Tag Archives: assessments

Arizona Supreme Court Ruling on Utility Rate Consolidation and Commission Deference

Posted on by

Utility Rate Consolidation and Commission Deference (CV-20-0047-PR)

The Arizona Supreme Court clarified the standard of judicial deference owed to the Arizona Corporation Commission. It ruled that while the Commission has plenary ratemaking authority, courts review constitutional issues de novo. Applying this standard, the Court upheld the consolidation of separate wastewater districts into a single rate structure.

Last updated July 15, 2026. Case: Sun City Home Owners Association v. Arizona Corporation Commission, et al., Arizona Supreme Court, No. CV-20-0047-PR; Affirmed.

Source-file index FAQ

Scope note: This page provides an educational summary of the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision in Sun City Home Owners Association v. Arizona Corporation Commission, which is a precedential decision addressing the standard of review for Corporation Commission decisions and the constitutionality of utility rate consolidation. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The Arizona Corporation Commission is not entitled to ‘extreme deference’ on matters of constitutional and statutory compliance, which are subject to de novo judicial review. Furthermore, the Commission’s consolidation of distinct utility service districts into a single district with a uniform rate structure does not violate the Arizona Constitution’s prohibition against rate discrimination under Article 15, Section 12, as all customers in the consolidated district receive a like and contemporaneous service.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Robert L. Ellman (Attorney for Appellant)
    Ellman Law Group LLC
    Argued for Sun City Home Owners Association

Respondent Side

  • Andy M. Kvesic (Attorney for Appellee)
    Arizona Corporation Commission
    Chief Counsel/Legal Division Director
  • Maureen A. Scott (Attorney for Appellee)
    Arizona Corporation Commission
    Deputy Chief of Litigation and Appeals
  • Wesley C. Van Cleve (Attorney for Appellee)
    Arizona Corporation Commission
    Argued; Assistant Chief Counsel
  • Michael T. Hallam (Attorney for Intervenor)
    Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
    Attorney for EPCOR Water Arizona Inc.
  • Lawrence A. Kasten (Attorney for Intervenor)
    Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
    Argued for EPCOR Water Arizona Inc.
  • Michele Van Quathem (Attorney for Intervenor)
    Law Offices of Michele Van Quathem, PLLC
    Attorney for Verrado Community Association, Inc.

Neutral Parties

  • Clint Bolick (Justice)
    Supreme Court of the State of Arizona
    Authored the opinion of the Court and a concurring opinion
  • Robert M. Brutinel (Chief Justice)
    Supreme Court of the State of Arizona
    Joined the majority opinion
  • Ann A. Scott Timmer (Vice Chief Justice)
    Supreme Court of the State of Arizona
    Joined the majority opinion
  • John R. Lopez IV (Justice)
    Supreme Court of the State of Arizona
    Joined the majority opinion
  • James P. Beene (Justice)
    Supreme Court of the State of Arizona
    Joined the majority opinion
  • Bill Montgomery (Justice)
    Supreme Court of the State of Arizona
    Joined the majority opinion
  • Garye L. Vásquez (Judge)
    Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two
    Designated to sit in this matter due to the recusal of Justice Andrew W. Gould

What happened

In February 2012, EPCOR Water Arizona Inc. acquired five wastewater districts (Agua Fria, Anthem, Mohave, Sun City, and Sun City West) with highly disparate monthly rates.

The Arizona Corporation Commission ordered EPCOR to file a rate application to evaluate consolidation, stand-alone, and deconsolidation scenarios.

Following a six-day evidentiary hearing in February 2017, the Commission approved a five-year phase-in plan to fully consolidate the districts into a single rate structure with a uniform rate of $38.59.

The Sun City Home Owners Association and the Residential Utility Consumer Office intervened and opposed consolidation, arguing that it would cause Sun City residents to subsidize other districts.

Sun City appealed the Commission’s decision, and the Court of Appeals upheld it, applying an ‘extreme deference’ standard.

The Arizona Supreme Court granted review, held that ‘extreme deference’ does not apply to constitutional review, but affirmed the consolidation as non-discriminatory.

Video overview of the case record

An AI-generated video overview of Sun City Home Owners Association v. Arizona Corporation Commission, et al. (CV-20-0047-PR (Ariz.)). Arizona Supreme Court upholds utility rate consolidation and reviews constitutional compliance de novo. This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own records control.

Listen: audio deep dive on the case record

An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the case record in Sun City Home Owners Association v. Arizona Corporation Commission, et al. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked records below.

Audio overview generated with Google NotebookLM from the case’s court filings.

Procedural timeline

Step 2012-02-01 EPCOR Water Arizona Inc. acquires five wastewater districts: Agua Fria, Anthem, Mohave, Sun City, and Sun City West.
Step 2014-12-01 The Arizona Corporation Commission orders EPCOR to file a rate application evaluating consolidation, stand-alone, and deconsolidation scenarios.
Step 2016-04-01 EPCOR files its rate application with the Arizona Corporation Commission.
Step 2017-02-01 The Commission conducts a six-day evidentiary hearing addressing rate consolidation.
Step 2020-01-23 The Court of Appeals, Division One, issues an opinion upholding the Commission's consolidation decision under an 'extreme deference' standard.
Step 2021-10-01 The Arizona Supreme Court issues its decision, affirming the rate consolidation and clarifying that the Commission's constitutional compliance is reviewed de novo.

Complete source-document index

This index contains 1 PDF, 1 other source file 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.

FAQ

What was the main issue in Sun City Home Owners Association v. Arizona Corporation Commission?

The case addressed two primary issues: first, whether the Arizona Corporation Commission is entitled to ‘extreme deference’ when courts review its decisions; and second, whether the Commission’s decision to consolidate several geographically distinct wastewater districts into a single district with a uniform rate violated the Arizona Constitution’s prohibition against discriminatory rates.

What did the Court decide regarding judicial deference to the Corporation Commission?

The Arizona Supreme Court held that the Commission is not entitled to ‘extreme deference’ regarding issues of constitutional and statutory compliance. While courts defer to the Commission’s factual findings under a substantial evidence standard, they review questions of constitutional and statutory compliance de novo.

Did the consolidated rate structure violate the Arizona Constitution's prohibition on discriminatory rates?

No. The Court ruled that because the consolidation would result in identical rates for all customers who receive the ‘same exact service’ under like circumstances, it satisfies the constitutional requirement of non-discrimination under Article 15, Section 12. Charging a uniform rate across a consolidated district is not unconstitutionally discriminatory even if the historical costs of serving each individual community differed.

What was the underlying dispute that led to this case?

EPCOR Water Arizona Inc. acquired five wastewater districts with varying monthly rates. The Commission approved a five-year phase-in plan to consolidate these districts into a single rate structure. The Sun City Home Owners Association opposed this consolidation because it would significantly increase monthly bills for Sun City residents to subsidize improvements in other districts.

Which parties supported and opposed the rate consolidation?

The rate consolidation was supported by EPCOR, the Commission staff, and the Agua Fria, Anthem, and Mohave districts. It was opposed by the Sun City Home Owners Association and the Residential Utility Consumer Office, who advocated for maintaining the existing stand-alone rates.

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 / citationCV-20-0047-PR (Ariz.)
Court / tribunalArizona Supreme Court
Decision / key dateOctober 1, 2021
Judge / panelJustice Clint Bolick, Chief Justice Robert M. Brutinel, Vice Chief Justice Ann A. Scott Timmer, Justice John R. Lopez IV, Justice James P. Beene, Justice Bill Montgomery, Judge Garye L. Vásquez
PartiesSun City Home Owners Association (Appellant) v. Arizona Corporation Commission (Appellee), EPCOR Water Arizona, Inc. (Intervenor), and Verrado Community Association, Inc. (Intervenor)
Governing law
  • A.R.S. § 40-254.01
  • A.R.S. § 40-334
Topics
AssessmentsProcedure
Outcome / holding

The Arizona Corporation Commission is not entitled to 'extreme deference' on matters of constitutional and statutory compliance, which are subject to de novo judicial review. Furthermore, the Commission's consolidation of distinct utility service districts into a single district with a uniform rate structure does not violate the Arizona Constitution's prohibition against rate discrimination under Article 15, Section 12, as all customers in the consolidated district receive a like and contemporaneous service.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package1 PDF, 1 other source file
Step-by-step docket roadmap6 roadmap entries
Video overviewSun City Home Owners Association v. Arizona Corporation Commission, et al.
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links0 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

This case involves an appeal by the Sun City Home Owners Association opposing the Arizona Corporation Commission's decision to fully consolidate five wastewater districts managed by EPCOR Water Arizona Inc. into a single district with uniform rates. The Arizona Supreme Court addressed the level of deference owed to the Commission and whether charging uniform rates across historically separate districts constitutes unlawful discrimination under the Arizona Constitution. The Court clarified that while the Commission holds plenary ratemaking authority, its constitutional compliance is reviewed de novo without 'extreme deference'. The Court ultimately held that achieving rate parity across consolidated districts is not unconstitutionally discriminatory.

Key Issues & Findings

The Court reasoned that Article 15, Section 12 of the Arizona Constitution categorically prohibits rate discrimination between persons or places for rendering a 'like and contemporaneous service.' Because all customers within the newly consolidated EPCOR district would pay identical rates and receive identical wastewater services, the rates satisfy this non-discrimination standard. The Court rejected the argument that rate consolidation is discriminatory because it fails to align with individual district cost of service (cost causation), noting that cost causation is highly relevant to determining whether rates are 'just and reasonable' under Article 15, Section 3, but is not the basis for a discrimination analysis under Section 12. Finally, the Court clarified that although the Commission's factual findings receive deference, courts owe no deference to the Commission's interpretations of constitutional limits.

Why It Matters

This decision is highly significant because it establishes that the Arizona Corporation Commission's constitutional and statutory compliance is reviewed de novo, rejecting the prior 'extreme deference' standard applied by the Court of Appeals. It also confirms the constitutionality of rate consolidation for public utilities serving multiple Arizona communities, paving the way for uniform rate structures despite historical cost-of-service disparities among different geographic areas.

← Back to Arizona Supreme Court cases

Reed v. CHDB Law LLP: FDCPA Judgment-Renewal Allegations

Posted on by

FDCPA / Judgment Renewal Allegations

Reed is a settlement record, not a liability finding. The complaint alleged time-barred HOA judgment-collection conduct by CHDB Law LLP and Charlene Cruz; defendants denied wrongdoing, asserted defenses, and the case settled.

Federal court | D. Ariz. No. 2:25-cv-04355-MTL | Settlement notice filed 2026-05-14

Download complaint Download answer FAQ

Current-status note: This page is published as a litigation record based on the source files available through 2026-05-14. Later filings, appeals, mandates, settlements, or dismissal orders may change the posture; the linked court records control.

Allegations, settlements, procedural dismissals, and notices are not findings of liability unless a cited court order expressly makes that finding.

Scope note: This page summarizes a federal settlement record and distinguishes allegations from court findings. The downloaded record does not show a merits ruling that CHDB or any defendant violated the FDCPA. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

Reed is allegation-only public-interest evidence: the complaint accused CHDB Law LLP and Charlene Cruz of time-barred HOA judgment-collection conduct, defendants denied liability, and the downloaded record shows settlement without a merits finding.

Public-interest record: serious allegations, no adjudicated wrongdoing

What Reed alleged

The complaint alleged FDCPA and related violations tied to judgment-renewal, recording, and collection activity Reed characterized as time-barred.

What CHDB answered

CHDB and Cruz denied liability and asserted affirmative defenses. That denial must appear beside the allegations in any fair public summary.

How it ended

The downloaded record contains a settlement notice. It does not contain a court finding that CHDB or Cruz did anything unlawful.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Sara M. Reed (Plaintiff)
    Filed the FDCPA/judgment-renewal complaint.

Respondent Side

  • CHDB Law LLP (Defendant)
    Formerly Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP; denied liability in the answer.
  • Charlene Cruz (Defendant)
    CHDB partner named in the complaint; denied liability in the answer.
  • John Doe Cruz / Paul Colin Rambeau (Defendant spouse / marital community allegation)
    The answer identified Paul Colin Rambeau as Charlene Cruz's spouse and denied marital-community liability.
  • Does I-X (Unidentified defendants)
    Placeholder defendants named in the complaint.

Neutral Parties

  • Michael T. Liburdi (Judge)
    U.S. District Judge for the District of Arizona.

What happened

Sara M. Reed alleged that CHDB Law LLP and Charlene Cruz pursued or preserved an HOA-related judgment that Reed characterized as no longer enforceable. The complaint framed the dispute around FDCPA collection conduct, abuse of process, and wrongful-recording theories.

The defendants answered by denying liability. Their answer asserted, among other defenses, bona fide error and a disputed judgment-expiration theory tied to when the ten-year enforcement period began.

The downloaded record then shows a notice of settlement. The fair public conclusion is narrow: Reed documents negative allegations and a settlement, not judicial exoneration and not judicial liability.

Video overview of the case record

AI-generated video overview of Reed v. CHDB Law LLP et al.. This is an allegation-and-settlement record. Defendants denied liability, and no merits ruling appears in the downloaded record.

The written case page and linked court records are the controlling source for legal posture and accuracy.

Listen: audio deep dive on the case record

AI-generated audio deep dive for Reed v. CHDB Law LLP et al.. This is an allegation-and-settlement record. Defendants denied liability, and no merits ruling appears in the downloaded record.

Use the linked court records and written page for the exact legal posture.

Audio overview generated from the case record; verify against the linked court records.

Litigation record

Step 2 2026-02-02

Answer filed denying liability and asserting defenses.

Filed by: CHDB

Shows the defense posture that must be included for fair, non-defamatory framing.

Download source
2026-02-02_002_answer-denying-liability.pdf
Step 3 2026-05-14

Notice of settlement filed.

Filed by: Parties

Confirms settlement rather than a merits ruling in the downloaded record.

Download source
2026-05-14_003_notice-of-settlement.pdf

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.

Source 3 2026-05-14

Notice Of Settlement

Type: Procedural/service filing

Notice stating the parties reached settlement; no merits ruling appears in the downloaded record.

Download source file
2026-05-14_003_notice-of-settlement.pdf

FAQ

Did the court find CHDB liable in Reed?

No. The downloaded record shows allegations, an answer denying liability, and settlement. It does not show a merits ruling finding CHDB liable.

Why publish a settled allegation case?

Because the complaint and answer are public federal records involving HOA collection counsel. The page is useful only if it keeps allegations, denials, and settlement posture clear.

Can this page say CHDB acted unlawfully?

No. It can say Reed alleged unlawful conduct and CHDB denied it. It cannot present those allegations as proven.

What should homeowners learn from it?

Judgment-renewal and stale-collection issues can become FDCPA disputes, but the enforceability and liability questions depend on specific facts and court rulings.

Primary sources

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 / citationD. Ariz. No. 2:25-cv-04355-MTL
Court / tribunalFederal Court
Decision / key dateJuly 7, 2026
Judge / panelMichael T. Liburdi
PartiesSara M. Reed (plaintiff) v. CHDB Law LLP, Charlene Cruz and John Doe Cruz, and Does I-X.
Governing law
  • 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (FDCPA)
  • A.R.S. § 12-1551 (judgment renewal / enforcement timing, alleged)
Topics
FDCPAAssessmentsAttorney FeesProcedure
Outcome / holding

No merits holding appears in the downloaded record. The case settled after defendants denied liability, so the public record supports allegation-and-settlement framing only.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package3 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap3 roadmap entries
Video overviewReed v. CHDB Law LLP et al. – D. Ariz. No. 2:25-cv-04355-MTL
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions4 questions
Featured download links3 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Sara M. Reed sued CHDB Law LLP and Charlene Cruz in the District of Arizona. The complaint alleged FDCPA and related claims based on alleged judgment-renewal, recording, and collection activity that Reed characterized as time-barred. CHDB and Cruz answered and denied liability, asserting defenses including bona fide error and a disputed judgment-expiration theory. The downloaded record shows a notice of settlement, but does not include a dismissal order or merits ruling. Reed should therefore be treated as an allegation-and-settlement record, not proof that a court found wrongdoing.

Key Issues & Findings

The complaint framed the dispute as FDCPA, abuse-of-process, and wrongful-recording claims arising from an allegedly untimely judgment-renewal affidavit. The answer denied liability and asserted affirmative defenses, including a disputed calculation of the judgment-renewal deadline. The notice of settlement states that the parties resolved the matter. Without a dismissal order, judgment, or merits findings in the source set, the fair conclusion is narrow: the allegations are serious public-interest allegations, but they were not adjudicated in the downloaded record.

Why It Matters

Reed is useful for understanding the kinds of time-barred-collection and judgment-renewal allegations homeowners may raise against HOA collection counsel. It should not be used as proof of corruption or liability. Any public summary must put the complaint allegations beside the defendants' denial, the bona-fide-error defense, and the settlement/no-merits posture.

← Back to Federal Court cases

Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corp. v. Gary Tibshraeny: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on by

HOA Summary Judgment | CV2004-092611

A short minute entry records summary judgment for Tempe Gardens and a reasonable-fee finding.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corp. v. Gary Tibshraeny, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2004-092611.

Download ruling

Current-status note: This page is published as a litigation record based on the source files available through 2005-03-10. Later filings, appeals, mandates, settlements, or dismissal orders may change the posture; the linked court records control.

Scope note: This page covers Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corp. v. Gary Tibshraeny (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2004-092611) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s collected minute entries through 2005-03-10; 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 disposition is limited: summary judgment was granted and fees were found reasonable, with no substantive analysis in the collected entries.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corp. (Plaintiff)
    Association party in the HOA-related dispute. Court party records list counsel as Charles Maxwell.

Respondent Side

  • Carole Fischer (Defendant)
    Listed in the court party records as defendant.
  • Florence Hanna (Defendant)
    Listed in the court party records as defendant.
  • Gary Tibshraeny (Defendant)
    Opposing homeowner or property-side party identified in the case caption. Court party records list counsel as Roger Decker.
  • Lisa J Tibshraeny (Defendant)
    Listed in the court party records as defendant. Court party records list counsel as Roger Decker.

Neutral Parties

  • Hon. Barbara (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.

What happened

The collected record has only two minute entries. The first set oral argument on Tempe Gardens’ motion for summary judgment.

The second entry records oral argument with counsel present for the association and the Tibshraeny defendants.

The court granted the association’s motion for summary judgment and found the attorney fees incurred were reasonable.

No collected minute entry states the amount, the claim details, or the CC&R provisions at issue.

Video overview of the case record

An AI-generated video overview of Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corp. v. Gary Tibshraeny (CV2004-092611 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). Tempe Gardens obtained summary judgment and a reasonable-fee finding 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 case record

An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the court record and procedural posture in Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corp. v. Gary Tibshraeny. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked case records below.

Audio overview generated with Google NotebookLM from the case’s court filings.

Procedural timeline

Step 2005-01-05 IT IS ORDERED setting oral argument on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment for 02/11/2005 at 8:30 a.
Step 2005-03-10 IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

Complete source-document index

This index contains 2 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.

Source 1 2005-01-05

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.

Download source file
2005-01-05_001_oral-argument-set.pdf
Source 2 2005-03-10

Oral Argument

Type: Court/source PDF

Minute entry granting Tempe Gardens’ motion for summary judgment and finding attorney fees reasonable.

Download source file
2005-03-10_002_oral-argument.pdf

FAQ

What did the superior court decide?

It granted the association’s motion for summary judgment.

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 Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corp..

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 / citationCV2004-092611 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateMarch 10, 2005
Judge / panelHon. Barbara
PartiesTempe Gardens Townhouse Corp. (Plaintiff) v. Gary Tibshraeny and other defendants
Topics
AssessmentsAttorney FeesProcedure
Outcome / holding

The court granted Tempe Gardens’ motion for summary judgment and found the requested attorney fees reasonable.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package2 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap2 roadmap entries
Video overviewTempe Gardens Townhouse Corp. v. Gary Tibshraeny
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

The collected record contains a setting order and a short oral-argument minute entry. After oral argument, the court granted Tempe Gardens’ motion for summary judgment and found the attorney fees incurred were reasonable.

Key Issues & Findings

The available minute text is brief. It shows oral argument on the association’s summary-judgment motion, appearances by counsel for both sides, and the court’s order granting the motion.

The same entry states that the court found the attorney fees incurred were reasonable, but it does not describe the claim, the amount of judgment, or the governing documents.

Why It Matters

This is a narrow record of a summary-judgment outcome for an association. Because the entry contains no legal analysis or amount, it should not be used as authority on assessment validity or fee entitlement.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Tatum Highlands Community Association v. Michael R Burns: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on by

HOA Judgment | CV2002-002028

The court granted judgment for Tatum Highlands against the named defendants.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Tatum Highlands Community Association v. Michael R Burns, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2002-002028.

Download ruling

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 Tatum Highlands Community Association v. Michael R Burns (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2002-002028) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s collected minute entries through 2002-04-03; 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 granted judgment for Tatum Highlands against the named defendants.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Tatum Highlands Community Association (Plaintiff)
    Association party in the HOA-related dispute. Court party records list counsel as James Hazlewood.

Respondent Side

  • Michael R Burns (Defendant)
    Opposing homeowner or property-side party identified in the case caption.
  • Midland Credit Management INC (Defendant)
    Listed in the court party records as defendant.
  • Sheri Sprague Burns (Defendant)
    Listed in the court party records as defendant.

Neutral Parties

  • Hon. Toby Maureen Gerst (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.

What happened

The court granted judgment against Michael R. Burns and related defendants for Tatum Highlands in a one-entry record.

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 Tatum Highlands Community Association v. Michael R Burns (CV2002-002028 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). Tatum Highlands obtained judgment in a one-entry record with no merits analysis. 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 Tatum Highlands Community Association v. Michael R Burns. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

Audio overview generated with Google NotebookLM from the case’s court filings.

Procedural timeline

Step 2002-04-03 IT IS ORDERED granting judgment against Defendants Michael R.

Complete source-document index

This index contains 1 PDF 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.

Source 1 2002-04-03

Judgment Entered

Type: Decision or judgment

Judgment-entry minute entering or approving judgment for the association.

Download source file
2002-04-03_001_judgment-entered.pdf

FAQ

What did the superior court decide?

The court granted judgment for Tatum Highlands against the named defendants.

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 Tatum Highlands Community 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 / citationCV2002-002028 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateApril 3, 2002
Judge / panelHon. Toby Maureen Gerst
PartiesTatum Highlands Community Association (Plaintiff) v. Michael R Burns (Defendant)
Topics
AssessmentsLiensProcedure
Outcome / holding

After a civil default hearing, the superior court granted judgment against Michael R. Burns, Sheri Sprague-Burns, and Midland Credit Management, Inc. in accordance with the formal written default judgment entered April 3, 2002.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package1 PDF
Step-by-step docket roadmap1 roadmap entry
Video overviewTatum Highlands Community Association v. Michael R Burns
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

The court granted judgment against Michael R. Burns and related defendants for Tatum Highlands in a one-entry record.

Key Issues & Findings

The court granted judgment against Michael R. Burns and related defendants for Tatum Highlands in a one-entry record.

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.

Why It Matters

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.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Suntrails III Homeowners Association v. John Ward: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on by

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.

Download ruling

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.

Audio overview generated with Google NotebookLM from the case’s court filings.

Procedural timeline

Step 2021-09-22 IT IS ORDERED continuing the Telephonic Order to Show Cause Return Hearing to October 22, 2021 at 4:30 p.
Step 2021-10-22 IT IS ORDERED placing this case on the Court’s Dismissal calendar for dismissal, without further notice, on February 20, 2022.
Step 2021-12-01 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.

Source 1 2021-09-22

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.

Download source file
2021-09-22_001_minute-entry.pdf
Source 2 2021-10-22

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.

Download source file
2021-10-22_002_minute-entry.pdf
Source 3 2021-12-01

Judgment Entered

Type: Decision or judgment

Judgment-entry minute entering or approving judgment for the association.

Download source file
2021-12-01_003_judgment-entered.pdf

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 / citationCV2021-094264 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateDecember 1, 2021
Judge / panelHon. Rodrick Coffey
PartiesSuntrails 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 sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package3 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap3 roadmap entries
Video overviewSuntrails III Homeowners Association v. John Ward
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

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.

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 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.

Why It Matters

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.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Russell Ranch Homeowners Association v. Gregory T Heard: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on by

HOA Foreclosure Judgment | CV2025-010660

The court approved the formal foreclosure judgment and order of sale for Russell Ranch.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Russell Ranch Homeowners Association v. Gregory T Heard, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2025-010660.

Download ruling

Scope note: This page covers Russell Ranch Homeowners Association v. Gregory T Heard (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2025-010660) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s collected minute entries through 2025-08-19; 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 the formal foreclosure judgment and order of sale for Russell Ranch.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Russell Ranch Homeowners Association (Plaintiff)
    Association party in the HOA-related dispute. Court party records list counsel as Charlene Cruz.

Respondent Side

  • Gregory T Heard (Defendant)
    Opposing homeowner or property-side party identified in the case caption.

Neutral Parties

  • Hon. Christopher Whitten (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.
  • Hon. Jason Easterday (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.

What happened

The court approved and settled a formal written Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure and Order of Sale for Russell Ranch Homeowners Association.

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 Russell Ranch Homeowners Association v. Gregory T Heard (CV2025-010660 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). Russell Ranch obtained a foreclosure judgment and order of sale after default proceedings. 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 Russell Ranch Homeowners Association v. Gregory T Heard. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

Audio overview generated with Google NotebookLM from the case’s court filings.

Procedural timeline

Step 2025-05-19 IT IS ORDERED that no action will be taken by this division on the above-referenced document(s).
Step 2025-08-12 IT IS ORDERED that Counsel for Plaintiff to submit a proposed form of order no later than August 15, 2025.
Step 2025-08-19 IT IS ORDERED approving and settling the formal written Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure and Order of Sale signed by the Court on August 14, 2025 and filed (entered) by the Clerk on August 19, 2025.

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.

Source 1 2025-05-19

Default Judgment

Type: Decision or judgment

Shows the filer trying to move the case forward because the opposing party had not timely appeared.

Download source file
2025-05-19_001_default-judgment.pdf
Source 2 2025-08-12

Default Judgment

Type: Decision or judgment

Shows the filer trying to move the case forward because the opposing party had not timely appeared.

Download source file
2025-08-12_002_default-judgment.pdf
Source 3 2025-08-19

Judgment Entered

Type: Decision or judgment

Judgment-entry minute entering or approving the formal written Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure and Order of Sale.

Download source file
2025-08-19_003_judgment-entered.pdf

FAQ

What did the superior court decide?

The court approved the formal foreclosure judgment and order of sale for Russell Ranch.

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 Russell Ranch 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 / citationCV2025-010660 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateAugust 19, 2025
Judge / panelHon. Christopher Whitten, Hon. Jason Easterday
PartiesRussell Ranch Homeowners Association (Plaintiff) v. Gregory T Heard (Defendant)
Topics
AssessmentsLiensProcedureForeclosure
Outcome / holding

The court approved the formal foreclosure judgment and order of sale for Russell Ranch.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package3 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap3 roadmap entries
Video overviewRussell Ranch Homeowners Association v. Gregory T Heard
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

The court approved and settled a formal written Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure and Order of Sale for Russell Ranch Homeowners Association.

Key Issues & Findings

The court approved and settled a formal written Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure and Order of Sale for Russell Ranch Homeowners Association.

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.

Why It Matters

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.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Paloma Paseo Homeowners Association v. David Falk: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on by

HOA Fees on Appeal | A.R.S. § 33-1807(H) | LC2018-000421

The superior court vacated a later fee award to Paloma Paseo because the association did not timely include or amend those fees into the final judgment.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Paloma Paseo Homeowners Association v. David Falk, Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2018-000421.

Download ruling

Current-status note: This page is published as a litigation record based on the source files available through 2019-01-14. Later filings, appeals, mandates, settlements, or dismissal orders may change the posture; the linked court records control.

Scope note: This page covers Paloma Paseo Homeowners Association v. David Falk (Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2018-000421) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s collected minute entries through 2019-01-14; 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

HOA fee entitlement does not eliminate judgment-timing rules. A later fee application after final judgment can be waived or unsupported if the judgment did not reserve or include the amounts.

Case Participants

Respondent Side

  • David Falk (DEFT/Appellant)
    Opposing homeowner or property-side party identified in the case caption. Court party records list counsel as Gary Henman.
  • Melody Falk (DEFT/Appellant)
    Listed in the court party records as deft/appellant. Court party records list counsel as Gary Henman.
  • Mcdowell Mountain Justice Court (Originating Court)
    Listed in the court party records as originating court.
  • Paloma Paseo Homeowners Association (PLF/Appellee)
    Association party in the HOA-related dispute. Court party records list counsel as Rodrigo Sauaia.

Neutral Parties

  • Hon. Patricia Ann Starr (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.
  • Hon. Patricia Starr For (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.
  • Hon. Patricia A. Starr (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.

What happened

Paloma Paseo sued the Falks in justice court for assessments and related collection amounts. The parties stipulated to principal, and the trial court entered judgment for attorneys’ fees and costs in January 2018.

Months later, the association filed another fee application. The Falks responded, but the trial court treated the response as moot and awarded additional fees and costs.

On record appeal, the superior court held the association waived additional pre-judgment fees by not including them before judgment and had no basis for post-judgment fees through a later order where the judgment did not reserve them.

The superior court vacated the justice-court award and remanded for further proceedings, while declining to sanction the association.

Video overview of the case record

An AI-generated video overview of Paloma Paseo Homeowners Association v. David Falk (LC2018-000421 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). A justice-court post-judgment fee award to an HOA was vacated as untimely after final judgment. This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own ruling controls.

Listen: audio deep dive on the case record

An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the court record and procedural posture in Paloma Paseo Homeowners Association v. David Falk. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked case records below.

Audio overview generated with Google NotebookLM from the case’s court filings.

Procedural timeline

Step 2018-11-19 IT IS ORDERED assigning this appeal on November 19, 2018 to Hon.
Step 2019-01-14 The Court finds that by failing to include those amounts, the Association waived its ability to recover them in the judgment.

Complete source-document index

This index contains 2 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.

Source 1 2018-11-19

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.

Download source file
2018-11-19_001_oral-argument.pdf
Source 2 2019-01-14

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

Record-appeal ruling vacating the justice-court post-judgment fee award to Paloma Paseo and remanding.

Download source file
2019-01-14_002_ruling.pdf

FAQ

What did the superior court decide?

It vacated the additional post-judgment fee-and-cost award and remanded.

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 Paloma Paseo 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 / citationLC2018-000421 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateJanuary 14, 2019
Judge / panelHon. Patricia Ann Starr, Hon. Patricia Starr For, Hon. Patricia A. Starr
PartiesDavid Falk and Melody Falk (Appellants) v. Paloma Paseo Homeowners Association (Appellee)
Governing law
Topics
Attorney FeesAssessmentsProcedureLiens
Outcome / holding

The superior court vacated the justice-court fee-and-cost award entered five months after final judgment and remanded, while declining sanctions against the association.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package2 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap2 roadmap entries
Video overviewPaloma Paseo Homeowners Association v. David Falk
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

On appeal from justice court, the superior court vacated a post-judgment attorneys’ fee and cost award to Paloma Paseo. It held the association waived additional pre-judgment fees by not including them before judgment and had no basis for later post-judgment fees where the final judgment did not reserve them, despite the HOA provisions and A.R.S. § 33-1807(H).

Key Issues & Findings

The superior court applied the justice-court fee timing rule and found the association filed its second fee application months after judgment. Because the association could have included all pre-judgment fees before the January 2018 judgment but did not, it waived those amounts.

The court also found the trial court erred by treating the homeowners’ timely opposition as moot. The opposition was not moot as to the new fee application filed months later.

For post-judgment fees, the court acknowledged the association’s reliance on HOA provisions and A.R.S. § 33-1807(H), but held those provisions supported fees for the prevailing party in a judgment and the association had already received such an award in the judgment. Because the later award was by order after final judgment and the association had not timely amended the judgment, there was no basis for it.

Why It Matters

This is must-read for HOA collection fee practice because it vacates a later fee award and explains that an association must timely include fee claims in the judgment or amend the judgment, rather than seeking a new order months later.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association v. Ismael Rivas: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on by

HOA Foreclosure Judgment | CV2024-037894

The court granted judgment and approved the formal foreclosure judgment and order of sale.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association v. Ismael Rivas, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2024-037894.

Download ruling

Scope note: This page covers Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association v. Ismael Rivas (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2024-037894) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s collected minute entries through 2025-07-08; 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 granted judgment and approved the formal foreclosure judgment and order of sale.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association (Plaintiff)
    Association party in the HOA-related dispute. Court party records list counsel as Charlene Cruz.

Respondent Side

  • Ismael Rivas (Defendant)
    Opposing homeowner or property-side party identified in the case caption.
  • Judy Rivas Armendariz (Defendant)
    Listed in the court party records as defendant.
  • Robert Armendariz (Defendant)
    Listed in the court party records as defendant.

Neutral Parties

  • Hon. Scott (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.
  • Hon. Brian (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.

What happened

The court granted judgment against the named defendants and entered a formal Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure and Order of Sale for Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association.

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 Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association v. Ismael Rivas (CV2024-037894 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). Mountain Vista Ranch obtained a foreclosure judgment and order of sale after default proceedings. 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 Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association v. Ismael Rivas. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

Audio overview generated with Google NotebookLM from the case’s court filings.

Procedural timeline

Step 2025-04-07 IT IS ORDERED that no action will be taken by this Division on the above-referenced document(s).
Step 2025-07-07 IT IS ORDERED vacating the Default Hearing set for today, July 7, 2025, and resetting the same to July 8, 2025 at 1:30 p.
Step 2025-07-08 IT IS ORDERED granting judgment against the named Defendants, all in accordance with the formal written Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure and Order of Sale signed by the Court on July 8, 2025 and filed (entered) by the Clerk on July 9, 2025.

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.

Source 1 2025-04-07

Default Judgment

Type: Decision or judgment

Shows the filer trying to move the case forward because the opposing party had not timely appeared.

Download source file
2025-04-07_001_default-judgment.pdf
Source 2 2025-07-07

Default Judgment

Type: Decision or judgment

Shows the filer trying to move the case forward because the opposing party had not timely appeared.

Download source file
2025-07-07_002_default-judgment.pdf
Source 3 2025-07-08

Judgment Entered

Type: Decision or judgment

Judgment-entry minute entering or approving the formal written Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure and Order of Sale.

Download source file
2025-07-08_003_judgment-entered.pdf

FAQ

What did the superior court decide?

The court granted judgment and approved the formal foreclosure judgment and order of sale.

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 Mountain Vista Ranch Owners 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 / citationCV2024-037894 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateJuly 8, 2025
Judge / panelHon. Scott, Hon. Brian
PartiesMountain Vista Ranch Owners Association (Plaintiff) v. Ismael Rivas (Defendant)
Topics
AssessmentsLiensProcedureForeclosure
Outcome / holding

The court granted judgment and approved the formal foreclosure judgment and order of sale.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package3 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap3 roadmap entries
Video overviewMountain Vista Ranch Owners Association v. Ismael Rivas
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

The court granted judgment against the named defendants and entered a formal Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure and Order of Sale for Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association.

Key Issues & Findings

The court granted judgment against the named defendants and entered a formal Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure and Order of Sale for Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association.

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.

Why It Matters

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.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Coventry Tempe Community Association v. Faisal Elhassan: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on by

HOA Summary Judgment | Ledger Dispute | CV2024-090807

The court granted Coventry Tempe summary judgment because the owner did not create a factual dispute over the association’s ledger.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Coventry Tempe Community Association v. Faisal Elhassan, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2024-090807.

Download ruling

Current-status note: This page is published as a litigation record based on the source files available through 2025-12-09. Later filings, appeals, mandates, settlements, or dismissal orders may change the posture; the linked court records control.

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 Coventry Tempe Community Association v. Faisal Elhassan (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2024-090807) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s collected minute entries through 2025-12-09; 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

An owner opposing HOA summary judgment must point to actual evidence; disagreement with a prior judgment and unsupported ledger objections were not enough here.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Faisal Elhassan (Plaintiff)
    Opposing homeowner or property-side party identified in the case caption.

Respondent Side

  • Coventry Tempe Community Association (Defendant)
    Association party in the HOA-related dispute. Court party records list counsel as Jill Ormond.

Neutral Parties

  • Hon. Rodrick Coffey (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.
  • Hon. David Mcdowell (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.

What happened

The owner sued Coventry Tempe after earlier litigation involving the same parties. The court first allowed implied-covenant and unjust-enrichment claims to proceed while dismissing other theories.

Coventry Tempe later moved for summary judgment. The court found the owner’s factual references concerned matters already decided in the earlier case.

The court also found the owner produced no documents, receipts, cancelled checks, bank statements, or other evidence to dispute the association’s ledger of charges and credits.

Summary judgment was granted in full for the association, and reconsideration was denied.

Video overview of the case record

An AI-generated video overview of Coventry Tempe Community Association v. Faisal Elhassan (CV2024-090807 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). Coventry Tempe won summary judgment because the owner offered no evidence disputing the ledger. This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own ruling controls.

Listen: audio deep dive on the case record

An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the court record and procedural posture in Coventry Tempe Community Association v. Faisal Elhassan. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked case records below.

Audio overview generated with Google NotebookLM from the case’s court filings.

Procedural timeline

Step 2024-04-03 IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Respond and extending the deadline for Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss until May 1, 2024.
Step 2024-04-04 IT IS ORDERED granting the Defendants Motion for Enlargement of Time for Defendants to File a Responsive Pleading, electronically filed on February 28, 2024.
Step 2024-05-29 IT IS ORDERED granting the Defendant, Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado and Bolen, LLP’s Motion to Dismiss Caption, electronically filed March 8, 2024 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing with prejudice against Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado and Bolen, LLP.
Step 2024-07-18 IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff request.
Step 2024-09-11 IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint.
Step 2024-09-12 IT IS ORDERED approving and settling the formal written Judgment signed by the Court on September 10, 2024 and filed [entered] by the clerk on September 12, 2024.
Step 2024-10-09 IT IS ORDERED that Defendants may file a response to that Motion by no later than October 25, 2024.
Step 2024-11-07 Minute entry filed.
Step 2024-12-17 IT IS ORDERED denying Defendants’ Motion to Strike Notice of Appeal.
Step 2025-01-14 IT IS ORDERED denying in part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss with regard to Plaintiff’s claims for: 1) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and 2) unjust enrichment.
Step 2025-10-10 IT IS ORDERED setting oral argument for October 28, 2025 at 11:30 a.
Step 2025-10-28 IT IS ORDERED granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in its entirety.

Complete source-document index

This index contains 14 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.

Source 1 2024-04-03

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.

Download source file
2024-04-03_001_minute-entry.pdf
Source 2 2024-04-04

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.

Download source file
2024-04-04_002_minute-entry.pdf
Source 3 2024-05-29

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.

Download source file
2024-05-29_003_minute-entry.pdf
Source 4 2024-07-18

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.

Download source file
2024-07-18_004_minute-entry.pdf
Source 5 2024-09-11

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.

Download source file
2024-09-11_005_minute-entry.pdf
Source 6 2024-09-12

Judgment Entered

Type: Decision or judgment

Decision document; read it to understand the controlling result before moving to later filings.

Download source file
2024-09-12_006_judgment-entered.pdf
Source 7 2024-10-09

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.

Download source file
2024-10-09_007_minute-entry.pdf
Source 8 2024-11-07

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.

Download source file
2024-11-07_008_minute-entry.pdf
Source 9 2024-12-17

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.

Download source file
2024-12-17_009_minute-entry.pdf
Source 10 2025-01-14

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

Ruling granting in part and denying in part Coventry Tempe’s motion to dismiss, leaving only implied-covenant and unjust-enrichment claims.

Download source file
2025-01-14_010_ruling.pdf
Source 11 2025-10-10

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.

Download source file
2025-10-10_011_oral-argument-set.pdf
Source 12 2025-10-28

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

Ruling granting Coventry Tempe summary judgment because the owner failed to show a genuine issue of material fact.

Download source file
2025-10-28_012_ruling.pdf
Source 13 2025-10-28

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.

Download source file
2025-10-28_013_oral-argument.pdf
Source 14 2025-12-09

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

Ruling denying reconsideration of the summary-judgment order.

Download source file
2025-12-09_014_ruling.pdf

FAQ

What did the superior court decide?

It granted summary judgment for Coventry Tempe.

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 Coventry Tempe Community 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 / citationCV2024-090807 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateOctober 28, 2025
Judge / panelHon. Rodrick Coffey, Hon. David Mcdowell
PartiesFaisal Elhassan (Plaintiff) v. Coventry Tempe Community Association and other defendants
Topics
AssessmentsLiensGood Faith & Fair DealingProcedure
Outcome / holding

The court granted Coventry Tempe’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety and later denied reconsideration, explaining that the ruling rested on the grounds stated in the order rather than the owner’s absence from oral argument.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package14 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap12 roadmap entries
Video overviewCoventry Tempe Community Association v. Faisal Elhassan
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

The court allowed two claims to proceed past dismissal, then granted Coventry Tempe summary judgment. It found the owner’s factual references related to issues already decided in CV2021-001103 and that he produced no documents, receipts, cancelled checks, bank statements, or other evidence disputing the association’s ledger of charges and credits.

Key Issues & Findings

The January 2025 dismissal ruling allowed claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment to proceed, while dismissing other theories.

At summary judgment, the court applied Arizona summary-judgment standards and found the owner relied on matters already fully and finally determined in CV2021-001103, including disputes about judgment, default, and satisfaction. The court further found he did not produce evidence disputing the ledger of charges and credits attached to the association’s statement of facts.

Because the owner did not meet his burden to show a genuine issue of material fact, the court granted summary judgment for the association and directed it to lodge a proposed judgment and any fee application.

Why It Matters

This standard case is useful for repeat-litigation and ledger-proof issues after an HOA judgment. It is not must-read because it applies ordinary summary-judgment and preclusion concepts rather than interpreting HOA statutes or governing documents.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Enclave Villas Condominium Council Of Co-owners INC v. Thomas C Tracy: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on by

HOA Judgment | CV2017-002958

The court approved the formal written judgment against Thomas C. Tracy.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Enclave Villas Condominium Council Of Co-owners INC v. Thomas C Tracy, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2017-002958.

Download ruling

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 Enclave Villas Condominium Council Of Co-owners INC v. Thomas C Tracy (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2017-002958) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s collected minute entries through 2018-05-02; 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 the formal written judgment against Thomas C. Tracy.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Enclave Villas Condominium Council Of Co-owners INC (Plaintiff)
    Association party in the HOA-related dispute. Court party records list counsel as Christina Morgan.

Respondent Side

  • Thomas C Tracy (Defendant)
    Opposing homeowner or property-side party identified in the case caption.

Neutral Parties

  • Hon. Karen (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.
  • Hon. Hugh Hegyi (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.
  • Hon. James (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.

What happened

The court approved and settled a formal written judgment against Thomas C. Tracy for Enclave Villas after earlier default-related proceedings and motion practice.

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 Enclave Villas Condominium Council Of Co-owners INC v. Thomas C Tracy (CV2017-002958 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). Enclave Villas obtained a formal judgment against the owner after default-related proceedings. 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 Enclave Villas Condominium Council Of Co-owners INC v. Thomas C Tracy. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

Audio overview generated with Google NotebookLM from the case’s court filings.

Procedural timeline

Step 2017-03-15 IT IS ORDERED that no action will be taken by this division on the above-referenced document(s).
Step 2017-05-16 IT IS ORDERED the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is denied.
Step 2017-08-03 IT IS ORDERED setting Oral Argument on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Lien Foreclosure for August 22, 2017 at 9:00 a.
Step 2017-08-22 IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Lien Foreclosure.
Step 2017-08-25 IT IS ORDERED that Defendant shall, by August 31, 2017, communicate with Plaintiff’s counsel as to the proposed dates in the report.
Step 2017-10-03 IT IS ORDERED placing this matter on the dismissal calendar for dismissal on October 31, 2017, unless an amended joint report and scheduling order is filed by that date.
Step 2017-11-09 Minute entry filed.
Step 2018-01-05 IT IS ORDERED extending the deadline to complete a settlement conference to April 15, 2018.
Step 2018-01-19 IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss in its present form.
Step 2018-01-19 IT IS ORDERED correcting the January 5, 2018 minute entry to reflect the correct judicial officer as Honorable Karen A.
Step 2018-03-12 IT IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: TRIAL This matter is set for a Bench Trial on May 2, 2018 at 9:30 a.
Step 2018-04-13 IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Deadline to File Trial Exhibits on April 12, 2018.

Complete source-document index

This index contains 14 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.

Source 1 2017-03-15

Default Judgment

Type: Decision or judgment

Shows the filer trying to move the case forward because the opposing party had not timely appeared.

Download source file
2017-03-15_001_default-judgment.pdf
Source 2 2017-05-16

Default Judgment

Type: Decision or judgment

Shows the filer trying to move the case forward because the opposing party had not timely appeared.

Download source file
2017-05-16_002_default-judgment.pdf
Source 3 2017-08-03

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.

Download source file
2017-08-03_003_oral-argument-set.pdf
Source 4 2017-08-22

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.

Download source file
2017-08-22_004_oral-argument.pdf
Source 5 2017-08-25

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.

Download source file
2017-08-25_005_minute-entry.pdf
Source 6 2017-10-03

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.

Download source file
2017-10-03_006_minute-entry.pdf
Source 7 2017-11-09

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.

Download source file
2017-11-09_007_minute-entry.pdf
Source 8 2018-01-05

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.

Download source file
2018-01-05_008_minute-entry.pdf
Source 9 2018-01-19

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.

Download source file
2018-01-19_009_ruling.pdf
Source 10 2018-01-19

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.

Download source file
2018-01-19_010_minute-entry.pdf
Source 11 2018-03-12

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.

Download source file
2018-03-12_011_status-conference.pdf
Source 12 2018-04-13

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.

Download source file
2018-04-13_012_minute-entry.pdf
Source 13 2018-05-02

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.

Download source file
2018-05-02_013_minute-entry.pdf
Source 14 2018-05-02

Judgment Entered

Type: Decision or judgment

Judgment-entry minute entering or approving judgment for the association.

Download source file
2018-05-02_014_judgment-entered.pdf

FAQ

What did the superior court decide?

The court approved the formal written judgment against Thomas C. Tracy.

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 Enclave Villas Condominium Council Of Co-owners INC.

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 / citationCV2017-002958 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateMay 2, 2018
Judge / panelHon. Karen, Hon. Hugh Hegyi, Hon. James
PartiesEnclave Villas Condominium Council Of Co-owners INC (Plaintiff) v. Thomas C Tracy (Defendant)
Topics
AssessmentsLiensProcedureCondominiums
Outcome / holding

The superior court approved the parties' stipulation to entry of judgment and covenant not to execute, then approved and settled the formal written judgment against Thomas C. Tracy signed May 1, 2018 and entered May 2, 2018.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package14 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap12 roadmap entries
Video overviewEnclave Villas Condominium Council Of Co-owners INC v. Thomas C Tracy
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

The court approved and settled a formal written judgment against Thomas C. Tracy for Enclave Villas after earlier default-related proceedings and motion practice.

Key Issues & Findings

The court approved and settled a formal written judgment against Thomas C. Tracy for Enclave Villas after earlier default-related proceedings and motion practice.

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.

Why It Matters

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.

← Back to Superior Court cases