HOA Judgment | CV2021-094264
The court approved and settled the formal written judgment for Suntrails III.
Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Suntrails III Homeowners Association v. John Ward, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2021-094264.
Current-status note: Allegations, settlements, procedural dismissals, and notices are not findings of liability unless a cited court order expressly makes that finding.
Scope note: This page covers Suntrails III Homeowners Association v. John Ward (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2021-094264) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s collected minute entries through 2021-12-01; 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 court approved and settled the formal written judgment for Suntrails III.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Suntrails III Homeowners Association (Plaintiff)
Listed in the court party records as plaintiff. Court party records list counsel as Kristopher Amundsen.
Respondent Side
- John Ward (Defendant)
Opposing homeowner or property-side party identified in the case caption.
Neutral Parties
- Hon. Rodrick Coffey (Judge)
Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.
What happened
The court approved and settled a formal written judgment for Suntrails III Homeowners Association after placing the case on a dismissal calendar unless judgment or dismissal papers were filed.
The minute entries identify the association and opposing property-side parties, then record the court’s disposition.
The collected record does not state a detailed legal analysis or full judgment terms, so this guide does not infer them.
Video overview of the ruling
An AI-generated video overview of Suntrails III Homeowners Association v. John Ward (CV2021-094264 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). Suntrails III obtained a formal judgment in a thin minute-entry record. This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own ruling controls.
Listen: audio deep dive on the ruling
An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the court’s reasoning and disposition in Suntrails III Homeowners Association v. John Ward. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.
Procedural timeline
IT IS ORDERED continuing the Telephonic Order to Show Cause Return Hearing to October 22, 2021 at 4:30 p.
IT IS ORDERED placing this case on the Court’s Dismissal calendar for dismissal, without further notice, on February 20, 2022.
IT IS ORDERED approving and settling the formal written judgment signed by the Court on November 29, 2021 and filed [entered] by the clerk on December 1, 2021.
Complete source-document index
This index contains 3 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.
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.
Judgment Entered
Type: Decision or judgment
Judgment-entry minute entering or approving judgment for the association.
FAQ
What did the superior court decide?
The court approved and settled the formal written judgment for Suntrails III.
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 Suntrails III Homeowners Association.
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 | CV2021-094264 (Maricopa County Superior Court) |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Superior Court |
| Decision / key date | December 1, 2021 |
| Judge / panel | Hon. Rodrick Coffey |
| Parties | Suntrails III Homeowners Association (Plaintiff) v. John Ward (Defendant) |
| Topics | AssessmentsLiensProcedure |
| Outcome / holding | The superior court approved and settled the formal written judgment for Suntrails III Homeowners Association, signed November 29, 2021 and entered December 1, 2021. The minute entry contains no substantive analysis of the assessment, lien, or foreclosure merits. |
| Primary public source | View source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Reviewed source package | 3 PDFs |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 3 roadmap entries |
| Video overview | Suntrails III Homeowners Association v. John Ward |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 5 questions |
| Featured download links | 1 download link |
Key Issues & Findings
The court approved and settled a formal written judgment for Suntrails III Homeowners Association after placing the case on a dismissal calendar unless judgment or dismissal papers were filed.
The court approved and settled a formal written judgment for Suntrails III Homeowners Association after placing the case on a dismissal calendar unless judgment or dismissal papers were filed.
The collected entries do not include substantive analysis of assessment calculations, lien priority, or CC&R interpretation. The page therefore treats the ruling as a procedural judgment record only.
This case is useful as a public record of an HOA judgment or foreclosure disposition, but the collected minute entries are too thin to serve as guidance on contested HOA law.