CV2017-056168
A condominium board member removed by homeowners challenged the recall process. The court held the association and manager complied with A.R.S. § 33-1243(H) and the Declaration, and that a board seat was not a contractual benefit protected by the Declaration.
Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Robert Peshek v. Anasazi Village Condominiums Homeowners Association, Inc., Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2017-056168.
Scope note: This page covers Robert Peshek v. Anasazi Village Condominiums Homeowners Association, Inc., et al. (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2017-056168) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s own filed minute entries, especially the August 20, 2018 order granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: the last collected minute entry is the August 20, 2018 summary-judgment ruling, which ordered defendants to submit a form of judgment by September 25, 2018. Any later judgment, appeal, settlement, or collection history is outside these records. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The takeaway
For a condominium board recall, the court focused on compliance with A.R.S. § 33-1243(H) and the Declaration: a sufficient petition, written notice of the special meeting, a quorum, an opportunity to be heard, and a majority vote of those voting. Because the defendants showed that process was followed and the plaintiff offered only unsupported assertions of irregularities, the court granted summary judgment to the association, AAM, and Jensen on all claims.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Robert Peshek (Plaintiff)
Former Anasazi Village board member removed by homeowners at a May 25, 2016 special meeting; challenged the recall process and asserted claims against the association, AAM, and Jensen. - Justin R. Cooley (Counsel)
Counsel for Peshek at the August 17, 2018 oral argument.
Respondent Side
- Anasazi Village Condominiums Homeowners Association, Inc. (Defendant)
Condominium association whose homeowners voted to remove Peshek from the board; prevailed on summary judgment. - AAM, LLC (Defendant)
Community-management company whose representative received the recall petition, assessed that it had more than 100 signers, and later gave Peshek notice of his removal; prevailed on summary judgment. - Paul Jensen (Defendant)
Individual defendant whom Peshek identified as the catalyst for the recall; the court held motive was not material because the statute and Declaration allowed removal with or without cause if procedure was followed. - Emily H. Mann (Counsel)
Counsel for Anasazi, Jensen, and AAM at the August 17, 2018 oral argument. - Troy B. Stratman (Counsel)
Counsel listed for Anasazi, Jensen, and AAM in the case-party data and earlier minute entries.
Neutral Parties
- Hon. Bruce R. Cohen (Judge)
Judge who heard oral argument and issued the August 20, 2018 summary-judgment ruling.
What happened
Robert Peshek served on the board of the Anasazi Village condominium association from 2014 until May 2016. According to the court’s summary-judgment findings, homeowners removed him from the board on or about May 25, 2016, and he sued Anasazi, Paul Jensen, and AAM alleging that the removal was improper.
The court found that a recall action began when homeowner Michael McGrane submitted a petition to AAM representative Wayne Yurk on or about May 2, 2016. Yurk assessed that the petition had more than 100 signers. The board then called a special meeting of members and sent a May 9, 2016 letter to homeowners with notice of the May 25 meeting, the location, the time, the subject matter, and an absentee ballot.
Peshek actually received the notice and ballot on or before May 18, 2016. He mailed in a ballot voting against his own removal, and the ballot was received by the board or AAM on May 24, the day before the special meeting. At the May 25 meeting, the board found a quorum, members were given an opportunity to be heard, Peshek did not appear, and more than 50% of those eligible to vote under the quorum voted to remove him. Wayne Yurk then gave Peshek notice that he had been removed.
The August 20, 2018 ruling treated the breach-of-contract and state-law claims together because both depended on the recall procedure. The court quoted A.R.S. § 33-1243(H), including the petition threshold, special meeting, quorum, and majority-vote requirements, and found the Declaration allowed removal of a board member with or without cause while incorporating that statutory procedure. On that record, the court held the defendants had shown no genuine dispute that all statutory and Declaration requirements were met.
Peshek’s response did not create a triable factual issue. The court said he asserted possible irregularities in petition signatures, notice, and the opportunity to be heard, but offered no admissible or reliable evidence to support those claims or counter the defendants’ showing. It also held that even if Jensen initiated the recall or had an improper motive, that did not matter because the governing law required only proper procedure, which was followed.
The court also rejected good-faith-and-fair-dealing and tortious-interference theories. Under the Declaration, Peshek had rights such as undisturbed property use, common-area maintenance, and enforcement of behaviors affecting value, but he had no contractual right to be on the board. The court found no supported damages from removal from an uncompensated board position and no admissible evidence that defendants caused him to lose expected benefits under the Declaration. Summary judgment was granted in full.
Video overview: recalling a condo board member under A.R.S. § 33-1243(H)
This AI-generated video overview summarizes Peshek v. Anasazi Village Condominiums Homeowners Association, where the Maricopa County Superior Court granted the association, board member Paul Jensen, and management company AAM, LLC summary judgment after finding that the recall and removal of a director complied with A.R.S. § 33-1243(H) and the community’s Declaration. It is a plain-language summary generated from the court filings; the ruling itself controls.
Listen: audio deep dive on the ruling
An AI-generated audio overview walking through the court’s reasoning — the recall procedure, the opportunity-to-be-heard finding, why a board seat was not a contractual right, and the summary-judgment disposition. Generated from the case’s Superior Court filings; verify against the linked ruling below.
Procedural timeline
Complete uploaded source-document index
This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/peshek-v-anasazi-village-condominiums-homeowners-association/raw/: 13 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.
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.
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.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Status Conference
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
Oral-argument setting order placing defendants’ summary-judgment motion for hearing after briefing on the motion was complete.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling waiving compulsory arbitration by stipulation and referring the matter to a mandatory settlement conference.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling granting the parties’ emergency stipulation allowing telephonic appearance at the August 17, 2018 summary-judgment oral argument.
Under Advisement Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Oral-argument minute entry taking defendants’ summary-judgment motion under advisement after argument from Peshek’s counsel and defense counsel.
Under Advisement Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Under-advisement ruling granting summary judgment in its entirety to Anasazi, Paul Jensen, and AAM on all claims arising from Peshek’s removal from the board.
FAQ
What statute did the court apply to the board recall?
The court applied A.R.S. § 33-1243(H), the condominium statute governing removal of board members by unit owners. The ruling quoted the provisions for petition threshold, special meeting notice, quorum, and majority vote.
Why did the recall procedure survive summary judgment?
The defendants showed that a homeowner submitted a petition, AAM assessed more than 100 signers, written notice and ballots were sent, Peshek received notice and voted, a quorum was present, members could be heard, and more than 50% of eligible voters under the quorum voted to remove him. Peshek did not provide admissible evidence creating a genuine dispute on those facts.
Did the court require cause to remove a board member?
No. The court found that both A.R.S. § 33-1243(H) and the Declaration allowed a board member to be removed with or without cause. Even a claimed improper motive by another board member was not material if the required procedure was followed.
Was serving on the board treated as a contractual right?
No. The court held that the Declaration gave Peshek rights such as property use and common-area maintenance, but did not give him a contractual right to serve on the board.
What happened to the good-faith and tortious-interference claims?
They failed on summary judgment. The court found no material fact showing that removal from the board denied Peshek benefits under the Declaration, no supported improper interference, and no supported damages from losing an uncompensated board position.
Is this ruling precedential?
No. It is a Maricopa County Superior Court ruling, so it binds only the parties. It is still useful as an example of how one trial court analyzed a condominium board recall under A.R.S. § 33-1243(H) and a declaration.
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 | CV2017-056168 (Maricopa County Superior Court) |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Superior Court |
| Decision / key date | August 20, 2018 |
| Judge / panel | Hon. Bruce R. Cohen, Hon. Susan M. Brnovich |
| Parties | Robert Peshek (Plaintiff, former board member) v. Anasazi Village Condominiums Homeowners Association, Inc., Paul Jensen, and AAM, LLC (Defendants) |
| Governing law | |
| Topics | board-governancevoting-and-electionselectionscc-and-rsgood-faith-and-fair-dealing |
| Outcome / holding | The superior court granted summary judgment to Anasazi, Paul Jensen, and AAM on all claims, holding that Peshek’s removal from the condominium association board complied with A.R.S. § 33-1243(H) and the Declaration, that a board seat was not a contractual right under the Declaration, and that Peshek did not present admissible evidence creating a triable issue on breach of contract, good faith and fair dealing, or tortious interference. |
| Primary public source | View source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Uploaded source package | 13 PDFs |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 7 roadmap entries |
| Video overview | Peshek v. Anasazi Village Condominiums HOA — Board Recall Under A.R.S. § 33-1243(H) |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 6 questions |
| Curated download aliases | 1 download link |
Key Issues & Findings
Robert Peshek, a former Anasazi Village board member, sued Anasazi Village Condominiums Homeowners Association, Paul Jensen, and AAM, LLC after homeowners removed him from the board at a May 25, 2016 special meeting. The court granted the defendants summary judgment on every claim. It found that a homeowner submitted a recall petition to AAM’s representative, the board called and noticed a special meeting, Peshek received the notice and absentee ballot, Peshek voted against his removal, a quorum was present, members had an opportunity to be heard, and more than 50% of eligible voters under the quorum voted to remove him. The court held that the procedure complied with A.R.S. § 33-1243(H) and the condominium Declaration, that the Declaration did not give Peshek a contractual right to stay on the board, and that he produced no admissible evidence of irregularities, breach, tortious interference, or damages.
The court began with the recall process. It found that Michael McGrane submitted a recall petition to AAM representative Wayne Yurk on or about May 2, 2016, that Yurk assessed more than 100 signatures, and that the board called a special meeting. A May 9 letter to all homeowners gave the meeting date, location, time, and subject matter and included an absentee ballot. Peshek actually received the notice and ballot before the meeting, returned a ballot voting against his own removal, and did not appear at the May 25 meeting. The court found that a quorum existed, members had an equal opportunity to be heard, and more than 50% of eligible voters under the quorum voted to remove him.
On the governing law, the court quoted and applied A.R.S. § 33-1243(H), including the requirements for a petition, notice, special meeting timing, quorum, and majority vote. It also found that the Declaration allowed a board member to be removed with or without cause and incorporated the statute’s removal procedure. Because the defendants had shown compliance with both the statute and Declaration, the burden shifted to Peshek to produce evidence of a genuine factual dispute. The court found he had not done so: he raised alleged irregularities about petition signatures, notice, and the opportunity to be heard, but offered no admissible or reliable evidence to counter the defendants’ showing.
The remaining claims failed for the same reason. The court found no material issue showing breach of contract by Jensen or the association; even if Jensen had initiated the recall for an improper motive, the statute and Declaration required only that the proper procedure be followed. The good-faith-and-fair-dealing claim failed because the Declaration gave Peshek rights such as property use and common-area maintenance, but not a contractual right to serve on the board. The tortious-interference claim failed because the defendants showed no breach, no improper interference, and no supported damages from removal from an uncompensated board position.
This is a useful Arizona condominium governance ruling because it applies the board-removal provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1243(H) to a contested recall. The court treated procedure as the decisive issue: petition threshold, written notice, special meeting, quorum, opportunity to be heard, and majority vote. It did not require cause for removal because both the statute and the Declaration allowed removal with or without cause.
The ruling also shows the limits of turning a board recall into damages litigation. A homeowner may disagree with recall politics or suspect bad motives, but at summary judgment the homeowner must produce admissible evidence of a procedural violation, breach, improper interference, and damages. Here the court held that service on the board was not a contractual right and was not compensated, so removal from the board did not itself show loss of benefits under the Declaration. As a superior-court decision it binds only the parties and is not precedent.