Superior Court Condo Case
The court refused to dismiss owner-versus-owner contract and implied-covenant claims based on Orchard House condominium bylaws.
Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Reilly v. Jackson Builders / Orchard House Condominium Association, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2023-010115.
Scope note: This page covers Reilly v. Jackson Builders / Orchard House Condominium Association (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2023-010115) as a public Arizona superior-court condominium case guide. It is built from the court’s filed minute entries, especially the November 9, 2023 ruling on the neighboring owners’ motion to dismiss and the March 12 and May 9, 2024 inspection rulings. The court observed that these condominium claims arise within a larger construction-defect lawsuit, so this guide focuses on the condominium bylaw-standing and discovery rulings rather than the underlying construction-defect claims. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The takeaway
The court allowed condominium owners to pursue breach-of-contract and implied-covenant claims against neighboring owners based on Orchard House bylaws. The ruling found the bylaws made owners responsible for damage to another private unit and did not give the board exclusive authority to sue over those private-unit damages.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Michal Reilly and Jennifer Reilly (Plaintiffs)
Condominium owners who alleged renovation work below them damaged their private unit.
Respondent Side
- Ryan Sieker and Katie Rogers (Defendants / counterclaimants)
Neighboring owners who moved to dismiss the bylaw-based contract claims and later opposed Orchard House’s inspection position. - Orchard House Condominium Homeowners Association (Defendant)
Condominium association that participated in the construction-defect dispute and obtained inspection and fee relief. - Jackson Builders of Arizona LLC and Stewart Jackson (Defendants)
Contractor defendants against whom default-judgment proceedings were entered.
Neutral Parties
- Scott A. Blaney (Judge)
Superior Court judge who issued the bylaw, inspection, reconsideration, and dismissal-calendar rulings.
What happened
The dispute arose after renovation work in one condominium unit allegedly damaged another owner’s unit in the same Orchard House condominium complex. The plaintiffs sued the neighboring owners, a contractor, the association, and others. The neighboring owners moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ breach-of-contract and implied-covenant claims.
On November 9, 2023, the court denied dismissal. The ruling considered the bylaws because they were central to the complaint. The court recognized that covenants can operate as contracts among owners, then focused on bylaw language making an owner responsible for damages to another apartment unit caused by failure to perform required work inside that owner’s own apartment.
The court rejected the argument that only the board could sue. It distinguished private-unit damage from common-area damage, found the bylaws did not clearly give the board exclusive enforcement authority over private-unit damages, and noted the uncertainty of a restriction that would deprive an owner of a common-law remedy.
The later inspection entries involved Orchard House’s attempt to inspect repair work. On March 12, 2024, the court found the requested inspection relevant and proportional, found the neighboring owners had violated a stipulation and Rule 34 by covering the area with drywall, and ordered a new inspection with drywall removal at their expense. On May 9, 2024, the court denied reconsideration and awarded Orchard House reasonable fees and costs for the noncompliance.
Procedural timeline
Complete uploaded source-document index
This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/reilly-v-jackson-builders-orchard-house-condominium-association/raw/: 23 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.
Order
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Reassignment
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Reassignment
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Judgment Entered
Type: Decision or judgment
Default-judgment entry approving a formal written default judgment against Stewart Jackson.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying dismissal of owner contract and implied-covenant claims based on condominium bylaws that made owners responsible for damage to another private unit.
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.
Under Advisement Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Under-advisement ruling compelling Rule 34 inspection access for Orchard House, requiring drywall removal at the neighboring owners’ expense, and ordering reimbursement of Orchard House’s expert cost.
Order
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Default Hearing Set
Type: Court/source PDF
Shows the filer trying to move the case forward because the opposing party had not timely appeared.
Default Judgment
Type: Decision or judgment
Default-judgment hearing entry granting judgment against Jackson Builders of Arizona LLC after expert testimony.
Order
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
Ruling denying reconsideration of the inspection order and awarding Orchard House reasonable fees and costs for the neighboring owners’ discovery noncompliance.
Order
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Order
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Order
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
Ruling deeming the neighboring owners’ protective-order motion withdrawn after their reply withdrew it.
Judgment Entered
Type: Decision or judgment
Judgment entry approving Orchard House’s formal attorneys’ fee judgment against the neighboring owners.
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.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Order requiring the neighboring owners to reply to Orchard House’s response concerning compliance with the March 12 inspection ruling.
Order
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Dismissal Calendar
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Dismissal Calendar
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Judgment
Type: Decision or judgment
Judgment dismissing the remaining case without prejudice after dismissal-calendar deadlines passed without required action.
FAQ
Did the court let owners sue other owners under the condominium bylaws?
Yes. The court held the plaintiffs adequately pleaded breach-of-contract and implied-covenant claims based on bylaw language making owners responsible for damage to another private unit.
Did the board have exclusive authority to bring the private-unit damage claim?
No, at least at the pleading stage. The court read the bylaws as giving the board authority over common-area damage, but not exclusive authority over another owner’s private-unit damage claim.
What inspection relief did Orchard House obtain?
The court ordered the neighboring owners to provide inspection dates, make the areas accessible by removing drywall at their expense, and reimburse Orchard House for the expert cost incurred at the failed inspection.
Why is this case marked must-read?
The ruling gives substantive trial-court analysis of condominium bylaws as enforceable covenants and addresses who may sue over private-unit damage under those governing documents.
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 | CV2023-010115 (Maricopa County Superior Court) |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Superior Court |
| Decision / key date | November 9, 2023 |
| Judge / panel | Hon. Scott A. Blaney, Hon. Mary C. Cronin, Hon. Danielle J. Viola, Hon. Joan M. Sinclair |
| Parties | Michal and Jennifer Reilly (Plaintiffs, condominium owners) v. Jackson Builders of Arizona LLC, Stewart Jackson, Orchard House Condominium Homeowners Association, Ryan Sieker, Katie Rogers, and others |
| Governing law |
|
| Topics | cc-and-rscovenantsgood-faith-and-fair-dealingprocedureattorneys-fees |
| Outcome / holding | The superior court held that the plaintiffs adequately pleaded contract and implied-covenant claims based on Orchard House condominium bylaws because the bylaws made owners responsible for damage to another owner’s private unit and did not give the board exclusive authority to sue for those private-unit damages. |
| Primary public source | View source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Uploaded source package | 23 PDFs |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 6 roadmap entries |
| Video overview | No video embed currently configured |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 4 questions |
| Curated download aliases | 1 download link |
Key Issues & Findings
In a construction-defect dispute at Orchard House Condominiums, the superior court refused to dismiss the plaintiffs’ breach-of-contract and implied-covenant claims against neighboring owners. The court treated the condominium bylaws as a contract binding the owners, relied on language making an owner responsible for damage to another private unit, and rejected the argument that only the board could sue. Later, the court enforced Orchard House’s agreed Rule 34 inspection against the neighboring owners, required drywall removal at their expense, ordered reimbursement of Orchard House’s expert cost, and awarded Orchard House fees and costs after noncompliance.
The November 9, 2023 ruling began with the Rule 12(b)(6) standard and considered the bylaws because they were central to the claims. The court recognized Arizona law treating deed restrictions and planned-community covenants as contractual, then focused on Article V, Section 4 of the Orchard House bylaws. That provision made each owner responsible for maintenance and repair work within the owner’s apartment when failure to do that work would affect another owner, and it expressly referenced damage to another apartment unit.
The court distinguished damage to private units from damage to common areas. It read the bylaws as allowing an individual owner to seek damages for injury to that owner’s private unit, while recognizing the board’s authority over common-area damage. The ruling refused to infer a board-only veto over private-unit damage claims when the bylaws did not clearly say that, and it questioned whether such a limitation on a common-law remedy would be enforceable.
The discovery rulings were narrower but reinforced the association’s litigation role. On March 12, 2024, the court found Orchard House’s requested inspection relevant and proportional, found the neighboring owners violated their stipulation and Rule 34 by covering the inspection area with drywall, ordered a new inspection window with drywall removal at their expense, and required reimbursement of Orchard House’s expert cost. On May 9, 2024, the court denied reconsideration and awarded Orchard House reasonable fees and costs for the noncompliance.
This case is useful for Arizona condominium disputes because the court let owners use condominium bylaws as the contract source for private-unit damage claims against other owners. The ruling did not force the dispute through the association board when the claimed harm was to another owner’s private unit rather than common area.
It also shows how an association can obtain discovery relief when repair work inside a unit affects claims or defenses in a construction dispute. The court compelled access to the relevant areas, shifted expert costs, and later awarded fees and costs after finding the opposing owners had violated the inspection order.