Receivership & Post-Judgment Motions | CV2015-053091
The collected entries show dismissal of a Hilton Casitas receivership case and later denial of Rule 60 efforts to unwind judgments.
Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Hilton Casitas Council Of Co-owners v. R L Whitmer, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2015-053091.
Current-status note: This page is published as a litigation record based on the source files available through 2026-03-30. Later filings, appeals, mandates, settlements, or dismissal orders may change the posture; the linked court records control.
Pipeline note: the public raw-source folder contains source files that were not in the last staged NotebookLM source set. The page remains a source-linked record, but generated media should be rebuilt or rechecked after the staged source manifest catches up.
Allegations, settlements, procedural dismissals, and notices are not findings of liability unless a cited court order expressly makes that finding.
Video/audio is held from this page until a fresh media package is generated from the approved source record.
Scope note: This page covers Hilton Casitas Council Of Co-owners v. R L Whitmer (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2015-053091) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s collected minute entries through 2026-03-30; 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 sourced record is procedural: dismissal and post-judgment denial, not a detailed interpretation of HOA governing documents.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Procaccianti Az Ii, L P (Intervenor)
Listed in the court party records as intervenor. Court party records list counsel as Dina Aouad. - Colleen London (Plaintiff)
Listed in the court party records as plaintiff. Court party records list counsel as Ross Meyer. - Diana R Shaffer (Plaintiff)
Listed in the court party records as plaintiff. Court party records list counsel as Robert Porter. - R L Whitmer (Plaintiff)
Opposing homeowner or property-side party identified in the case caption. Court party records list counsel as Ross Meyer.
Respondent Side
- Zadok Eli (Consolidated)
Listed in the court party records as consolidated. - Hilton Casitas Council Of Co-owners (Defendant)
Association party in the HOA-related dispute. - Hilton Casitas Council Of Homeowners (Defendant)
Listed in the court party records as defendant. Court party records list counsel as R Hill. - City Of Scottsdale (Garnishee Defendant)
Listed in the court party records as garnishee defendant. - Jpmorgan Chase Bank N A (Garnishee Defendant)
Listed in the court party records as garnishee defendant.
Neutral Parties
- Hon. Susan M. Brnovich (Judge)
Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries. - Hon. John R. Hannah Jr (Judge)
Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries. - Hon. Theodore Campagnolo (Judge)
Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries. - Hon. Melissa Iyer Julian (Judge)
Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.
What happened
The case involved a request for receivership relief against Hilton Casitas and related defendants.
After oral argument in January 2016, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, denied the request for an evidentiary hearing, and found in favor of the defendants on the receivership application.
The post-judgment docket later became part of consolidated Rule 60 proceedings. In August 2019, the court denied Rule 60(d)(3) and Rule 60(b)(6) relief, denied motions to vacate judgments, and found attorneys’ fees under A.R.S. § 12-349 appropriate.
Later entries reflect additional post-judgment requests and record-correction issues, but the collected minutes do not supply a fresh merits ruling on association governance.
Procedural timeline
IT IS ORDERED granting Intervenor Procaccianti AZ II, L.
IT IS ORDERED granting the Motion to Intervene.
IT IS ORDERED Procaccianti AZ II, L.
IT IS ORDERED setting Oral Argument on Plaintiff’s Request for Evidentiary Hearing on Receivership Application and Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on January 15, 2016 at 1:30 p.
IT IS ORDERED the motion for new trial is denied.
Minute entry filed.
IT IS ORDERED Plaintiffs' Motion to Vacate Judgment is denied.
the Court finds that they are not entitled to such an order so long as the amount of the bond remains at issue.
IT IS ORDERED granting the Motion, all in accordance with the formal written Order Discharging Garnishee (Non-Earnings) signed by the court on June 7, 2019 and entered (filed) by the clerk on June 10, 2019.
IT IS ORDERED denying the Motion to Consolidate Cases, without prejudice to Plaintiff re-filing a motion to consolidate that contains sufficient bases for the Court to determine if consolidation is appropriate.
IT IS ORDERED setting a telephonic Scheduling Conference for the purpose of setting briefing deadlines and an oral argument date regarding Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b)(6) and (d)(3) Motions to Vacate Judgment and Request for a New Trial on August 7, 2019 at 10:45 a.
IT IS ORDERED setting Oral Argument on Plaintiffs’ Rule 60 (b)(6) and (d)(3) Motions to Vacate Judgment and Request for New Trial on August 22, 2019 at 10:00 a.
Complete source-document index
This index contains 26 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.
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.
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
Minute entry granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss, denying a receivership evidentiary hearing, and finding for Hilton Casitas and Procaccianti on the receivership application.
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.
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.
Minute Entry
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.
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.
Oral Argument
Type: Court/source PDF
Minute entry denying Rule 60(d)(3) and Rule 60(b)(6) relief and finding attorneys’ fees under A.R.S. § 12-349 appropriate.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Minute Entry
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.
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
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.
FAQ
What did the superior court decide?
It dismissed the receivership case and later denied Rule 60 relief.
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 Hilton Casitas Council Of Co-owners.
Does this replace legal advice?
No. This is an educational case guide based on public minute entries, not legal advice.
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 | CV2015-053091 (Maricopa County Superior Court) |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Superior Court |
| Decision / key date | January 15, 2016 |
| Judge / panel | Hon. Melissa Iyer Julian, Hon. John R. Hannah Jr, Hon. Theodore Campagnolo, Hon. Susan M. Brnovich |
| Parties | R.L. Whitmer and other plaintiffs v. Hilton Casitas Council of Co-Owners and other defendants |
| Governing law |
|
| Topics | ProcedureAttorney FeesBoard Governance |
| Outcome / holding | The court dismissed the receivership case, denied the receivership hearing request, denied later Rule 60 efforts to vacate judgments, and awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees rather than double damages or other sanctions. |
| Primary public source | View source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Reviewed source package | 26 PDFs |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 12 roadmap entries |
| Video overview | Temporarily unavailable while the expanded case record is reviewed |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 5 questions |
| Featured download links | 1 download link |
Key Issues & Findings
The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, denied an evidentiary hearing on a receivership application, and found in favor of Procaccianti and Hilton Casitas on the receivership application. Later, in consolidated post-judgment proceedings, the court denied Rule 60 relief and found an award of attorneys’ fees under A.R.S. § 12-349 appropriate.
The January 2016 minute entry records oral argument on the defendants’ motion to dismiss and the plaintiffs’ request for an evidentiary hearing on a receivership application. The court granted dismissal, denied the hearing request, and found in favor of the defendants on the receivership application.
The later post-judgment record shows repeated attempts to vacate judgments across related cases. In August 2019, after consolidated briefing and argument, the court denied Rule 60(d)(3) and Rule 60(b)(6) relief, denied the motion to vacate judgments and request to vacate trial, and found attorneys’ fees under A.R.S. § 12-349 appropriate.
Later entries continued to reject attempts to reopen or expand post-judgment proceedings. The collected entries do not provide a full merits explanation for the original dismissal ruling.
This is a standard procedural record of an HOA-adjacent receivership and post-judgment attack. It is useful for tracking litigation history, but not a must-read HOA merits ruling because the core dismissal reasoning is mostly on the oral record rather than in the minute text.