Architectural Approval & Records | A.R.S. § 33-1805 | CV2023-052094
In this Maricopa County Superior Court case, a Legend Trail homeowner claims her association breached its CC&R duties by approving her neighbors’ renovations — which she says are a nuisance that interferes with the quiet enjoyment of her home — and by failing to produce association records under A.R.S. § 33-1805. The court refused to force the neighbors into the case as indispensable parties, and in an October 18, 2024 under-advisement ruling denied the homeowner’s motion for partial summary judgment: the fence agreement she relied on exists only as a very basic description in committee meeting minutes, so contract formation and intent are jury questions, and she identified no authority that the records statute creates a private right of action for damages.
Last updated July 1, 2026. Case: Susan M. Marcella v. The Legend Trail Community Association, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2023-052094.
Scope note: This page covers Susan M. Marcella v. The Legend Trail Community Association (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2023-052094) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s own filed minute entries, including the February 15, 2024 ruling on the motion to join indispensable parties and the October 18, 2024 under-advisement ruling on the homeowner’s motion for partial summary judgment; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: the case was still active when this page was last updated — the most recent collected minute entry is a February 28, 2025 status conference setting deadlines for a proposed amended complaint, a new scheduling order, and a discovery-dispute statement, and no final judgment appears in the collected entries. The rulings described here are interim decisions that could be affected by later proceedings. 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 denied the homeowner’s motion for partial summary judgment on every ground. On the breach-of-contract and implied-covenant claims, the court found disputed issues of material fact: the agreement allowing the homeowner to erect a temporary fence “during” construction on her neighbor’s property is reflected only in a very basic description in the ACC’s meeting minutes, so whether the parties had a meeting of the minds — and what they intended — must be evaluated by a jury. On the records claim, the homeowner identified no authority that an association’s failure to promptly produce records under A.R.S. § 33-1805 creates a private right of action for damages, and no evidence of damages from the alleged violations. And promissory estoppel is an alternative remedy available only in the absence of a binding contract, so a plaintiff who alleges a binding contract cannot win summary judgment on that theory unless the contract claim fails. Earlier, the court also held the neighbors were not indispensable parties under Rule 19 because the complaint sought no declaratory or injunctive relief directed at their home — its only declaratory request was an order requiring the Association to produce records.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Susan M. Marcella (Plaintiff)
Homeowner in the Legend Trail master planned community. Sued the Association for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, “breach of duty,” and violations of A.R.S. § 33-1805, based in part on the Association’s approval of renovations to her neighbors’ home. - Mark Bainbridge (Counsel)
Counsel for Plaintiff Susan Marcella, appearing at the July 2024 scheduling-order argument, the October 2024 partial-summary-judgment argument, and the February 2025 status conference.
Respondent Side
- The Legend Trail Community Association (Defendant)
Community association that manages the Legend Trail master planned community and is responsible for enforcing the CC&Rs and approving renovations to community homes. - Martin Lorenzo (Defendant)
Owns a neighboring home in the community. Listed on the court’s party record as a defendant appearing pro per; the February 2024 ruling held that he and Peter Kraus were not indispensable to Marcella’s existing claims, without prejudice to amended pleadings. The July 2024 minutes list him with no address on record. - Peter Kraus (Defendant)
Co-owner of the neighboring home. Listed on the court’s party record as a defendant appearing pro per; the February 2024 ruling held that he and Martin Lorenzo were not indispensable to Marcella’s existing claims. The July 2024 minutes list him with no address on record. - Tessa Knueppel (Counsel)
Counsel for the Association, appearing at the July 2024 scheduling-order argument, the October 2024 partial-summary-judgment argument, and the February 2025 status conference. - Edith I. Rudder (Counsel)
Counsel appearing for the Association alongside Tessa Knueppel at the July 2024, October 2024, and February 2025 hearings; the minutes record her name as “Eadie Rudder” and “Edith Rudder.” - Tessa Hustead (Counsel)
Listed in the captions of the October and December 2023 minute entries in the counsel position on the Association’s side; the 2024–2025 captions list Tessa Knueppel in that position.
Neutral Parties
- Melissa Iyer Julian (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court judge who issued the February 2024 indispensable-parties ruling and the October 2024 under-advisement ruling and presided over the case’s hearings.
What happened
Legend Trail is a master planned community managed by The Legend Trail Community Association, which is responsible for enforcing the community’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements (the CC&Rs) and for approving renovations to community homes. Susan Marcella owns a home there; Martin Lorenzo and Peter Kraus own a neighboring home. In 2023 Marcella sued the Association (CV2023-052094), asserting damages claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, “breach of duty,” and violations of A.R.S. § 33-1805 relating to the production of association records. Her suit is premised in part on the Association’s approval of renovations to her neighbors’ home, which she contends violated the CC&Rs and constitutes a “nuisance” that interferes with the “quiet enjoyment” of her home.
The case’s first year was procedural. In October 2023 the court referred the parties to a mandatory settlement conference; in December it rejected their joint readiness certification for failing to certify good-faith settlement discussions. On December 13, 2023 the Association moved to join Lorenzo and Kraus as indispensable parties. The court granted that motion as unopposed on January 22, 2024 — then discovered Marcella had filed a belated response that had not yet appeared on the docket. In a February 15, 2024 ruling, Judge Melissa Iyer Julian vacated the mistaken order and denied the motion on the merits: despite the parties’ assumptions, the complaint contained no request for declaratory or injunctive relief compelling the Association to take any action against the Lorenzo/Kraus home — its only declaratory request was an order “requiring the Association to produce records” — so the neighbors were not indispensable to Marcella’s damages claims. The court denied the motion without prejudice to amended pleadings, stayed all deadlines to March 20, 2024, and warned that the case would go on the Rule 38.1 dismissal calendar if the parties failed to propose an amended schedule. The court’s later party record nonetheless lists Lorenzo and Kraus as defendants appearing pro per.
Scheduling and discovery fights followed. The Association asked in May 2024 to amend the March 28, 2024 scheduling order; the court denied Marcella leave to file a sur-reply and heard argument on July 25, 2024, granting the request in part and entering an amended Tier 2 scheduling order. At the same hearing the court deemed Marcella’s motion to quash a subpoena (or for a protective order) moot in light of the extended deadlines, encouraged the parties to meet and confer before bringing written-discovery disputes under Rule 26(d), and ordered that the defendants were entitled to conduct a Rule 34 inspection of Marcella’s home on or before August 16, 2024.
The substantive turning point in the collected minutes came on Marcella’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed July 15, 2024 and argued October 18, 2024. In an under-advisement ruling issued the same day, the court denied the motion in full. It observed that Marcella sought “partial summary judgment” on various issues without tying the motion to her specific claims or their elements. On breach of contract and the implied covenant, the record showed disputed issues of material fact — conflicting evidence about whether the parties had a meeting of the minds sufficient to form a binding contract, and about their intent in reaching the agreement allowing Marcella to erect a temporary fence “during” construction on her neighbor’s property. Because that agreement is reflected only in a very basic description in the ACC’s meeting minutes, the court held, the parties’ intent and any alleged breach must be evaluated by a jury.
The ruling rejected Marcella’s other theories as well. She had not identified any authority supporting the proposition that an association’s failure to promptly produce records as required by A.R.S. § 33-1805 creates a private right of action for damages, nor had she provided any evidence of damages suffered as a result of the alleged statutory violations. And promissory estoppel, the court explained, is an alternative remedy available only in the absence of a binding contract — because Marcella alleges a binding contract exists, she could not win summary judgment on the estoppel theory unless her contract claim is unsuccessful. The court reset a trial-setting conference for November 22, 2024.
The last collected minute entry is a February 28, 2025 status conference. The court and the parties discussed mediation, an amended scheduling order, a document-discovery dispute, and the status of the case. The court ordered Marcella’s counsel to provide a redlined proposed amended complaint to the Association’s counsel by March 24, 2025, with any motion to amend due March 28, 2025 if the parties could not stipulate; ordered the parties to submit a stipulation and proposed scheduling order by March 28, 2025; and directed them to keep meeting and conferring on the document dispute, with a Rule 26(d) statement due by the same date if it could not be resolved. As of that entry, the case remained active with no dispositive judgment.
Procedural timeline
Complete uploaded source-document index
This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/susan-marcella-v-legend-trail-community-association/raw/: 9 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
FAQ
What is this lawsuit about?
A homeowner in the Legend Trail master planned community sued her community association over how it administers the CC&Rs. Her damages claims — breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, “breach of duty,” and violations of A.R.S. § 33-1805 — rest in part on the Association’s approval of renovations to her neighbors’ home, which she contends violated the CC&Rs’ architectural requirements and created a nuisance interfering with the quiet enjoyment of her home. She also relies on an agreement allowing her to erect a temporary fence during the neighbors’ construction, and claims the Association failed to produce association records.
Has the case been decided?
No. As of the most recent collected minute entry — a February 28, 2025 status conference — the case was still active, with deadlines set for a proposed amended complaint, a new scheduling order, and a discovery-dispute statement. The most significant ruling so far is the October 18, 2024 under-advisement ruling denying the homeowner’s motion for partial summary judgment, which sends her contract-based claims toward a jury rather than resolving them.
Why did the court deny the homeowner’s motion for partial summary judgment?
Three reasons. First, the breach-of-contract and implied-covenant claims turn on disputed facts: the agreement allowing her to erect a temporary fence “during” construction on her neighbor’s property is reflected only in a very basic description in the ACC’s meeting minutes, so whether there was a meeting of the minds — and what the parties intended — must be decided by a jury. Second, she identified no authority that A.R.S. § 33-1805 creates a private right of action for damages and no evidence of damages from the alleged records violations. Third, promissory estoppel is an alternative remedy that exists only where no binding contract does; because she alleges a binding contract, she cannot win summary judgment on estoppel unless her contract claim fails.
Can a homeowner sue an association for damages under A.R.S. § 33-1805?
This ruling did not decide that question for all cases, but it went against the homeowner here: the court held she had not identified any authority supporting the proposition that an association’s failure to promptly produce records as required by A.R.S. § 33-1805 creates a private right of action for damages, and she provided no evidence of damages suffered as a result of the alleged violations. Homeowners considering a records claim should note that this court expected both legal authority for a damages remedy and proof of actual harm.
Why weren’t the neighbors indispensable parties?
Under Rule 19, the neighbors would need to be joined if the lawsuit sought relief directly affecting their property — for example, a declaration that the approval of their renovations violated the CC&Rs, or an injunction compelling the Association to enforce the CC&Rs against their home. But the court could find no such request in the complaint: the only claim for declaratory or injunctive relief sought an order requiring the Association to produce records, which has no bearing on the neighbors’ home. The court therefore denied the joinder motion, without prejudice to amended pleadings that would make the neighbors necessary parties. The court’s party record later lists both neighbors as defendants appearing pro per.
What is an under-advisement ruling, and is it binding on other HOA disputes?
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 — here, the October 18, 2024 ruling sets out the court’s findings and analysis on the partial-summary-judgment motion — and they are public records available through the Clerk of the Superior Court. They bind only the parties to the case and are not precedent for other disputes, and because this case was still active as of the last collected entries, even the parties’ final outcome remains undetermined.
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 | CV2023-052094 (Maricopa County Superior Court) |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Superior Court |
| Decision / key date | October 18, 2024 |
| Judge / panel | Hon. Melissa Iyer Julian |
| Parties | Susan M. Marcella (Plaintiff, homeowner) v. The Legend Trail Community Association (Defendant); Martin Lorenzo and Peter Kraus (Defendants, neighbors, pro per) |
| Governing law | |
| Topics | architectural-reviewmeetings-and-recordscc-and-rsprocedure |
| Outcome / holding | The superior court denied the homeowner’s motion for partial summary judgment on all grounds, holding that disputed issues of material fact — including whether the parties had a meeting of the minds on the temporary-fence agreement reflected only in a basic description in committee meeting minutes — must be evaluated by a jury; that the homeowner identified no authority that an association’s failure to promptly produce records under A.R.S. § 33-1805 creates a private right of action for damages, and no evidence of damages; and that promissory estoppel is an alternative remedy unavailable at summary judgment to a plaintiff who alleges a binding contract. The court had earlier held the neighboring homeowners were not indispensable parties because the complaint sought no declaratory or injunctive relief directed at their property. |
| Primary public source | View source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Uploaded source package | 9 PDFs |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 12 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 homeowner in the Legend Trail master planned community sued her association, asserting damages claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, “breach of duty,” and violations of A.R.S. § 33-1805 relating to the production of association records. Her suit is premised in part on the Association’s approval of renovations to her neighbors’ home, which she contends violated the CC&Rs and created a nuisance interfering with the quiet enjoyment of her home, and on an agreement allowing her to erect a temporary fence during that construction. In February 2024 the court vacated a mistakenly entered order joining the neighbors and held they were not indispensable parties because the complaint sought no declaratory or injunctive relief directed at their home. In an October 18, 2024 under-advisement ruling, the court denied the homeowner’s motion for partial summary judgment in full: the contract and implied-covenant claims present jury questions because the fence agreement is reflected only in a very basic description in the ACC’s meeting minutes; the records claim failed because she identified no authority that A.R.S. § 33-1805 creates a private right of action for damages and no evidence of damages; and promissory estoppel is unavailable while she alleges a binding contract. The case remained active as of the last collected minute entry, a February 28, 2025 status conference setting amended-complaint and scheduling deadlines.
The court’s February 15, 2024 ruling untangled a procedural knot before reaching the merits of joinder. It had granted the Association’s motion to join neighbors Martin Lorenzo and Peter Kraus as indispensable parties as unopposed on January 22, 2024, not realizing the homeowner had filed a belated response that had not yet appeared on the docket; it vacated that order and decided the motion on complete briefing. On the merits, the court found that despite both sides’ assumptions, the complaint contained no request for declaratory or injunctive relief seeking to compel the Association to take any action against the Lorenzo/Kraus home — the only declaratory request was an order requiring the Association to produce records, which has no bearing on the neighbors’ property. Absent such a claim, the neighbors were not indispensable to the homeowner’s damages claims, though the court denied the motion without prejudice to amended pleadings and stayed the case deadlines so the parties could confer about amendment.
In the October 18, 2024 under-advisement ruling, the court noted the homeowner sought “partial summary judgment” on various issues without tying the motion to her specific claims or their elements. On breach of contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, the record reflected disputed issues of material fact: conflicting evidence about whether the parties had a meeting of the minds sufficient to form a binding contract and about their intent in reaching the agreement allowing the homeowner to erect a temporary fence “during” construction on her neighbor’s property. Because the agreement is reflected only in a very basic description in the ACC’s meeting minutes, the parties’ intent and any alleged breach must be evaluated by a jury.
The court disposed of the remaining theories on legal grounds. The homeowner identified no authority supporting the proposition that the Association’s failure to promptly produce records as required under A.R.S. § 33-1805 creates a private right of action for damages, and she provided no evidence of damages suffered as a result of the alleged statutory violations. Promissory estoppel, the court explained citing Del Hayes & Sons, Inc. v. Mitchell, is the name applied to a contract implied in law where no contract exists in fact — an alternative remedy available only in the absence of a binding contract — so a plaintiff who alleges a binding contract is not entitled to summary judgment on an estoppel theory unless her contract claim is unsuccessful. The court denied the motion in full and reset a trial-setting conference; a February 28, 2025 status conference set deadlines for a proposed amended complaint, a stipulated scheduling order, and a Rule 26(d) discovery-dispute statement, leaving the case active.
This case illustrates two practical hurdles for homeowners litigating against Arizona planned-community associations. First, records claims: the court held the homeowner identified no authority that A.R.S. § 33-1805 — the planned-community records statute — creates a private right of action for damages, and she offered no proof of damages from the alleged violations. A homeowner who wants more than the statute’s production mechanism should expect to justify the damages remedy and prove actual harm. Second, informal agreements with an association are fragile litigation vehicles: when the only written record of a deal (here, permission to erect a temporary fence during a neighbor’s construction) is a very basic description in committee meeting minutes, questions of contract formation, intent, and breach go to a jury rather than being resolved on summary judgment.
The February 2024 indispensable-parties ruling is also a useful procedural lesson. A homeowner suing her association over its approval of a neighbor’s renovations can pursue damages against the association alone, but any claim for a declaration or injunction that would directly affect the neighbor’s property requires joining the neighbors under Rule 19 — and pleading imprecision about which remedy is actually sought can stall a case for months, as it did here. The rulings are interim: the case was still active as of the last collected minute entries, so the ultimate outcome between these parties remains undetermined, and superior-court rulings bind only the parties in any event.