assessments Archives - Page 4 of 8 - Arizona HOA Transparency Project

Hallcraft Villas East I, II & III Homeowners Association v. Gaston

Posted on July 2, 2026 by [email protected]

Superior Court HOA Case

A narrow enforcement record where the association obtained judgment and fees while homeowner counterclaim and management-company issues survived until settlement.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Hallcraft Villas East I, II & III Homeowners Association v. Gaston, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2015-094714.

Download ruling

Current-status note: This page is published as a litigation record based on the source files available through 2016-10-03. Later filings, appeals, mandates, settlements, or dismissal orders may change the posture; the linked court records control.

Pipeline note: the public raw-source folder contains source files that were not in the last staged NotebookLM source set. The page remains a source-linked record, but generated media should be rebuilt or rechecked after the staged source manifest catches up.

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

Video/audio is held until the source package is rebuilt and the case is reprocessed from the corrected source set.

Scope note: This page covers Hallcraft Villas East I, II & III Homeowners Association v. Gaston (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2015-094714) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s filed minute entries, especially the April 5, 2016 summary-disposition ruling, June 2016 dismissal and fee rulings, July 20, 2016 judgment entry, and September 8, 2016 under-advisement ruling. The collected record ends with a settlement/dismissal-calendar entry for remaining claims. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

Hallcraft Villas obtained judgment and a fee/cost award, but the homeowner’s counterclaim and third-party management-company dispute did not disappear automatically. The court later held that disputed facts about HOA notice and alleged contract breach prevented summary judgment on the remaining issues.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Hallcraft Villas East I, II & III Homeowners Association (Plaintiff and counterdefendant)
Homeowners association that obtained summary disposition, fees, costs, and judgment.

Respondent Side

Shawnteia Elizabeth Gaston (Defendant, counterclaimant, and third-party plaintiff)
Homeowner defendant who pursued counterclaim and third-party claims after the association's claims were resolved.
Vision Community Management (Third-party defendant)
Management company that defeated some procedural filings but did not obtain judgment on the pleadings against the third-party complaint.
Lydia Linsmeier (Counsel)
Counsel appearing for Vision Community Management in the collected entries.

Neutral Parties

David K. Udall (Judge)
Superior Court judge who issued the relevant 2016 rulings and judgment entries.

What happened

Hallcraft Villas filed an enforcement case against Shawnteia Gaston. The first collected entry is an order-to-show-cause return hearing on the association’s application for preliminary and permanent injunction, but the source minute entries do not describe the alleged underlying violation in detail.

On April 5, 2016, the court granted the association’s motion for summary disposition and motion to strike after no response was filed. It denied fees and costs at that point. In June 2016, after more status proceedings, the court dismissed the association’s claims with prejudice subject to review of the association’s fee application.

The court then awarded the association $5,000 in attorney fees and $757.05 in costs. On July 20, 2016, it entered judgment in favor of Hallcraft Villas against Gaston under a formal written Rule 54(b) judgment.

That did not end every part of the case. The court noted that Gaston’s counterclaim and third-party claim were still pending. Vision Community Management moved for judgment on the pleadings against the third-party complaint, but the court denied that motion on June 8, 2016.

Gaston later moved for summary judgment on her remaining claims. The court denied that motion on September 8, 2016, finding material factual questions for a jury about whether HOA notice was given and whether the HOA breached the contract. The last collected entry reports a settlement notice and places the remaining case on the dismissal calendar.

Procedural timeline

Step 2016-01-08 Order-to-show-cause return hearing on the association's application for preliminary and permanent injunction.

Step 2016-04-05 The court grants the association's summary-disposition motion and motion to strike.

Step 2016-06-07 The association's claims are dismissed with prejudice, subject to review of its fee application.

Step 2016-06-08 The court awards the association $5,000 in fees and $757.05 in costs, and separately denies Vision's judgment-on-the-pleadings motion against the third-party complaint.

Step 2016-07-20 Final Rule 54(b) judgment is entered for the association against the homeowner.

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file

2016-10-03_018_minute-entry.pdf

FAQ

Did Hallcraft Villas obtain judgment?

Yes. The July 20, 2016 minute entry states that judgment was entered in favor of Hallcraft Villas and against the homeowner under a signed Rule 54(b) judgment.

What fees and costs did the court award?

The court awarded the association $5,000 in attorney fees and $757.05 in costs after the association’s claims were dismissed with prejudice subject to fee review.

Did the homeowner's claims continue?

Yes. The June 7, 2016 entry notes that the counterclaim and third-party claim were still pending, and the June 8, 2016 entry denied Vision Community Management’s judgment-on-the-pleadings motion.

Why did the homeowner's summary-judgment motion fail?

The September 8, 2016 ruling found factual questions for a jury about whether HOA notice was given and whether the HOA breached the contract.

Why is this case marked standard rather than must-read?

The case is HOA-relevant, but the record is mostly procedural and does not include extended analysis of HOA statutes or governing documents. It is useful as a narrow enforcement and counterclaim example.

Case Dossier

This dossier combines the case metadata, linked court sources, and the explanatory sections below. It distinguishes court rulings from party filings, allegations, and requested relief.

Case Summary

Case ID / citation	CV2015-094714 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunal	Superior Court
Decision / key date	July 20, 2016
Judge / panel	Hon. David K. Udall
Parties	Hallcraft Villas East I, II & III Homeowners Association (Plaintiff, homeowners association) v. Shawnteia Elizabeth Gaston (Defendant, homeowner); Vision Community Management (Third-party defendant)
Governing law	Rule 12(c), Ariz. R. Civ. P. Rule 54(b), Ariz. R. Civ. P. Rule 56, Ariz. R. Civ. P.
Topics	ProcedureCC&RsAssessmentsAttorney FeesBoard Governance
Outcome / holding	The superior court entered judgment for Hallcraft Villas against the homeowner and awarded the association fees and costs, but it allowed the homeowner's third-party claim against Vision Community Management to proceed and later denied the homeowner's summary-judgment motion because factual disputes remained over HOA notice and alleged contract breach.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package	18 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	7 roadmap entries
Video overview	Temporarily unavailable while the expanded case record is reviewed
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	5 questions
Featured download links	1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Hallcraft Villas East I, II & III Homeowners Association sued Shawnteia Gaston and pursued injunctive or enforcement relief. The court granted the association's summary-disposition motion, later dismissed the association's claims with prejudice subject to fees, awarded the association $5,000 in attorney fees and $757.05 in costs, and entered final judgment in the association's favor. The homeowner's counterclaim and third-party claim against Vision Community Management continued; the court denied Vision's judgment-on-the-pleadings motion and later denied the homeowner's summary-judgment motion because factual issues remained about HOA notice and alleged contract breach. The remaining claims then appear to have settled.

Key Issues & Findings

The collected record is brief and procedural. On April 5, 2016, the court granted the association's motion for summary disposition and motion to strike after no response was filed, while denying the association's fee request at that time. In June 2016, the court dismissed the association's claims with prejudice subject to review of its fee application, then awarded the association $5,000 in attorney fees and $757.05 in costs.

The July 20, 2016 judgment entry entered formal judgment for the association against Gaston and stated that no further matters remained as to that judgment under Rule 54(b). The court's entries do not spell out the underlying covenant or assessment violation in detail, so the judgment should be treated as a case-specific enforcement result rather than a broad HOA rule.

The remaining counterclaim and third-party dispute continued. On June 8, 2016, the court denied Vision Community Management's motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Gaston's third-party complaint. On September 8, 2016, the court denied Gaston's summary-judgment motion because material factual questions remained for a jury about whether HOA notice was given and whether the HOA breached the contract. The October 2016 settlement entry placed the remaining claims on the dismissal calendar and deemed pending motions moot.

Why It Matters

This is a standard, narrow superior-court record for HOA enforcement litigation. It shows that an association can obtain judgment and fees while related counterclaims and management-company claims continue, and that factual disputes about notice and contract breach can prevent summary judgment on those remaining claims.

The case is not must-read because the minute entries do not provide extended analysis of Title 33, CC&R language, or a governance question of general importance. It is useful mainly as a procedural example of split tracks: association enforcement judgment first, then unresolved homeowner and management-company issues that settled before trial.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Tapestry on Central LLC v. Tapestry on Central Condominium Association

Posted on July 2, 2026 by [email protected]

Superior Court HOA Case

The court held that assessment duties arose from the CC&Rs, not an alleged parking agreement, and a jury later awarded both unpaid assessments to the association and larger implied-covenant damages to the commercial owner.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Tapestry on Central LLC v. Tapestry on Central Condominium Association, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2014-090103.

Download ruling

Current-status note: This page is published as a litigation record based on the source files available through 2018-05-18. Later filings, appeals, mandates, settlements, or dismissal orders may change the posture; the linked court records control.

Scope note: This page covers Tapestry on Central LLC v. Tapestry on Central Condominium Association (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2014-090103) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA and condominium case guide. It is built from the court’s filed minute entries, especially the March 2 and March 24, 2015 assessment-lien rulings, the May 6 and June 13, 2016 summary-judgment rulings, the September 1, 2017 verdict entry, the November 8, 2017 post-trial ruling, and the November 21, 2017 final judgment entry. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The court treated the commercial owner’s assessment obligation as a CC&R duty governed by A.R.S. § 33-1256, not as a duty excused by an alleged parking-space agreement. The association still had to prove the lien amount, and a later jury awarded the association unpaid assessments while awarding the owner much larger damages for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Tapestry on Central LLC (Plaintiff and counterdefendant)
Commercial condominium owner that sued the condominium association and defended against the assessment-lien counterclaim.
Ryan J. Lorenz (Counsel)
Counsel appearing for Tapestry on Central LLC in the later trial and judgment entries.

Respondent Side

Tapestry on Central Condominium Association (Defendant and counterclaimant)
Condominium association that defended the owner claims and sought unpaid assessments and foreclosure on its counterclaim.
Kenneth Cheuvront (Defendant)
Individual defendant associated with the condominium-association side of the dispute.
Jim Ehinger (Defendant)
Individual defendant associated with the condominium-association side of the dispute.
Emery Jensen (Defendant)
Individual defendant associated with the condominium-association side of the dispute.
Steve Denning (Defendant)
Individual defendant associated with the condominium-association side of the dispute.
Kevin P. Nelson (Counsel)
Counsel appearing for the condominium association in many substantive entries.

Neutral Parties

David M. Talamante (Judge)
Superior Court judge who handled the later summary-judgment, trial, verdict, post-trial, judgment, and bond/garnishment entries.
Mark F. Aceto (Judge)
Superior Court judge who issued early assessment-lien and pleading rulings.

What happened

Tapestry on Central LLC, a commercial condominium owner, sued the condominium association and related individual defendants. The association counterclaimed for unpaid assessments and foreclosure of its assessment lien. The collected record describes disputes over CC&R assessment duties, parking-space allegations, common-area repairs and maintenance, A.R.S. § 33-420 lien allegations, discovery, expert disclosures, and trial damages.

The March 2, 2015 ruling is the clearest assessment-lien ruling. The court found it undisputed that the owner held commercial condominium interests, that the CC&Rs required condominium owners to pay assessments, that the association had levied assessments, that the owner had not paid those assessments, and that A.R.S. § 33-1256 generally gives an association the right to foreclose absent a viable defense. The court denied summary judgment on the amount of the lien because the association had not established the claimed amount as a matter of law.

The same ruling rejected the owner’s parking-space theory as a defense to the assessment obligation. The court reasoned that the association’s assessment claim was based on the CC&Rs, not the alleged parking-space agreement, so an alleged breach of that parking agreement was a red herring for the owner’s duty to pay assessments. The court asked for supplemental briefing on whether equitable defenses such as laches and unclean hands could be asserted against the CC&R/statutory foreclosure claim.

The case later narrowed through summary judgment. In May 2016, the court granted judgment to defendants on the A.R.S. § 33-420 claim after finding the disputed facts did not meet the statutory requirements. In June 2016, the court denied summary judgment on claims involving repairs made at the association’s direction and maintenance of common areas, but granted judgment on an alleged oral-contract claim.

After a multi-day jury trial, the September 1, 2017 verdict awarded the association $156,509 on its counterclaim for principal and interest. The jury also found for the owner against the association on breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and awarded $1,190,400. A later nunc pro tunc entry clarified that the court had directed verdict on the alleged failure-to-tow CC&R theory because there was insufficient factual support for that damages claim.

The court denied the association’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and motion for new trial. It found adequate factual support for the implied-covenant verdict. The November 21, 2017 judgment entry awarded judgment in the owner’s proposed form, plus $581,420 in attorney fees and $15,874.54 in costs, while recognizing that the association had prevailed on unpaid assessments.

Video overview of the case record

An AI-generated video overview of Tapestry on Central LLC v. Tapestry on Central Condominium Association (CV2014-090103 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). CC&R assessment duties survived a parking-agreement defense, but the owner won a larger implied-covenant verdict. 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 Tapestry on Central LLC v. Tapestry on Central Condominium Association. 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 2015-03-02 Ruling finds A.R.S. § 33-1256 applies and the CC&Rs require assessments, but denies summary judgment on the lien amount and requests supplemental briefing on defenses.

Step 2015-03-24 The court denies the owner's summary-judgment motion on the assessment-lien foreclosure counterclaim.

Step 2016-05-06 The court grants summary judgment on the A.R.S. § 33-420 claim and part of the tortious-interference claim, and takes other claims under advisement.

Step 2016-06-13 The court denies summary judgment on common-area repair and maintenance claims, but grants judgment on the alleged oral-contract claim.

Step 2017-01-19 The court allows the owner's replacement damages expert and reopens limited discovery.

Step 2017-09-01 The jury awards the association $156,509 on its counterclaim and awards the owner $1,190,400 against the association for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Step 2017-09-20 The court clarifies that directed verdict was granted on the alleged failure-to-tow theory.

Step 2017-11-08 The court denies the association's judgment-as-a-matter-of-law and new-trial motions.

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file

2018-05-18_088_minute-entry.pdf

FAQ

What did the court say about unpaid assessments?

The March 2015 ruling said the CC&Rs mandated assessments, the owner had not paid assessments, and A.R.S. § 33-1256 generally gives an association a foreclosure remedy absent a viable defense. The association still had to prove the amount of the lien.

Did an alleged parking-space agreement excuse assessments?

No, not on the reasoning in the March 2015 ruling. The court said the assessment claim was based on the CC&Rs, not the alleged parking agreement, so the alleged parking breach was a red herring to the CC&R assessment duty.

Who won at trial?

Both sides won something. The association won $156,509 on its counterclaim for principal and interest, but the owner won $1,190,400 against the association on breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Did the court overturn the jury verdict?

No. The court denied the association’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and motion for new trial, finding an adequate factual basis for the verdicts.

Why is this case marked must-read?

The case includes substantive superior-court analysis of CC&R assessment duties, A.R.S. § 33-1256 foreclosure, statutory lien claims under A.R.S. § 33-420, common-area duties, and the implied covenant in a condominium-association dispute.

Case Dossier

This dossier combines the case metadata, linked court sources, and the explanatory sections below. It distinguishes court rulings from party filings, allegations, and requested relief.

Case Summary

Case ID / citation	CV2014-090103 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunal	Superior Court
Decision / key date	November 21, 2017
Judge / panel	Hon. Mark F. Aceto, Hon. David M. Talamante
Parties	Tapestry on Central LLC (Plaintiff and counterdefendant, commercial condominium owner) v. Tapestry on Central Condominium Association and individual defendants (Defendants and counterclaimants)
Governing law	A.R.S. § 33-1256 A.R.S. § 33-420 Rule 50, Ariz. R. Civ. P. Rule 56, Ariz. R. Civ. P. Rule 59, Ariz. R. Civ. P.
Topics	AssessmentsLiensForeclosureCC&RsGood Faith & Fair DealingBoard GovernanceAttorney FeesProcedure
Outcome / holding	The court held that the CC&Rs, not an alleged parking-space agreement, supplied the owner's assessment duty and that A.R.S. § 33-1256 generally authorized condominium assessment-lien foreclosure absent a viable defense. After trial, the court entered judgment on a verdict awarding the association unpaid assessments while awarding the owner larger implied-covenant damages against the association.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package	88 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	10 roadmap entries
Video overview	Tapestry on Central LLC v. Tapestry on Central Condominium Association
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	5 questions
Featured download links	1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Tapestry on Central LLC sued its condominium association and related individual defendants, and the association counterclaimed for unpaid assessments and assessment-lien foreclosure. Early rulings treated the owner's assessment obligation as arising from the CC&Rs and A.R.S. § 33-1256, not from an alleged parking-space agreement, while leaving the lien amount and defenses for later proof. The case proceeded through summary-judgment rulings and a multi-day jury trial. The jury awarded the association $156,509 on its counterclaim but awarded the owner $1,190,400 against the association for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and the court later entered judgment with a large fee award for the owner.

Key Issues & Findings

The March 2, 2015 ruling began with the assessment counterclaim. The court found that the owner held commercial condominium interests, the CC&Rs mandated assessment payments, the association had levied assessments, the owner had not paid, and A.R.S. § 33-1256 generally gives an association foreclosure rights in this setting absent a viable defense. The court still denied summary judgment on the amount of the assessment lien because the association had not proved the claimed amount as a matter of law.

The court rejected the owner's attempt to use an alleged parking-space agreement as a material-breach defense to assessments. The court reasoned that the association's assessment claim was not based on that alleged agreement; it was based on the CC&Rs. It therefore described the parking-agreement theory as a red herring in the context of the owner's CC&R assessment obligation, while asking for additional briefing on equitable defenses such as laches and unclean hands.

Later summary-judgment rulings narrowed the case. The May 6, 2016 entry granted judgment to defendants on the A.R.S. § 33-420 claim because the disputed facts did not meet the statutory requirements. The June 13, 2016 under-advisement ruling denied judgment on common-area repair and maintenance claims but granted judgment on the alleged oral-contract claim.

At trial, the jury awarded the association $156,509 on its counterclaim and awarded the owner $1,190,400 on breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court denied the association's post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law and new trial, finding the record contained an adequate factual basis for the verdicts. The final judgment entry awarded the owner attorney fees and costs while recognizing the assessment-counterclaim award.

Why It Matters

This is one of the more useful superior-court records for mixed-use or commercial condominium disputes because it separates the CC&R assessment duty from side agreements. The court treated the alleged parking-space bargain as irrelevant to the basic CC&R-based duty to pay assessments, while still requiring the association to prove the lien amount and face viable defenses.

The case also shows how a condominium dispute can produce split results. The association recovered unpaid assessments, but the owner obtained a much larger implied-covenant verdict and fee award. For readers, the lesson is that assessment foreclosure and governance conduct can travel together: winning on delinquent assessments does not necessarily defeat claims that the association handled the broader relationship in bad faith.

← Back to Superior Court cases

North Canyon Ranch Owners Association v. Allen

Posted on July 2, 2026 by [email protected]

Superior Court HOA Case

The collected superior-court record shows an assessment-collection dispute shaped by bankruptcy discharge, a prior justice-court case, appeal, and a final foreclosure judgment.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: North Canyon Ranch Owners Association v. Allen, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2014-097453.

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 North Canyon Ranch Owners Association v. Allen (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2014-097453) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s filed minute entries, especially the April 12, 2016 summary-judgment ruling, the November 28, 2016 post-trial ruling, the March 5, 2019 post-mandate entry, and the April 24, 2019 post-mandate fee/cost and foreclosure-judgment entry. The collected minute-entry text references a Court of Appeals memorandum decision and mandate but does not include the full appellate opinion. 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 record shows a bankruptcy-sensitive HOA collection dispute. The trial court first dismissed the association’s claim, but after the Court of Appeals mandate the superior court entered a foreclosure judgment and awarded the association only post-bankruptcy attorney fees and costs.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

North Canyon Ranch Owners Association (Plaintiff)
Homeowners association that sought to collect assessments, fees, costs, and foreclosure relief.
Samuel C. Richardson (Counsel)
Counsel of record for North Canyon Ranch Owners Association.

Respondent Side

Pamela J. Allen (Defendant)
Homeowner defendant who contested collectability of the association's claimed arrearages after bankruptcy.
Bank of America National Association (Defendant)
Lienholder defendant named in the foreclosure action.
First National of Nebraska Inc. (Defendant)
Lienholder defendant named in the foreclosure action.
First International of Nebraska Inc. (Defendant)
Lienholder defendant named in the foreclosure action.
Dennis Brookshire (Counsel)
Counsel of record for Pamela Allen.

Neutral Parties

David K. Udall (Judge)
Superior Court judge who issued the 2016 summary-judgment and post-trial rulings.
Janice K. Crawford (Judge)
Superior Court judge who handled the post-mandate fee/cost ruling and foreclosure judgment entry.

What happened

North Canyon Ranch sued a homeowner and lienholders in a collection and foreclosure case. The collected record shows that the dispute centered on association assessments, fees, costs, liens, bankruptcy discharge, and whether earlier justice-court proceedings prevented the association from collecting old amounts.

In April 2016, the court denied the association’s motion for summary judgment. The ruling found genuine issues of material fact regarding the collectability of past arrearages, so the case proceeded to a bench trial.

After trial in November 2016, the court dismissed the association’s case with prejudice. The court found that the homeowner had filed bankruptcy, that earlier debts no longer existed after discharge, that a prior justice-court matter had resolved earlier claims, that res judicata barred collection of fees, costs, or fines associated with that justice-court matter, that 11 U.S.C. § 524 prohibited collection of discharged personal debt, and that the association had not met its burden of proof.

The later entries show the case changed after appeal. In March 2019, the superior court received a Court of Appeals mandate awarding the association costs and attorney fees and ordered a proposed order consistent with that mandate. The collected minute entries do not include the full appellate memorandum decision, so this page does not summarize the appellate reasoning.

On April 24, 2019, the court awarded the association $22,865 in reasonable attorney fees and $1,170.63 in costs. The court limited recovery to fees and costs incurred after the homeowner’s bankruptcy filing, rejected pre-bankruptcy amounts, and noted that a judgment of foreclosure was filed at the same time.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of North Canyon Ranch Owners Association v. Allen (CV2014-097453 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). After appeal, the HOA received foreclosure judgment and post-bankruptcy fees; pre-bankruptcy amounts were excluded. 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 North Canyon Ranch Owners Association v. Allen. 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 2016-04-12 The court denies the association's summary-judgment motion because factual issues remain about collectability of past arrearages.

Step 2016-11-14 The court holds a bench trial, receives evidence, hears testimony, and takes the matter under advisement.

Step 2016-11-28 Post-trial ruling dismisses the association's case with prejudice based on bankruptcy discharge, prior justice-court proceedings, res judicata, and failure of proof.

Step 2017-02-13 The court enters judgment against the association and separately denies the association's motion for new trial.

Step 2017-04-25 The court sets a supersedeas bond amount after the association seeks a stay pending appeal.

Step 2017-05-15 The court enters an amended final judgment against the association under Rule 54(c).

Type: Court order/minute entry

Post-mandate ruling requiring the association to submit a proposed order consistent with the Court of Appeals mandate awarding costs and attorney fees.

Download source file

2019-03-05_018_ruling.pdf

Source 19 2019-04-24

Judgment Entered

Type: Decision or judgment

Post-mandate order awarding North Canyon Ranch $22,865 in attorney fees and $1,170.63 in costs incurred after the bankruptcy filing, and noting entry of a foreclosure judgment.

Download source file

2019-04-24_019_judgment-entered.pdf

FAQ

Did North Canyon Ranch win at trial?

No. The November 2016 superior-court ruling dismissed the association’s case with prejudice after a bench trial.

Why was the trial ruling against the association?

The court found that earlier debts no longer existed after bankruptcy discharge, that a prior justice-court matter had resolved earlier claims, that res judicata barred collection of related fees, costs, or fines, and that the association had not met its burden of proof.

What changed after appeal?

The collected superior-court entries state that the Court of Appeals mandate awarded the association costs and attorney fees. After remand, the superior court entered a foreclosure judgment and awarded post-bankruptcy fees and costs.

What fees and costs did the court award after remand?

The April 2019 order awarded $22,865 in reasonable attorney fees and $1,170.63 in costs, but limited the award to amounts incurred after the homeowner’s bankruptcy filing.

Does this page summarize the Court of Appeals reasoning?

No. The superior-court minute entries reference the appellate memorandum decision and mandate, but the collected minute-entry text does not include the appellate opinion. This page reports only the appellate result reflected in the superior-court record.

Why is the case marked standard rather than must-read?

The case is HOA-relevant and useful for bankruptcy-overlap collection issues, but the collected superior-court entries do not provide broad Title 33 or CC&R interpretation. The final result is case-specific and partly depends on an appellate decision not included in the minute-entry text.

Case Dossier

This dossier combines the case metadata, linked court sources, and the explanatory sections below. It distinguishes court rulings from party filings, allegations, and requested relief.

Case Summary

Case ID / citation	CV2014-097453 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunal	Superior Court
Decision / key date	April 24, 2019
Judge / panel	Hon. David K. Udall, Hon. Janice K. Crawford
Parties	North Canyon Ranch Owners Association (Plaintiff, homeowners association) v. Pamela J. Allen (Defendant, homeowner), Bank of America National Association, First National of Nebraska Inc., and First International of Nebraska Inc.
Governing law	11 U.S.C. § 524 A.R.S. § 12-332 Rule 54(c), Ariz. R. Civ. P. Rule 56, Ariz. R. Civ. P.
Topics	AssessmentsLiensForeclosureAttorney FeesCC&RsProcedure
Outcome / holding	After remand from the Court of Appeals, the superior court entered a judgment of foreclosure for North Canyon Ranch Owners Association and awarded the association $22,865 in reasonable attorney fees and $1,170.63 in costs, limited to amounts incurred after the homeowner's bankruptcy filing.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package	19 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	8 roadmap entries
Video overview	North Canyon Ranch Owners Association v. Allen
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	6 questions
Featured download links	1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

North Canyon Ranch Owners Association sued a homeowner and lienholders over unpaid assessments and foreclosure. The superior court first denied the association's summary-judgment motion, then after a bench trial dismissed the case with prejudice, finding that pre-bankruptcy debts were discharged or resolved and that post-bankruptcy obligations were current. Later entries show a Court of Appeals mandate in favor of the association, an order for the association to submit a mandate-consistent order, and a 2019 judgment of foreclosure with post-bankruptcy attorney fees and costs awarded to the association.

Key Issues & Findings

The superior-court record has two stages. In April 2016, the court denied the association's summary-judgment motion because genuine issues of material fact remained regarding collectability of past arrearages. After a November 2016 bench trial, the same judge dismissed the case with prejudice, finding that pre-bankruptcy debts no longer existed after discharge, that a prior justice-court matter had resolved earlier claims, that res judicata barred collection of fees, costs, or fines associated with that justice-court matter, and that 11 U.S.C. § 524 prohibited collection of discharged personal debt.

The later minute entries show that the case did not end there. In March 2019, the superior court received a Court of Appeals mandate awarding the association costs and attorney fees and ordered the association to submit a proposed order consistent with the mandate. The collected minute entries do not include the appellate memorandum decision itself, so this draft describes the appellate result only at the level shown in the superior-court entries.

On April 24, 2019, the superior court reviewed the post-mandate fee and cost submissions, the earlier summary-judgment and new-trial rulings, and the Court of Appeals memorandum decision. It awarded the association reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred after the homeowner's bankruptcy filing, rejected pre-bankruptcy fees and costs, and noted that a judgment of foreclosure was filed contemporaneously with the order.

Why It Matters

This case is useful for HOA collection files that overlap with bankruptcy, but it should be read carefully. The trial court initially treated bankruptcy discharge, prior justice-court proceedings, and res judicata as defeating the association's collection case; later post-appeal entries show the association obtained foreclosure and a limited post-bankruptcy fee/cost award.

The practical point is not a broad new HOA rule. The minute-entry record shows the importance of segregating pre-bankruptcy and post-bankruptcy fees and costs, and of being precise about which debts remain collectible after a homeowner bankruptcy. Because the appellate memorandum decision is not included in the collected minute-entry text, this draft does not infer appellate reasoning beyond the superior-court entries showing the mandate and final foreclosure judgment.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Lake Park Village I Homeowners Association v. Spyropoulos

Posted on July 2, 2026 by [email protected]

Superior Court HOA Case

The court found no genuine fact dispute over delinquent association charges, recognized the association’s lien, and authorized foreclosure.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Lake Park Village I Homeowners Association v. Spyropoulos, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2014-090909.

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 Lake Park Village I Homeowners Association v. Spyropoulos (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2014-090909) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s filed minute entries, especially the March 20, 2015 under-advisement ruling, the June 2, 2015 final judgment minute entry, and the September 8, 2017 ruling denying dismissal under A.R.S. § 33-722. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

Lake Park Village I obtained summary judgment and foreclosure authority after the court found the homeowner owed delinquent association charges, the association held an automatic lien for the arrearages and costs, and there was no genuine issue of material fact. A later A.R.S. § 33-722 challenge failed because the association had already elected foreclosure.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Lake Park Village I Homeowners Association (Plaintiff)
Homeowners association that sought judgment for delinquent charges and foreclosure of its lien.
Jason N. Miller (Counsel)
Counsel for Lake Park Village I Homeowners Association.

Respondent Side

Cia Spyropoulos (Defendant)
Homeowner defendant who opposed summary judgment and later sought dismissal under A.R.S. § 33-722.
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (Defendant)
Lienholder defendant included in the foreclosure proceedings.
Pentagon Federal Credit Union (Defendant)
Lienholder defendant included in the foreclosure proceedings.

Neutral Parties

David K. Udall (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court judge who issued the March 2015 summary-judgment ruling and June 2015 final judgment entry.
Margaret Benny (Commissioner)
Judicial officer who handled default-judgment and post-judgment procedural entries.

What happened

Lake Park Village I sued a homeowner and lienholders to collect delinquent association charges and foreclose the association’s lien. The collected minute entries show the association moved for summary judgment against the homeowner while also pursuing default-judgment steps against lienholder defendants.

On March 13, 2015, Judge David K. Udall heard oral argument on the association’s summary-judgment motion and took the matter under advisement. One week later, the court granted the motion. The ruling found that the homeowner owned property within Lake Park Village I Homeowners Association and was obligated to pay fees, costs, assessments, late fees, and attorney fees if delinquent.

The court also found the association already had an automatic lien for the arrearages and costs, and that the association was authorized to foreclose on that lien. Because the court found no genuine issues of material fact, it entered judgment against the homeowner and directed the association to submit a form of judgment and fee request.

The next several entries handled the mechanics of judgment. The court denied reconsideration, required cleaner separate foreclosure/default judgment orders for the homeowner and lienholders, and on June 2, 2015 entered judgment for the association under the formal written judgment. That entry stated no further matters remained and made the judgment final under Rule 54(c).

In 2017, the homeowner asked to dismiss the action and argued the association had to elect between an action on the debt and foreclosure under A.R.S. § 33-722. The court denied dismissal, explaining that the association had elected foreclosure through the June 2015 judgment and foreclosure orders.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Lake Park Village I Homeowners Association v. Spyropoulos (CV2014-090909 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). HOA won summary judgment to foreclose its assessment lien after the court found no factual dispute over delinquency. 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 Lake Park Village I Homeowners Association v. Spyropoulos. 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 2014-07-17 The court directs the association to use the commissioner default-judgment process for MERS.

Step 2014-08-27 The court treats the homeowner's filing as a timely answer, preventing default from becoming effective.

Step 2014-11-07 The court sets oral argument on the association's summary-judgment motion.

Step 2015-03-13 The court hears argument on the association's summary-judgment motion and takes it under advisement.

Step 2015-03-20 Under-advisement ruling grants summary judgment for the association and authorizes lien foreclosure.

Step 2015-04-14 The court denies the homeowner's reconsideration request.

Step 2015-05-14 The court requires separate amended judgment orders for the homeowner and lienholder defendants.

Step 2015-06-02 Final judgment is entered for the association under the formal foreclosure judgment.

Type: Court order/minute entry

Ruling denying the homeowner's motion to amend the judgment to correct her name and taking no action on a moot request for findings.

Download source file

2015-07-08_016_ruling.pdf

Source 17 2017-09-08

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

Ruling denying the homeowner's A.R.S. § 33-722 dismissal motion because the association had elected foreclosure through the judgment and foreclosure orders.

Download source file

2017-09-08_017_ruling.pdf

FAQ

What did the March 2015 ruling decide?

The court granted Lake Park Village I summary judgment, found no genuine issue of material fact, recognized the association’s automatic lien for delinquent charges and costs, and authorized foreclosure.

Was this a broad HOA-law ruling?

No. The ruling is short and fact-specific. It is useful as a trial-court example of routine assessment and lien foreclosure, but it does not provide extended statutory or CC&R analysis.

Did the court enter a final judgment?

Yes. The June 2, 2015 minute entry entered judgment for the association under the formal written judgment and stated that no further matters remained.

What happened with the homeowner's A.R.S. § 33-722 argument?

In September 2017, the court denied the homeowner’s motion to dismiss. It reasoned that the association had elected foreclosure through the June 2015 judgment and foreclosure orders.

Why is the case marked standard rather than must-read?

The case is HOA-relevant, but the record is a routine assessment-collection and foreclosure result with limited analysis. The rubric reserves must-read status for superior-court rulings with substantive analysis of generally important HOA statutes or governing-document issues.

Case Dossier

This dossier combines the case metadata, linked court sources, and the explanatory sections below. It distinguishes court rulings from party filings, allegations, and requested relief.

Case Summary

Case ID / citation	CV2014-090909 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunal	Superior Court
Decision / key date	March 20, 2015
Judge / panel	Hon. David K. Udall, Commissioner Margaret Benny
Parties	Lake Park Village I Homeowners Association (Plaintiff, homeowners association) v. Cia Spyropoulos (Defendant, homeowner), Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., and Pentagon Federal Credit Union
Governing law	A.R.S. § 33-722 Rule 56, Ariz. R. Civ. P.
Topics	AssessmentsLiensForeclosureAttorney FeesProcedure
Outcome / holding	The superior court granted Lake Park Village I Homeowners Association summary judgment against the homeowner and authorized foreclosure of the association's lien for delinquent fees, costs, assessments, late fees, and attorney fees. A later order denied the homeowner's election-of-remedies dismissal motion because the association had elected to foreclose.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package	17 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	10 roadmap entries
Video overview	Lake Park Village I Homeowners Association v. Spyropoulos
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	5 questions
Featured download links	1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Lake Park Village I Homeowners Association sued a homeowner and lienholders to collect delinquent association charges and foreclose its assessment lien. After oral argument on the association's summary-judgment motion, the superior court found that the homeowner owed association fees, costs, assessments, late fees, and attorney fees, that the association already had an automatic lien for the arrearages and costs, and that the association was authorized to foreclose. The court granted summary judgment for the association, later entered final judgment and foreclosure orders, and in 2017 denied the homeowner's A.R.S. § 33-722 dismissal motion because the association had elected foreclosure.

Key Issues & Findings

The March 20, 2015 under-advisement ruling was brief but direct. The court found that the defendant was the recorded homeowner of property within Lake Park Village I Homeowners Association and that she had an obligation under the association to pay fees, costs, assessments, late fees, and attorney fees if delinquent. The court also found that the association already had an automatic lien for the arrearages and costs, was authorized to foreclose that lien, and had shown there were no genuine issues of material fact.

Those findings resolved the merits of the assessment-collection dispute in the association's favor. The court granted the association's motion for summary judgment and directed it to submit a form of judgment and fee request. On June 2, 2015, the court entered judgment for the association under a formal written judgment, stated that no further matters remained, and made the judgment final under Rule 54(c).

The later 2017 entry addressed the homeowner's request to dismiss under A.R.S. § 33-722 by forcing the association to elect between an action on the debt and foreclosure. The court denied dismissal because the association had already elected foreclosure through the June 2015 judgment and foreclosure orders against the homeowner and other lienholders.

Why It Matters

This is a routine superior-court assessment-foreclosure case, not a broad HOA precedent. Its value is practical: the minute entries show how a trial court handled a straightforward HOA lien claim at summary judgment when the owner did not create a genuine factual dispute over delinquent charges and foreclosure authority.

The 2017 order is also a narrow procedural note. When the homeowner later invoked A.R.S. § 33-722, the court treated the association's judgment and foreclosure orders as the election that defeated dismissal. The collected record does not include extended statutory analysis, so the case should be read as a case-specific foreclosure result rather than a general rule expanding association lien remedies.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Lisa Marx v. Fiesta Villas Condominium Association

Posted on July 2, 2026 by [email protected]

Superior Court HOA Case

A Maricopa County judge let 26 Fiesta Villas votes proceed after applying condominium CC&R purchaser language and A.R.S. § 33-1244.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Lisa Marx v. Fiesta Villas Condominium Association, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2013-095464.

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 Lisa Marx v. Fiesta Villas Condominium Association (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2013-095464) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s own filed minute entries, especially the September 10, 2013 under-advisement ruling quashing the temporary restraining order; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: the last collected minute entry, dated October 31, 2013, shows the matter was dismissed with prejudice after Marx filed a notice of dismissal with prejudice. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The court quashed a TRO that would have stopped Dwight Schrute Holdings from casting 26 votes in a condominium-association election. The key point was the CC&Rs’ purchaser definition: a buyer assigned special declarant rights was not treated as a purchaser required to pay the transfer and working-capital fees, and A.R.S. § 33-1244 supported the defendants’ position that those special declarant rights transferred through the trustee-sale/deed-of-trust process.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Lisa Marx (Plaintiff)
Sought temporary injunctive relief to stop 26 votes from being cast in the Fiesta Villas Condominium Association election.
Christina N. Morgan (Counsel)
Counsel for Lisa Marx in the minute entries.
Scott L. Potter (Counsel)
Counsel appearing with Christina N. Morgan for Lisa Marx at the order-to-show-cause hearing.

Respondent Side

Fiesta Villas Condominium Association (Defendant)
Condominium association whose election was at issue.
Dwight Schrute Holdings LLC (Defendant)
Entity whose 26 votes in the association election were temporarily restrained and then allowed after the TRO was quashed.
HUB Realty LLC (Defendant)
Entity alleged to have transferred or held interests connected to the 26 units and disputed fees.
Spencer J. Lindahl (Defendant)
The ruling states that HUB Realty and Dwight Schrute Holdings were managed by Spencer J. Lindahl.
Melinda C. Lindahl (Defendant)
Named defendant in the case-party records and minute entries.
Paul R. Neil (Counsel)
Counsel for Fiesta Villas Condominium Association in the minute entries.

Neutral Parties

David M. Talamante (Judge)
Judge who issued the August 30, 2013 temporary restraining order referenced in the ruling.
David K. Udall (Judge)
Judge who heard the order-to-show-cause return hearing and quashed the TRO.
John Rea (Judge)
Presiding civil judge who reassigned the case after a notice of change of judge.

What happened

Lisa Marx obtained a temporary restraining order before a Fiesta Villas Condominium Association election. The TRO prevented Dwight Schrute Holdings LLC from casting 26 votes at the September 10, 2013 election.

The theory behind the TRO was that Dwight Schrute Holdings and HUB Realty owed transfer-fee and working-capital-fund assessments for 26 units. Marx argued that because those sums had not been paid, the 26 votes should not be cast in the association election.

Judge David Udall held an order-to-show-cause return hearing on September 9, 2013 and took the matter under advisement. The next day, the court focused on the CC&Rs’ definition of “Purchaser” and on A.R.S. § 33-1244, which addresses transfer of special declarant rights after foreclosure, trustee sale, or similar transfer.

The court found that anyone with a declarant right was not required to pay the transfer or working-capital fees under the CC&Rs’ purchaser definition. The court also found that HUB Realty and Dwight Schrute Holdings had received their interests through trustee-sale and deed-of-trust instruments, giving defendants a strong argument that special declarant rights transferred and that their voting rights were not restricted.

On irreparable harm, the court found the claimed election harm speculative. Marx pointed to a possible special $2,000-per-unit levy for improvements, but the court was not persuaded that the evidence showed how the election would come out depending on the 26 votes. The court quashed the TRO, and the case was dismissed with prejudice on October 31, 2013.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Lisa Marx v. Fiesta Villas Condominium Association (CV2013-095464 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). Special-declarant rights let 26 condo-unit votes proceed despite unpaid transfer and working-capital fees. 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 Lisa Marx v. Fiesta Villas Condominium Association. 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 2013-08-30 Judge Talamante issues a temporary restraining order barring Dwight Schrute Holdings from casting 26 votes in the Fiesta Villas election, according to the later ruling.

Step 2013-09-09 Judge Udall holds an order-to-show-cause return hearing and takes the TRO issue under advisement.

Step 2013-09-10 Under-advisement ruling quashes the TRO after applying the CC&Rs and A.R.S. § 33-1244.

Step 2013-09-10 Separate minute entry reassigns the case to Judge Udall after a notice of change of judge.

Step 2013-10-31 The court dismisses the matter with prejudice after Marx files a notice of dismissal with prejudice.

Complete source-document index

This index contains 4 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 2013-09-09

Oral Argument

Type: Court/source PDF

Order-to-show-cause hearing minute entry taking under advisement whether to continue a temporary restraining order barring Dwight Schrute Holdings LLC from casting 26 votes in the Fiesta Villas Condominium Association election.

Download source file

2013-09-09_001_oral-argument.pdf

Source 2 2013-09-10

Under Advisement Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

Under-advisement ruling quashing the temporary restraining order after finding defendants had a strong argument that special declarant rights under the CC&Rs and A.R.S. § 33-1244 meant the 26 votes were not barred by unpaid transfer and working-capital fees.

Download source file

2013-09-10_002_under-advisement-ruling.pdf

Source 3 2013-09-10

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

Case-reassignment minute entry assigning the case to Judge David K. Udall after Fiesta Villas Condominium Association filed a notice of change of judge.

Download source file

2013-09-10_003_minute-entry.pdf

Source 4 2013-10-31

Judgment Entered

Type: Decision or judgment

Dismissal order dismissing the case with prejudice after Marx filed a notice of dismissal with prejudice.

Download source file

2013-10-31_004_judgment-entered.pdf

FAQ

What did the TRO try to stop?

It stopped Dwight Schrute Holdings LLC from casting 26 votes in the Fiesta Villas Condominium Association election.

Why were the votes challenged?

Marx argued that HUB Realty and Dwight Schrute Holdings had not paid transfer-fee and working-capital-fund assessments for the 26 units, so the votes should be restricted.

Why did the court quash the TRO?

The court found defendants had a strong argument that an entity assigned special declarant rights was excluded from the CC&Rs’ purchaser definition and therefore was not required to pay those fees before voting.

How did A.R.S. § 33-1244 matter?

The court considered A.R.S. § 33-1244 because it provides that special declarant rights can transfer to a person acquiring title through foreclosure, trustee sale, or similar sale of declarant-owned units or development-rights property.

Did the court decide the final merits of every claim?

No. The ruling decided temporary injunctive relief by quashing the TRO. The case was later dismissed with prejudice after Marx filed a notice of dismissal.

Why is this marked must-read?

Even though it was a TRO ruling, it directly applies a condominium statute and CC&R voting/assessment language to an association election, which is a recurring governance issue.

Case Dossier

This dossier combines the case metadata, linked court sources, and the explanatory sections below. It distinguishes court rulings from party filings, allegations, and requested relief.

Case Summary

Case ID / citation	CV2013-095464 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunal	Superior Court
Decision / key date	September 10, 2013
Judge / panel	Hon. David M. Talamante, Hon. David K. Udall, Hon. John Rea
Parties	Lisa Marx (Plaintiff) v. Fiesta Villas Condominium Association, Dwight Schrute Holdings LLC, HUB Realty LLC, Spencer J. Lindahl, and Melinda C. Lindahl (Defendants)
Governing law	A.R.S. § 33-1244
Topics	ElectionsAssessmentsCC&RsBoard Governance
Outcome / holding	The superior court quashed the temporary restraining order that had barred Dwight Schrute Holdings LLC from casting 26 votes in the Fiesta Villas Condominium Association election, finding defendants were likely to succeed on their argument that special declarant rights exempted them from the transfer-fee and working-capital-fund payment theory used to restrict voting.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package	4 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	5 roadmap entries
Video overview	Lisa Marx v. Fiesta Villas Condominium Association
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	6 questions
Featured download links	1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Lisa Marx obtained a temporary restraining order that prevented Dwight Schrute Holdings LLC from casting 26 votes in the Fiesta Villas Condominium Association election. The asserted basis was that HUB Realty LLC and Dwight Schrute Holdings had not paid transfer-fee and working-capital-fund assessments under the condominium CC&Rs. After an order-to-show-cause hearing, the superior court quashed the TRO. The court read the CC&Rs’ definition of “Purchaser” together with A.R.S. § 33-1244 on transfer of special declarant rights and found defendants had a strong merits position that an entity holding special declarant rights was not required to pay those fees and therefore was not barred from voting. The case was dismissed with prejudice the next month.

Key Issues & Findings

The court focused on the CC&Rs. Sections 7.9 and 7.11 required each purchaser of a unit to pay working-capital and transfer-fee assessments, but Section 1.2.30 defined “Purchaser” to exclude a person who, in addition to purchasing a unit, is assigned any special declarant right. The court found that HUB Realty and Dwight Schrute Holdings were managed by Spencer Lindahl and that they received their interest through trustee-sale and deed-of-trust instruments.

The court then considered A.R.S. § 33-1244, which provides for transfer of special declarant rights and states that, unless otherwise provided in the mortgage or deed of trust, a person acquiring title to all real estate being foreclosed or sold succeeds to special declarant rights related to that real estate whether or not the conveying instrument says so. On that record, the court found defendants had a strong position that the CC&Rs did not require them to pay the transfer and working-capital fees, and therefore their voting rights under the CC&Rs would not be restricted or prohibited.

For irreparable harm, Marx argued that the board intended to assess a special $2,000 levy on each unit for improvements. The court found the election outcome speculative regardless of whether Dwight Schrute Holdings cast its votes. Because defendants showed likelihood of success and the claimed harm was speculative, the court quashed the TRO.

Why It Matters

This is a compact but important condominium-election ruling. It shows how special declarant rights can affect both assessment obligations and voting eligibility, and it ties the CC&Rs’ purchaser definition directly to A.R.S. § 33-1244’s transfer rule.

The ruling is not appellate precedent and arose at the temporary-restraining-order stage, but it is still useful for Arizona condo readers because the issue was concrete: whether 26 unit votes could be blocked on the theory that transfer and working-capital fees had not been paid. The court allowed the votes to proceed by quashing the TRO.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Val Vista Classic Community Association v. Levi Rosenbaum

Posted on July 2, 2026 by [email protected]

Superior Court HOA Case

A Maricopa County judge granted Val Vista Classic Community Association summary judgment in an unpaid-assessment foreclosure case.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Val Vista Classic Community Association v. Levi Rosenbaum, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2024-003271.

Download summary-judgment ruling

Current-status note: This page is published as a litigation record based on the source files available through 2026-05-15. Later filings, appeals, mandates, settlements, or dismissal orders may change the posture; the linked court records control.

Scope note: This page covers Val Vista Classic Community Association v. Levi Rosenbaum (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2024-003271) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s own filed minute entries, especially the May 11, 2026 under-advisement summary-judgment ruling; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: the last collected minute entry, dated May 15, 2026, denies reconsideration, a motion to quash, and a stay request after summary judgment; the collected entries do not show a signed final judgment amount. 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 the association summary judgment in a routine unpaid-assessment foreclosure case. It held the CC&Rs were a contract, the record showed nonpayment and collection charges, Rosenbaum did not produce evidence that the association misapplied a payment or fraudulently placed the lien, and foreclosure on the HOA lien was permissible.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Val Vista Classic Community Association (Plaintiff)
Homeowners association seeking breach-of-contract relief and foreclosure based on unpaid assessments and related charges.
Nikita Verma Patel (Counsel)
Counsel of record for the association in the case-party records and minute entries.
Ember Ann Van Vranken (Counsel)
Counsel appearing for the association in later status, discovery, and summary-judgment proceedings.

Respondent Side

Levi Rosenbaum (Defendant)
Self-represented homeowner who disputed the association’s collection position and raised payment, discovery, and joinder arguments.

Neutral Parties

Susanna C. Pineda (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court judge who handled the case and issued the May 11, 2026 summary-judgment ruling.

What happened

Val Vista Classic Community Association filed suit in February 2024 alleging breach of contract and foreclosure based on unpaid HOA assessments. The association claimed it had placed a lien on the homeowner’s residence and sought foreclosure on that lien. Early in the case, the court denied default because Rosenbaum had filed a motion to dismiss, then treated his response as an answer and denied dismissal.

The litigation moved through scheduling, ADR, arbitration, and discovery disputes. At one point the case was sent to compulsory arbitration, but the court later vacated that order because the association sought foreclosure on unpaid HOA fees and fines. The court also denied several discovery, joinder, and reconsideration motions, and denied an interim fee application without prejudice as untimely.

The central merits dispute concerned whether Rosenbaum owed assessments and related charges. The May 11, 2026 ruling states that monthly HOA fees were normally $195.00, that earlier payments had been returned for insufficient funds, that Rosenbaum’s last actual payment was in March 2022, and that a third-party assistance payment had been credited to a separate account rather than the account at issue in this case.

Judge Susanna Pineda granted the association summary judgment. Viewing the record under Rule 56, the court found evidence of a contract, breach, contractual assessment and collection obligations, and a lien remedy. The court found Rosenbaum did not produce evidence showing the association misapplied the assistance payment, was required to accept his later settlement proposal, or engaged in fraudulent lien activity.

The court denied Rosenbaum’s request for summary judgment, ordered the association to lodge a proposed form of judgment, vacated the future trial-management conference and jury trial, and deemed remaining motions moot. On May 15, 2026, the court denied Rosenbaum’s motion for reconsideration of the summary-judgment ruling, motion to quash, and request for stay.

Video overview of the case record

An AI-generated video overview of Val Vista Classic Community Association v. Levi Rosenbaum (CV2024-003271 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). Routine HOA assessment foreclosure: unpaid assessments supported summary judgment for the association. 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 Val Vista Classic Community Association v. Levi Rosenbaum. 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 2024-02-20 The association files its complaint for breach of contract and foreclosure based on unpaid HOA fees.

Step 2024-10-17 The court denies default because Rosenbaum filed a motion to dismiss.

Step 2024-12-06 The court treats Rosenbaum’s response as an answer and denies his motion to dismiss.

Step 2025-02-28 The case is initially transferred to compulsory arbitration.

Step 2025-03-28 The court vacates the arbitration transfer because the association seeks foreclosure on unpaid HOA fees and fines.

Step 2025-06-02 The court gives Rosenbaum additional time to respond to discovery and discusses payments, the payment portal, ADR, and scheduling.

Step 2026-01-07 The court denies without prejudice the association’s interim fee application as untimely.

Step 2026-04-14 The court denies Rosenbaum’s discovery and joinder motions and denies the association’s related fee request.

Type: Court order/minute entry

Ruling denying Rosenbaum’s motion for reconsideration, motion to quash, and request for stay after the summary-judgment ruling.

Download source file

2026-05-15_028_ruling.pdf

FAQ

Was this a must-read HOA ruling?

No. The case is HOA-relevant, but it is a routine assessment-collection and foreclosure ruling. The court did not identify or analyze a novel HOA statute or CC&R interpretation issue.

Why did the court grant summary judgment for the association?

The court found evidence of the CC&Rs as a contract, unpaid assessments and returned payments, collection charges, attorneys’ fees tied to nonpayment, and an HOA lien remedy. Rosenbaum did not produce evidence creating a genuine dispute on those points.

What happened to the payment-portal argument?

The court treated lack of payment-portal access as a defense that could be addressed in the case, but at summary judgment found Rosenbaum had not shown the association was required to accept his proposed settlement or reopen ordinary payment handling after the account entered collections.

Did the court say a third-party payment was misapplied?

No. The May 11, 2026 ruling states that the third-party payment was credited to a separate account and that Rosenbaum did not provide evidence showing the association misapplied that payment to the wrong account.

Was final judgment already entered in the collected entries?

The collected entries show summary judgment and denial of reconsideration, but they do not show the signed final judgment amount. The May 11 ruling ordered the association to submit a proposed form of judgment.

What privacy information was omitted from this page?

The minute entries include the homeowner’s residential address and other contact details. Those details are intentionally omitted here because this page is an educational case summary, not a republication of private contact information.

Case Dossier

This dossier combines the case metadata, linked court sources, and the explanatory sections below. It distinguishes court rulings from party filings, allegations, and requested relief.

Case Summary

Case ID / citation	CV2024-003271 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunal	Superior Court
Decision / key date	May 11, 2026
Judge / panel	Hon. Susanna C. Pineda
Parties	Val Vista Classic Community Association (Plaintiff, homeowners association) v. Levi Rosenbaum (Defendant, homeowner)
Topics	AssessmentsForeclosureLiensAttorney FeesProcedure
Outcome / holding	The superior court granted Val Vista Classic Community Association summary judgment on unpaid-assessment breach-of-contract and lien-foreclosure claims, denied Rosenbaum summary judgment, and rejected his reconsideration, quash, and stay request.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package	28 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	10 roadmap entries
Video overview	Val Vista Classic Community Association v. Levi Rosenbaum
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	6 questions
Featured download links	1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Val Vista Classic Community Association sued homeowner Levi Rosenbaum for breach of contract and foreclosure based on unpaid HOA assessments, collection charges, and related fees. The case included early default, dismissal, arbitration, discovery, ADR, and counterclaim-fee disputes. The court ultimately granted the association summary judgment on May 11, 2026, finding that the CC&Rs formed a contract between homeowner and association, that Rosenbaum had not disputed returned payments and nonpayment, that he had not produced evidence showing the association misapplied a third-party assistance payment or fraudulently placed a lien, and that foreclosure on the HOA lien was statutorily permissible. The court denied Rosenbaum’s summary-judgment request, vacated the future trial settings, deemed remaining motions moot, and denied reconsideration on May 15, 2026.

Key Issues & Findings

The court framed the CC&Rs as a contractual agreement between homeowner and association. The association’s evidence showed unpaid monthly assessments, returned payments, collection charges, and attorneys’ fees tied to nonpayment. Rosenbaum acknowledged that payments had been returned for insufficient funds, that a third-party assistance payment was credited to a different account, and that he had been unable to make the assessment payments.

The court found Rosenbaum had not produced evidence that the association misapplied the assistance payment, was required to accept his later settlement offer for past-due assessments only, or acted fraudulently in placing a lien on the property. Because the evidence showed a contract, breach, contractual assessment and collection obligations, and a lien remedy, the court held summary judgment was warranted for the association and that foreclosure on the HOA lien was permissible by statute.

The ruling is routine rather than precedentially notable: it does not identify or construe a specific HOA statute, and it applies ordinary summary-judgment standards to an assessment-collection record. The court separately denied an untimely interim fee application without prejudice, denied discovery and joinder motions, and required the association to submit a proposed form of judgment after summary judgment.

Why It Matters

This is a standard superior-court HOA assessment-collection example. It shows that payment-portal disputes, disagreement with collection handling, and assertions about a misapplied assistance payment did not defeat summary judgment where the homeowner did not produce evidence creating a genuine dispute over unpaid assessments or the lien.

For homeowners and boards, the practical lesson is procedural as much as substantive: once an account is in collections and litigation, the court will require evidence, proper motion practice, and compliance with discovery rules. As a superior-court ruling it binds only the parties and is not precedent.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Val Vista Lakes Community Association v. Susan Wellman

Posted on July 2, 2026 by [email protected]

Superior Court HOA Case

A Maricopa County judge held that court-authorized self-help cleanup costs could be charged to the owner’s ledger, secured by an assessment lien, and foreclosed under A.R.S. § 33-1807.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Val Vista Lakes Community Association v. Susan Wellman, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2021-001865.

Download ruling

Current-status note: This page is published as a litigation record based on the source files available through 2025-04-02. Later filings, appeals, mandates, settlements, or dismissal orders may change the posture; the linked court records control.

Video/audio is held from this page until a fresh media package is generated from the approved source record.

Scope note: This page covers Val Vista Lakes Community Association v. Susan Wellman (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2021-001865) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s filed minute entries, especially the June 2021 default-judgment minute entry, the November 2021 injunction-enforcement minute entries, the November 3, 2023 under-advisement ruling on lien foreclosure, and the March 28, 2025 Rule 50 ruling. Currency caveat: the last collected minute entry, dated April 2, 2025, continues a contempt/enforcement evidentiary hearing to July 24, 2025; the collected record does not show the result of that continued hearing. 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 allowed Val Vista Lakes to use A.R.S. § 33-1807 lien foreclosure to collect unpaid nuisance-abatement costs. Because a prior judgment authorized association self-help, the association charged cleanup costs to the owner’s ledger under the judgment and governing documents; the court held those costs were secured by the assessment lien and were foreclosable once the unpaid balance exceeded the statutory threshold.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Val Vista Lakes Community Association (Plaintiff)
Homeowners association that obtained the default judgment, pursued nuisance abatement, charged cleanup costs to the owner's account, and sought lien foreclosure.
Gregory A. Stein (Counsel)
Counsel of record for the association in many of the early and summary-judgment entries.
Tessa Knueppel (Counsel)
Counsel appearing for the association in later enforcement and contempt proceedings.
Joshua M. Bolen (Counsel)
Counsel appearing with Tessa Knueppel for the association in later enforcement proceedings.

Respondent Side

Susan M. Wellman (Defendant)
Homeowner defendant who opposed the association's lien-foreclosure and later contempt/enforcement requests.
Arizona Federal Credit Union (Defendant)
Financial institution defendant named in later proceedings related to the supplemental foreclosure claim.
Olen V. Lenets (Counsel)
Counsel of record for Susan Wellman in the summary-judgment and later enforcement entries.

Neutral Parties

Scott A. Blaney (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court judge who issued the November 2023 summary-judgment ruling and later enforcement rulings.
Richard Albrecht (Judge)
Judicial officer who handled 2021 injunction-enforcement and early supplemental-complaint proceedings.
David W. Garbarino (Judge)
Judicial officer who handled the June 2021 default-hearing minute entry.

What happened

Val Vista Lakes sued Susan Wellman over alleged violations of the association’s declaration and governing documents. The November 2023 ruling describes the alleged conditions as a large quantity of trash, unauthorized backyard structures where transient individuals were living, inoperable vehicles, and other nuisance conditions.

A June 2021 default hearing produced a formal judgment against Wellman. In November 2021, after an order-to-show-cause hearing, the court reaffirmed the injunction, ordered notice before the association removed unapproved structures and debris, and stated that trash and debris were not to accumulate in the yard in the future. A correction a week later made clear that Wellman and others were not to interfere with association removal efforts.

The association later used the injunction’s self-help remedy. The November 3, 2023 ruling states that its contractors removed more than 220,000 pounds of trash and other unauthorized items at a cost of $38,960.99, not including attorneys’ fees and costs. The association charged that cleanup amount to Wellman’s ledger under the default judgment and governing documents. After partial payments, it filed a supplemental complaint to foreclose on the remaining balance.

Judge Scott A. Blaney granted partial summary judgment for Val Vista Lakes on lien foreclosure. The court held that the cleanup costs were properly charged to the ledger and secured by the association’s assessment lien. It also held the association was entitled to foreclose because, when the supplemental complaint was filed, Wellman was delinquent in payment of lien-secured amounts of at least $1,200 under A.R.S. § 33-1807(A).

Wellman argued that the association failed to satisfy the A.R.S. § 33-1807(K) notice requirement before filing foreclosure. The court rejected that argument on the facts before it, reasoning that the parties were already litigating the issue and the court had already entered the default judgment, so Wellman had sufficient notice that collection activity was underway.

The collected record continued after the foreclosure ruling. Later entries ordered settlement-conference steps and addressed a separate contempt/enforcement track. On March 28, 2025, the court denied Wellman’s Rule 50 motion, holding that the self-help provision was permissive rather than a prerequisite to court enforcement. The last collected minute entry continued the remaining contempt/enforcement hearing to July 24, 2025.

Procedural timeline

Step 2021-06-02 Default-hearing minute entry grants judgment against Susan Wellman under a formal written judgment.

Step 2021-11-08 Order-to-show-cause hearing enforces the default judgment, requires notice before association removal, and reaffirms the injunction against future trash and debris accumulation.

Step 2021-11-15 Correcting entry clarifies that the homeowner and others shall not interfere with association removal of unapproved structures.

Step 2022-05-04 The court grants Val Vista Lakes leave to file a first supplemental complaint.

Step 2022-12-14 The court grants the homeowner Rule 56(d) discovery before further summary-judgment briefing.

Step 2023-05-19 The court denies the association's request to limit the issues the homeowner may raise in her amended summary-judgment response.

Step 2023-11-01 The court hears argument on the association's lien-foreclosure summary-judgment motion and takes it under advisement.

Step 2023-11-03 Under-advisement ruling grants partial summary judgment to Val Vista Lakes on lien foreclosure under A.R.S. § 33-1807.

Step 2024-11-12 The court begins the combined evidentiary hearing and trial on contempt sanctions, receives association evidence, and orders Rule 50 briefing.

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

2025-04-02_036_oral-argument-set.pdf

FAQ

What costs did the association foreclose on?

The foreclosure ruling involved unpaid cleanup costs charged after the association exercised a self-help remedy under the default judgment and governing documents. The ruling states the cleanup cost was $38,960.99, excluding attorneys’ fees and costs.

Why did the court treat the cleanup costs as lien-secured?

The court found the self-help costs were properly charged to the homeowner’s account ledger under the default judgment and governing documents, and that those ledgered amounts were secured by the association’s assessment lien.

How did A.R.S. § 33-1807 matter?

The court relied on A.R.S. § 33-1807(A) to hold that the association was entitled to foreclose because the homeowner was delinquent in payment of monies secured by the lien in the amount of $1,200 or more when the foreclosure action was filed.

Did the homeowner's notice argument succeed?

No. The court rejected the A.R.S. § 33-1807(K) notice argument because the parties were already litigating the issue, a default judgment had already been entered, and the homeowner had sufficient notice that collection activity was underway.

Was the association required to keep using self-help before asking the court for enforcement?

In the March 2025 Rule 50 ruling, the court said no. It read the self-help language as permissive and said the order did not require the association to act as the homeowner’s provider of bulk-trash collection before seeking court enforcement.

Was the case finished in the collected record?

Not completely. The November 2023 lien-foreclosure ruling resolved the summary-judgment issue, but later contempt/enforcement proceedings continued. The last collected entry continued the remaining evidentiary hearing to July 24, 2025.

Case Dossier

This dossier combines the case metadata, linked court sources, and the explanatory sections below. It distinguishes court rulings from party filings, allegations, and requested relief.

Case Summary

Case ID / citation	CV2021-001865 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunal	Superior Court
Decision / key date	November 3, 2023
Judge / panel	Hon. Margaret R. Mahoney, Hon. David W. Garbarino, Hon. Richard Albrecht, Hon. Scott A. Blaney
Parties	Val Vista Lakes Community Association (Plaintiff, homeowners association) v. Susan M. Wellman (Defendant, homeowner) and Arizona Federal Credit Union
Governing law	A.R.S. § 33-1807 Rule 50, Ariz. R. Civ. P. Rule 56, Ariz. R. Civ. P.
Topics	LiensForeclosureAssessmentsFinesCC&RsProcedure
Outcome / holding	The superior court granted Val Vista Lakes partial summary judgment on lien foreclosure. It held that self-help nuisance-abatement costs charged after a default judgment were properly placed on the owner's account ledger, secured by the association's assessment lien, and foreclosable because the unpaid amount exceeded the A.R.S. § 33-1807(A) threshold when the supplemental foreclosure action was filed.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package	36 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	11 roadmap entries
Video overview	Temporarily unavailable while the expanded case record is reviewed
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	6 questions
Featured download links	1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Val Vista Lakes Community Association obtained a default judgment and permanent injunction requiring Susan Wellman to abate alleged nuisance conditions and allowing association self-help if she did not comply. After the association used that self-help remedy and charged $38,960.99 in cleanup costs to the owner's ledger, it filed a supplemental lien-foreclosure claim for the unpaid balance. The superior court granted partial summary judgment to the association on lien foreclosure, holding that the self-help costs were properly charged to the account ledger, secured by the association's assessment lien, and subject to foreclosure under A.R.S. § 33-1807. Later entries show continuing contempt/enforcement proceedings over the injunction, with the collected record ending before the continued July 2025 evidentiary hearing.

Key Issues & Findings

The November 3, 2023 under-advisement ruling started from the default judgment and injunction already entered in the association's favor. That injunction ordered permanent nuisance abatement and included a self-help provision allowing the association, after notice, to enter the property and abate the nuisance if the owner failed to comply. The court stated that the association then removed more than 220,000 pounds of trash and unauthorized items, charged $38,960.99 in cleanup costs to the owner's ledger under the default judgment and governing documents, and sued to foreclose after only part of that charge had been paid.

Applying A.R.S. § 33-1807(A) and Laveen Meadows Homeowners Association v. Mejia, the court found the association was entitled to foreclose because the owner was delinquent in payment of monies secured by the lien in an amount of $1,200 or more when the supplemental complaint was filed. The court also rejected the owner's A.R.S. § 33-1807(K) notice argument, reasoning that the parties were already litigating the issue and that the default judgment had already been issued, so the owner had sufficient notice that collection activity was underway.

The collected minute entries do not show a clean final stop to all enforcement activity. After the foreclosure ruling, later entries show mandatory settlement-conference orders and a separate contempt/enforcement track over continued alleged injunction violations. In March 2025, the court denied the owner's oral Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law, explaining that the injunction's self-help language was permissive and did not require the association to keep providing bulk-trash cleanup before asking the court to enforce its order.

Why It Matters

This case is important for HOA enforcement disputes because it treats court-authorized nuisance-abatement costs as more than an ordinary fine. The ruling says those self-help costs, once charged under the judgment and governing documents, can be secured by an assessment lien and foreclosed under A.R.S. § 33-1807 if the statutory delinquency threshold is met.

The ruling also gives a trial-court example of how notice arguments may fare when lien foreclosure follows earlier litigation and a default judgment. The court did not require a fresh A.R.S. § 33-1807(K) notice cycle on these facts because the owner already had notice through the litigation and judgment. As a superior-court ruling, it binds only the parties, but it is a useful source for the intersection of injunction enforcement, association self-help, account ledgers, and lien foreclosure.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Penelope Johnson v. The Pointe South Mountain Residential Association: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on July 2, 2026 by [email protected]

Assessments & CC&Rs | A.R.S. § 12-341.01 | CV2012-017609

In this Maricopa County Superior Court case, the court tried a single question to the bench: did the community’s Declaration allow The Pointe South Mountain Residential Association to spend courthome exterior-maintenance assessments on common-area landscaping, watering, and road maintenance? The court said no — reading paragraph 6.2 together with paragraph 1.15, courthome assessments may be used only to repair and maintain the courthome exteriors, including courthome balconies, trellises, patio covers, and the boundary walls enclosing courthome patios and backyards. The ruling applied prospectively, the association won the separate cable and trust issues, and the plaintiff recovered $56,000 in fees and $2,889.15 in costs as the prevailing party.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Penelope Johnson v. The Pointe South Mountain Residential Association, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2012-017609.

Download final under-advisement 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 Penelope Johnson v. The Pointe South Mountain Residential Association (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2012-017609) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s own filed minute entries, including the July 1, 2013 oral-argument minutes, the August 12–13, 2013 bench-trial minutes, the December 11, 2013 clarification ruling, and the March 17, 2014 under-advisement ruling that entered judgment; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: judgment was entered under Rule 54(c) on March 17, 2014. The collected minute entries reflect no appeal, and a June 3, 2020 clerk’s notice regarding disposition of exhibits states the case “is not subject to further modification.” Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

After a two-day bench trial, the superior court found in the plaintiff’s favor on the central issue: the community’s Declaration did not allow the Association to spend courthome exterior-maintenance assessments on common-area landscaping, watering, and road maintenance. Reading paragraph 6.2 of the Declaration together with paragraph 1.15, the court held the courthome exterior-maintenance obligation includes repair and maintenance of all courthome balconies, trellises, patio covers, and boundary walls that enclose courthome patios and backyards — and that the Association may use courthome assessments only for repair and maintenance of the courthome exteriors as described by paragraph 6.2. The ruling operated prospectively. The Association prevailed on the separate cable and trust issues, but the court found the assessment question was the heart of the case, deemed the plaintiff the prevailing party, and awarded her $56,000 in attorneys’ fees and $2,889.15 in costs under A.R.S. § 12-341.01.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Penelope Johnson (Plaintiff)
Brought the case challenging, among other things, how the Association used courthome exterior-maintenance assessments; testified at the August 2013 bench trial, prevailed on the central assessment issue, and was awarded $56,000 in attorneys' fees plus $2,889.15 in costs.
Christopher A. LaVoy (Counsel)
Counsel for Plaintiff Penelope Johnson throughout the case, from the 2013 motion practice through the bench trial and the 2014 fee award.

Respondent Side

The Pointe South Mountain Residential Association (Defendant)
Residential association that prevailed on the cable and trust issues and on the early partial dismissals, but was found to have misused courthome assessments on common-area expenses and ordered to discontinue the practice. Its board president, B. David Cathell, attended the November 2013 hearing as an observer.
Brian W. Morgan (Counsel)
Counsel of record for the Association in the minute-entry captions; appeared for the Association at the September 5, 2013 telephonic status conference.
Paul R. Neil (Counsel)
Counsel appearing for the Association at the July 2013 oral argument, the final trial management conference, the August 2013 bench trial, and the March 2014 fee argument.
Chad M. Gallacher (Counsel)
Counsel appearing for the Association at the August 12–13, 2013 bench trial.

Neutral Parties

Douglas L. Rayes (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court judge assigned in March 2013; decided the dispositive motions, conducted the bench trial, issued the post-trial clarifications, and entered the March 2014 judgment and fee award.
John Rea (Judge)
Judge who signed the March 20, 2013 civil-presiding-judge reassignment order transferring the case to Judge Rayes after Plaintiff filed a Notice of Change of Judge.
Lisa Flores (Judge)
Judge originally assigned to the case per the March 2013 reassignment minute entry (which spells the surname "Florex" in its text and "Flores" in its caption); Plaintiff exercised a change of judge before the substantive rulings.

What happened

Penelope Johnson sued The Pointe South Mountain Residential Association in Maricopa County Superior Court in 2012 (case No. CV2012-017609). The minute entries show the litigation revolved around several distinct disputes: whether the Association could use “courthome” exterior-maintenance assessments to pay for common-area landscaping, watering, and road maintenance; a claim the minutes identify as the “cable issue,” which turned in part on what it means for units to be “separately metered and/or separately charged”; a “trust issue”; a fiduciary-duty allegation; and a claim for injunctive relief.

The early rounds went to the Association. In February 2013 it moved for partial dismissal of the fiduciary-duty allegations and of the claim for injunctive relief. After Johnson exercised a change of judge and the case was reassigned to Judge Douglas L. Rayes, the court granted both partial motions on April 11, 2013 — striking the words “and fiduciary capacity” from Paragraph 63(e) of the complaint — while denying the Association’s request for attorneys’ fees. In May 2013 the court also struck Johnson’s application for entry of default, again denying the Association’s fee request.

Both sides then moved for partial summary judgment, and Johnson sought a preliminary injunction. At a July 1, 2013 oral argument the court denied the preliminary injunction, granted the Association partial summary judgment on the trust issue, and denied the balance of both summary-judgment motions — except the courthome exterior-maintenance issue, which it reserved for trial. The Association’s cross-motion on the cable issue was taken under advisement and, at the August 1, 2013 final trial management conference, both sides’ cable-issue motions were denied, sending that question to trial as well.

The court held a two-day bench trial on August 12–13, 2013. Witnesses included Mike P. Harris, Kathleen Daurio, Steven J. Schloeder, and Johnson herself for the plaintiff’s case, and Kenneth Hensman, Barry Smith, and Guilford Nergard in the defense case; Harris was recalled to the stand on day two, and plaintiff’s counsel — limited at the pretrial conference to calling one Gosnell witness — was permitted to call Stuart “Steve” Berres out of order during the defense case. At the close of trial, for reasons stated on the record, the court found in favor of the Association on the cable issue and in favor of Johnson on the courthome exterior-maintenance issue, and directed each side to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on the issue it had won.

The remedy was refined over the following months. At a September 5, 2013 telephonic conference the court clarified that its ruling was intended “to stop and move forward prospectively,” observed that starting the assessment changes on January 1, 2014 “makes sense,” and directed the parties to mediate the start date and amounts. At a November 22, 2013 hearing — attended by the Association’s board president as an observer — the court ruled on objections to Johnson’s proposed findings, defined “separately metered and/or separately charged” as when each unit is metered separately and charged an individual amount, and clarified that its earlier use of the phrase “good faith” was a term of art rather than a legal finding. On December 11, 2013 the court issued its written clarification: paragraph 6.2 of the Declaration, read with paragraph 1.15, makes the courthome exterior-maintenance obligation include repair and maintenance of all courthome balconies, trellises, patio covers, and boundary walls that enclose courthome patios and/or backyards — and the Association may use courthome assessments only for repair and maintenance of the courthome exteriors as described by paragraph 6.2.

Both sides then moved for attorneys’ fees. In its March 17, 2014 under-advisement ruling, the court acknowledged that each party had prevailed on some claims, but found the heart of the case was whether the Declaration allowed courthome assessment fees to pay common-area landscaping, watering, and road-maintenance expenses — an issue Johnson won, with the Association ordered to discontinue the misuse of the courthome assessments. Applying the factors in Associated Indemnity Corporation v. Warner, the court granted Johnson’s fee motion under A.R.S. § 12-341.01, awarded her $56,000 in fees and $2,889.15 in costs, denied the Association’s fee motion, overruled its objection to the form of judgment, and entered judgment under Rule 54(c). A June 2020 clerk’s notice on exhibit disposition states the case is not subject to further modification.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Penelope Johnson v. The Pointe South Mountain Residential Association (CV2012-017609 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). After a bench trial, the court held that the Declaration did not permit the Association to use courthome… 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 Penelope Johnson v. The Pointe South Mountain Residential Association. 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 2012 Penelope Johnson sues The Pointe South Mountain Residential Association in Maricopa County Superior Court (CV2012-017609).

Step 2013-02-19 The Association files partial motions to dismiss the fiduciary-duty allegations and the claim for injunctive relief.

Step 2013-03-20 After Johnson files a Notice of Change of Judge, the case is reassigned from Judge Flores to Judge Douglas L. Rayes.

Step 2013-04-11 The court grants both partial dismissals — striking "and fiduciary capacity" from Paragraph 63(e) of the complaint — and denies the Association's request for attorneys' fees.

Step 2013-05-08 The court strikes Johnson's application for entry of default; the Association's request for fees and costs is denied.

Step 2013-07-01 Oral argument on four motions: the preliminary injunction is denied; the Association wins partial summary judgment on the trust issue; the courthome exterior-maintenance issue is reserved for a two-day bench trial; the cable-issue cross-motion is taken under advisement.

Step 2013-08-01 Final trial management conference: both sides' summary-judgment motions on the cable issue are denied; exhibits are admitted and trial logistics set.

Step 2013-08-12 Bench trial day one before Judge Rayes; the plaintiff's witnesses testify.

Step 2013-08-13 Bench trial day two; after closing arguments the court finds for the Association on the cable issue and for Johnson on the courthome exterior-maintenance issue.

Step 2013-09-05 Telephonic conference: the court clarifies the ruling operates prospectively, notes a January 1, 2014 start for assessment changes "makes sense," and directs mediation on the start date and amounts.

Step 2013-11-22 Hearing on proposed findings of fact; the court orders supplemental briefing on balconies, patio covers, trellises, boundary walls, and rod-iron gate features, and defines "separately metered and/or separately charged."

Step 2013-12-11 Written clarification: reading Declaration paragraph 6.2 with paragraph 1.15, courthome assessments may be used only for repair and maintenance of the courthome exteriors, including courthome balconies, trellises, patio covers, and boundary walls enclosing courthome patios and backyards.

Step 2013-12-31 Johnson moves for an award of attorneys' fees and costs; the Association files its own fee motion on January 2, 2014.

Step 2014-03-14 Oral argument on the cross-motions for attorneys' fees; the matters are taken under advisement.

Type: Court order/minute entry

Under-advisement ruling granting Plaintiff’s Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01.

Download source file

2014-03-17_020_under-advisement-ruling.pdf

Source 21 2020-06-03

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

2020-06-03_021_minute-entry.pdf

FAQ

What was the "courthome exterior maintenance issue" at the center of this case?

It was the question the court itself called the heart of the case: whether the community’s Declaration allowed the Association to use courthome exterior-maintenance assessments to pay common-area landscaping, watering, and road-maintenance expenses. After the August 2013 bench trial, the court answered no and ordered the Association to discontinue the misuse. Its December 2013 written clarification held that paragraph 6.2 of the Declaration, read with paragraph 1.15, limits courthome assessments to repair and maintenance of the courthome exteriors — including courthome balconies, trellises, patio covers, and the boundary walls that enclose courthome patios and backyards.

Did the plaintiff win everything?

No — the case split. The court dismissed her fiduciary-duty allegation and her claim for injunctive relief early on, struck her application for entry of default, denied her preliminary-injunction motion, granted the Association partial summary judgment on the trust issue, and found for the Association on the cable issue at trial. But she won the courthome-assessment issue that the court found most significant, and on that basis recovered her fees and costs.

Did the ruling require the Association to refund past assessments?

The minute entries do not show a refund order. At a September 2013 conference the court clarified that the intention of its ruling was “to stop and move forward prospectively,” said that beginning the change in assessments on January 1, 2014 “makes sense,” and directed the parties to mediate the beginning date and amounts — recommending a mediator if they could not agree on one.

Why did the plaintiff get attorneys' fees when both sides won issues?

Arizona’s contract fee statute, A.R.S. § 12-341.01, lets the court award fees to the successful party. The court acknowledged both parties prevailed on some claims, but looked at the totality of the litigation and found the most significant issue — whether courthome assessments could fund common-area landscaping, watering, and road maintenance — went to the plaintiff. Applying the factors from Associated Indemnity Corporation v. Warner, it awarded her $56,000 in fees and $2,889.15 in costs and denied the Association’s competing fee motion.

What were the "cable issue" and the "trust issue"?

The minute entries identify these disputes only by those shorthand labels. Both sides moved for summary judgment on the cable issue, both motions were denied, and the court found for the Association on it at trial; when plaintiff’s counsel later asked, the court defined “separately metered and/or separately charged” as when each unit is metered separately and each unit is charged an individual amount. The trust issue was resolved in the Association’s favor on partial summary judgment in July 2013. The underlying details of both issues live in the trial record rather than the minute entries.

Is this decision binding on other Arizona HOA disputes?

No. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties to the case and are not precedent. The case is still useful reading: it shows a court tracing an association’s spending authority to the specific text of its recorded Declaration, limiting a dedicated assessment to its stated purpose, and using prevailing-party fee-shifting under A.R.S. § 12-341.01 to decide who bears the cost of a mixed-outcome case. Judgment was entered in March 2014, and the collected minute entries reflect no appeal.

Case Dossier

This dossier combines the case metadata, linked court sources, and the explanatory sections below. It distinguishes court rulings from party filings, allegations, and requested relief.

Case Summary

Case ID / citation	CV2012-017609 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunal	Superior Court
Decision / key date	March 17, 2014
Judge / panel	Hon. Douglas L. Rayes
Parties	Penelope Johnson (Plaintiff) v. The Pointe South Mountain Residential Association (Defendant)
Governing law	A.R.S. § 12-341.01
Topics	AssessmentsCC&RsAttorney FeesProcedure
Outcome / holding	After a bench trial, the court held that the Declaration did not permit the Association to use courthome exterior-maintenance assessments for common-area landscaping, watering, and road maintenance: paragraph 6.2, read in conjunction with paragraph 1.15, makes the courthome exterior-maintenance obligation include repair and maintenance of all courthome balconies, trellises, patio covers, and boundary walls enclosing courthome patios and/or backyards, and the Association may use courthome assessments only for repair and maintenance of the courthome exteriors as described by paragraph 6.2. The court found for the Association on the cable issue, applied its assessment ruling prospectively, and — finding Johnson the prevailing party on the most significant issue — awarded her $56,000 in fees and $2,889.15 in costs under A.R.S. § 12-341.01.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package	21 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	16 roadmap entries
Video overview	Penelope Johnson v. The Pointe South Mountain Residential Association
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	6 questions
Featured download links	1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Penelope Johnson sued The Pointe South Mountain Residential Association in Maricopa County Superior Court in 2012 over, principally, the Association's use of courthome exterior-maintenance assessments to pay common-area landscaping, watering, and road-maintenance expenses; the litigation also included a "cable issue," a "trust issue," a fiduciary-duty allegation, and a claim for injunctive relief. The Association won the early rounds — partial dismissal of the fiduciary-duty and injunctive-relief claims, denial of a preliminary injunction, and partial summary judgment on the trust issue — and the court reserved the courthome-assessment and cable issues for a two-day bench trial held August 12–13, 2013. At trial the court found for the Association on the cable issue and for Johnson on the courthome exterior-maintenance issue, later clarifying in writing that Declaration paragraph 6.2, read with paragraph 1.15, limits courthome assessments to repair and maintenance of the courthome exteriors, and that the ruling operated prospectively. In its March 17, 2014 under-advisement ruling the court found Johnson the prevailing party on the heart of the case, awarded her $56,000 in attorneys' fees and $2,889.15 in costs under A.R.S. § 12-341.01, denied the Association's fee motion, and entered judgment under Rule 54(c).

Key Issues & Findings

The case was litigated issue by issue. The Association prevailed throughout the pretrial phase: in April 2013 the court granted partial dismissal of Johnson's fiduciary-duty allegation (striking "and fiduciary capacity" from Paragraph 63(e) of the complaint) and of her claim for injunctive relief; in May 2013 it struck her application for entry of default; and on July 1, 2013 it denied her preliminary-injunction motion and granted the Association partial summary judgment on the trust issue. But the court refused to resolve the central dispute on paper — it denied both sides' partial summary-judgment motions as to the courthome exterior-maintenance issue and, after taking the Association's cable-issue cross-motion under advisement, denied both cable motions as well, sending both questions to a two-day bench trial.

At the close of trial on August 13, 2013, the court found for the Association on the cable issue and for Johnson on the courthome exterior-maintenance issue, directing each side to submit proposed findings on the issue it won. The remedy took shape through post-trial clarifications: the ruling was intended "to stop and move forward prospectively," with the court observing that a January 1, 2014 start for the assessment changes made sense and directing mediation over dates and amounts. The December 11, 2013 written clarification supplied the interpretive core — paragraph 6.2 of the Declaration, read in conjunction with paragraph 1.15, requires the courthome exterior-maintenance obligation to include repair and maintenance of all courthome balconies, trellises, patio covers, and boundary walls that enclose courthome patios and/or backyards, and the Association may only use courthome assessments for the repair and maintenance of the exterior of the courthomes as described by paragraph 6.2. The court also defined "separately metered and/or separately charged" as when each unit is metered separately and each unit is charged an individual amount, and clarified that its earlier use of "good faith" was a term of art, not a legal finding.

On the cross-motions for fees, the court acknowledged that both parties prevailed on some claims and lost others, but considered the totality of the litigation and found the most significant issue — the heart of the case — was whether the Declaration provided for courthome assessment fees to be used to pay common-area landscaping, watering, and road-maintenance expense. Because it had ruled in Johnson's favor on that issue and ordered the Association to discontinue the misuse of the courthome assessments, and after weighing the factors in Associated Indemnity Corporation v. Warner, 143 Ariz. 567 (1985), the court granted Johnson's fee motion under A.R.S. § 12-341.01, awarded $56,000 in fees and $2,889.15 in costs, denied the Association's fee motion, and entered judgment under Rule 54(c) on March 17, 2014.

Why It Matters

This case is a clean illustration of purpose-restricted assessments: when a recorded declaration dedicates an assessment to a particular function — here, courthome exterior maintenance — the association cannot redirect that money to general common-area expenses like landscaping, watering, and road maintenance. The court traced the association's spending authority to the specific text of the Declaration (paragraph 6.2 read with paragraph 1.15) and confined the assessment to its stated purpose, ordering the misuse discontinued on a prospective basis.

It also shows how prevailing-party fee-shifting works in a mixed-outcome HOA case. The association won the fiduciary-duty and injunctive-relief dismissals, the trust issue, and the cable issue — yet still ended up paying the homeowner-side plaintiff $56,000 in fees plus costs, because the court weighed the totality of the litigation and found the assessment question was the heart of the case. Under A.R.S. § 12-341.01 and the Associated Indemnity v. Warner factors, winning the issue that matters most can matter more than winning the most issues. As a superior-court decision it binds only the parties; the collected minute entries reflect no appeal.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Ballantrae Ridge Homeowners Association v. Windy Walk Properties, LLC: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on July 2, 2026 by [email protected]

Foreclosure & Lien Priority | A.R.S. §§ 33-1807, 33-727 | CV2012-012813

In this Maricopa County Superior Court case, a homeowners association that had won a judgment of foreclosure and forced a sheriff’s sale squared off against Bank of America over who was entitled to the $4,716.06 left over after the sale. The association argued the foreclosure should be treated as a special execution under A.R.S. § 12-1562, entitling it to the surplus; the Bank argued that under A.R.S. § 33-1807(A) association lien foreclosures are treated as mortgages. The court was persuaded by the Bank: distribution is governed by lien priority under A.R.S. § 33-727(A), and the Bank — as the next lienholder in priority — takes the excess proceeds.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Ballantrae Ridge Homeowners Association v. Windy Walk Properties, LLC, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2012-012813.

Download excess-proceeds ruling

Scope note: This page covers Ballantrae Ridge Homeowners Association v. Windy Walk Properties, LLC (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2012-012813) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s own filed minute entries, including the April 9, 2014 under-advisement ruling on the competing excess-proceeds applications; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: the last collected minute entries, from May 2014, are orders directing the Clerk’s Office to release the excess proceeds to Bank of America; the collected minutes show no appeal or further activity, so the dispute over the sale proceeds appears concluded as of those entries. 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 held that Bank of America, not the foreclosing homeowners association, was entitled to the $4,716.06 in excess proceeds left over from the sheriff’s sale that followed the Association’s judgment of foreclosure. The Association argued the lien foreclosure should be treated as a special execution under A.R.S. § 12-1562, which would have sent the surplus to it as judgment creditor. The court was instead persuaded by the Bank’s position — grounded in A.R.S. § 33-1807(A), under which association lien foreclosures are treated as mortgages — that distribution of the excess is governed by lien priority under A.R.S. § 33-727(A). Because the Bank was the next lienholder in priority, the court denied the Association’s application, granted the Bank’s, and directed the Clerk to distribute the excess proceeds to the Bank.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Ballantrae Ridge Homeowners Association (Plaintiff)
Scottsdale homeowners association that obtained a judgment of foreclosure on its lien and, as judgment creditor, applied for the excess proceeds from the September 2013 sheriff's sale. Its application was denied.
Janet E. Jackim (Counsel)
Counsel for Plaintiff Ballantrae Ridge Homeowners Association, appearing at the February 28, 2014 oral argument on the competing excess-proceeds applications.
Roger Owers (Counsel)
Counsel appearing for Plaintiff Ballantrae Ridge Homeowners Association at the February 28, 2014 oral argument.

Respondent Side

Windy Walk Properties, LLC (Defendant)
First-named defendant in the Association's foreclosure suit. The Association applied for a default judgment against it in early 2013, and it appeared at the February 2014 oral argument through a company representative rather than counsel.
Bank of America, N.A. (Defendant)
Defendant lienholder that opposed the Association's application and filed its own competing application for release of the excess proceeds. The court found the Bank was the next lienholder in priority and awarded it the $4,716.06.
David E. Funkhouser III (Counsel)
Counsel for Defendant Bank of America, N.A., appearing at the February 28, 2014 oral argument.
Lyzzette M. Bullock (Counsel)
Counsel appearing for Defendant Bank of America, N.A. at the February 28, 2014 oral argument.
Doug Metz (Representative)
Representative of Defendant Windy Walk Properties, LLC, present at the February 28, 2014 oral argument. The minute entries identify him as a company representative, not counsel.

Neutral Parties

Maria del Mar Verdin (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court judge who presided over the excess-proceeds dispute, heard the February 2014 oral argument, and issued the April 9, 2014 under-advisement ruling.
Colleen L. French (Judge)
Judge pro tem who signed the May 2014 orders directing release of the excess proceeds to Bank of America and correcting a clerical error in the release order.
Benjamin E. Vatz (Commissioner)
Court commissioner designated in the February 2013 minute entry to hear the Rule 55(b) default-judgment proceedings against Windy Walk Properties, LLC.

What happened

Ballantrae Ridge Homeowners Association sued Windy Walk Properties, LLC and Bank of America, N.A. in Maricopa County Superior Court (CV2012-012813) and obtained a judgment of foreclosure on its lien. The collected minute entries pick up the case in early 2013, when the Association filed an application and affidavit for default judgment against Windy Walk Properties; the court directed that those Rule 55(b) default proceedings be heard by Commissioner Benjamin E. Vatz and that the default packet be hand-delivered to that division.

In February 2013 the Association also moved for summary judgment on lien priority. That motion never had to be decided: after the parties filed a stipulation in April 2013, the court deemed the summary-judgment motion moot in a May 3, 2013 minute entry.

On September 12, 2013, a sheriff’s sale was conducted on the property as a result of the judgment of foreclosure in the Association’s favor. The sale generated $4,716.06 in excess proceeds, which were deposited with the Clerk of the Maricopa County Superior Court. In October 2013 the Association applied for distribution of the excess proceeds to itself as judgment creditor. Bank of America opposed that application in November 2013 and filed its own competing application for release of the same funds, and the two applications were fully briefed through December 2013.

Judge Maria del Mar Verdin set the competing applications for oral argument and heard them on February 28, 2014. Janet E. Jackim and Roger Owers argued for the Association; David E. Funkhouser and Lyzzette M. Bullock argued for Bank of America; Windy Walk Properties appeared through its representative, Doug Metz. The court took the matter under advisement.

In an under-advisement ruling issued April 9, 2014, the court resolved the statutory tug-of-war in the Bank’s favor. The Association had argued that its lien foreclosure should be treated as a special execution under A.R.S. § 12-1562, entitling it to the excess proceeds; the Bank argued that under A.R.S. § 33-1807(A) association lien foreclosures are treated as mortgages, so any excess should be disbursed to the Bank. The court was persuaded by the Bank’s position that priority, under the circumstances presented, is governed by A.R.S. § 33-727(A), and held that the Bank was entitled to the excess proceeds as the next lienholder in priority. It denied the Association’s application, granted the Bank’s, and directed the Clerk to distribute the $4,716.06 to Bank of America.

The endgame was administrative. The Bank filed a proposed form of order in late April 2014, and Judge Pro Tem Colleen L. French signed an order in May 2014 granting the Bank’s application and directing release of the $4,716.06 — less a $30.00 processing fee and upon presentation of a fully executed U.S. Treasury Form W-9, citing A.R.S. § 33-812(g). A May 20, 2014 minute entry corrected a clerical error so that the Clerk’s Office, rather than the Maricopa County Treasurer, would release the funds. The collected minutes end there, with the excess proceeds ordered released to the Bank.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Ballantrae Ridge Homeowners Association v. Windy Walk Properties, LLC (CV2012-012813 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). The excess proceeds from the sheriff’s sale following the association’s lien foreclosure must be distributed by lien… 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 Ballantrae Ridge Homeowners Association v. Windy Walk Properties, LLC. 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 2013-02-04 The court takes no action on the Association's e-filed application for default judgment against Windy Walk Properties, LLC and directs that Rule 55(b) default proceedings be heard by Commissioner Benjamin E. Vatz.

Step 2013-02-27 The Association files a motion for summary judgment on lien priority with a separate statement of facts.

Step 2013-05-03 Pursuant to an April 26, 2013 stipulation, the court deems the summary-judgment motion on lien priority moot.

Step 2013-09-12 A sheriff's sale is conducted on the property under the judgment of foreclosure in the Association's favor; $4,716.06 in excess proceeds is deposited with the Clerk of the Superior Court.

Step 2013-10-17 The Association files its Application for Distribution of Excess Proceeds from Sale of Real Estate Under Execution and Order of Sale on Special Execution.

Step 2013-11-05 Bank of America files its response opposing the Association's application and its own competing Application for Release of Excess Proceeds; briefing continues through December 2013.

Step 2014-01-09 The court sets the competing excess-proceeds applications for oral argument.

Step 2014-02-28 Oral argument before Judge Maria del Mar Verdin; counsel for the Association and the Bank argue, a Windy Walk Properties representative is present, and the matter is taken under advisement.

Step 2014-04-09 Under-advisement ruling: priority is governed by A.R.S. § 33-727(A); the Association's application is denied, the Bank's application is granted, and the Clerk is directed to distribute the $4,716.06 to Bank of America.

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file

2014-05-15_006_minute-entry.pdf

Source 7 2014-05-20

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

2014-05-20_007_minute-entry.pdf

FAQ

What are "excess proceeds" in a foreclosure case like this one?

They are the money left over from a foreclosure sale after the amounts the sale was conducted to satisfy are paid. Here, the sheriff’s sale held on September 12, 2013 under the judgment of foreclosure in the Association’s favor produced $4,716.06 more than was needed, and that surplus was deposited with the Clerk of the Maricopa County Superior Court until the judge decided who was entitled to it.

Why did Bank of America get the money instead of the association that foreclosed?

Because of lien priority. The court was persuaded by the Bank’s position that priority in these circumstances is governed by A.R.S. § 33-727(A), and it held the Bank was entitled to the excess proceeds “as the next lien holder in priority.” The Association’s foreclosure judgment gave it the right to force the sale, but it did not give the Association a superior claim to the surplus over the next lienholder in line.

What was the Association's legal theory, and why did it fail?

The Association argued that its lien foreclosure should be treated as a special execution under A.R.S. § 12-1562, which would have routed the excess sale proceeds to it as the judgment creditor. The court rejected that framing in favor of the Bank’s argument that, under A.R.S. § 33-1807(A), association lien foreclosures are treated as mortgages — so the surplus is distributed by lien priority under A.R.S. § 33-727(A) rather than handed to the foreclosing judgment creditor.

What happened to the earlier summary-judgment motion on lien priority?

The Association moved for summary judgment on lien priority in February 2013, but the parties filed a stipulation in April 2013, and the court then deemed the motion moot in a May 3, 2013 minute entry. The priority question ultimately reached the court a different way — through the competing applications for the excess sale proceeds filed in the fall of 2013.

What is an under-advisement ruling?

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. In this case, Judge Maria del Mar Verdin took the competing excess-proceeds applications under advisement at the February 28, 2014 oral argument and issued the written ruling on April 9, 2014. These rulings are public records available through the Clerk of the Superior Court.

Is this decision binding on other Arizona HOA foreclosure disputes?

No. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties to the case and are not precedent. The case is still useful reading for anyone tracking association lien foreclosures: it shows a court treating an HOA lien foreclosure like a mortgage foreclosure under A.R.S. § 33-1807(A) and distributing surplus sale proceeds strictly by lien priority under A.R.S. § 33-727(A), rather than awarding them to the foreclosing association.

Case Dossier

This dossier combines the case metadata, linked court sources, and the explanatory sections below. It distinguishes court rulings from party filings, allegations, and requested relief.

Case Summary

Case ID / citation	CV2012-012813 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunal	Superior Court
Decision / key date	April 9, 2014
Judge / panel	Hon. Maria del Mar Verdin, Judge Pro Tem Colleen L. French
Parties	Ballantrae Ridge Homeowners Association (Plaintiff, judgment creditor) v. Windy Walk Properties, LLC and Bank of America, N.A. (Defendants)
Governing law	A.R.S. § 33-1807 A.R.S. § 33-727 A.R.S. § 12-1562
Topics	ForeclosureAssessmentsProcedure
Outcome / holding	The superior court held that the excess proceeds from the sheriff's sale following the association's lien foreclosure must be distributed by lien priority — being persuaded by the Bank's position, grounded in A.R.S. § 33-1807(A)'s treatment of association lien foreclosures as mortgages, that priority is governed by A.R.S. § 33-727(A) — and that Bank of America was entitled to the $4,716.06 as the next lienholder in priority, rejecting the association's argument that the foreclosure was a special execution under A.R.S. § 12-1562 entitling it to the surplus as judgment creditor.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package	7 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	11 roadmap entries
Video overview	Ballantrae Ridge Homeowners Association v. Windy Walk Properties, LLC
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	6 questions
Featured download links	1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

A Scottsdale homeowners association sued Windy Walk Properties, LLC and Bank of America, N.A. and obtained a judgment of foreclosure on its lien. A September 12, 2013 sheriff's sale conducted under that judgment produced $4,716.06 in excess proceeds, which were deposited with the Clerk of the Superior Court. The association applied for the surplus as judgment creditor, arguing the lien foreclosure should be treated as a special execution under A.R.S. § 12-1562; Bank of America filed a competing application, arguing that under A.R.S. § 33-1807(A) association lien foreclosures are treated as mortgages so the excess should be disbursed to the Bank. After a February 28, 2014 oral argument, the court issued an April 9, 2014 under-advisement ruling adopting the Bank's position: priority is governed by A.R.S. § 33-727(A), and the Bank was entitled to the excess proceeds as the next lienholder in priority. The court denied the association's application, granted the Bank's, and directed the Clerk to distribute the $4,716.06 to Bank of America; May 2014 orders implemented the release and corrected a clerical error.

Key Issues & Findings

The dispute reached the court through competing applications for the same pot of money. After the association won a judgment of foreclosure and a sheriff's sale was conducted on the property on September 12, 2013, $4,716.06 in excess proceeds was deposited with the Clerk of the Maricopa County Superior Court. In October 2013 the association applied for distribution of the surplus to itself, characterizing the sale as one conducted under execution and an order of sale on special execution; in November 2013 Bank of America both opposed that application and filed its own application for release of the same funds. The applications were fully briefed through December 2013 and argued on February 28, 2014.

The April 9, 2014 under-advisement ruling framed the parties' positions as a statutory choice. The association argued that the lien foreclosure should be treated as a special execution under A.R.S. § 12-1562, which would entitle it, as judgment creditor, to the excess proceeds. The Bank argued that under A.R.S. § 33-1807(A) association lien foreclosures are treated as mortgages, so any excess monies should be disbursed to the Bank. The court stated it was persuaded by the Bank's position that priority in the case, under the circumstances presented, is governed by A.R.S. § 33-727(A), and concluded the Bank was entitled to the excess proceeds "as the next lien holder in priority."

On that basis the court denied the association's application for distribution, granted the Bank's application for release, and directed the Clerk to distribute the $4,716.06 to Bank of America, with counsel to lodge a form of order. Implementation followed in May 2014: a judge pro tem signed an order releasing the funds to the Bank less a $30.00 processing fee and upon presentation of a Form W-9, citing A.R.S. § 33-812(g), and a follow-up minute entry corrected a clerical error so the Clerk's Office, rather than the county treasurer, would release the money. The collected minute entries show no appeal or further activity after the May 2014 release orders.

Why It Matters

This case answers a question that recurs whenever an Arizona homeowners association forecloses its lien and the property sells for more than the sale needed to raise: who keeps the surplus? The association here assumed that, as the foreclosing judgment creditor, it would — and framed the sheriff's sale as a special execution under A.R.S. § 12-1562 to get there. The court instead treated the association's lien foreclosure like a mortgage foreclosure, following the Bank's argument under A.R.S. § 33-1807(A), and distributed the excess strictly by lien priority under A.R.S. § 33-727(A). The next lienholder in line — a bank — took the money.

For associations, the lesson is that winning a foreclosure judgment and forcing a sale does not create a right to surplus sale proceeds; other lienholders' priority positions survive the sale and control the distribution of any excess. For homeowners and lenders, the case shows the mechanics of how these fights actually unfold — competing applications to the court for funds deposited with the Clerk, briefing, oral argument, and an under-advisement ruling. The dollar amount here was modest ($4,716.06), but the priority principle applies regardless of size. As a superior-court decision it binds only the parties and is not precedent; the collected minute entries show the matter concluded with the May 2014 release orders and no appeal.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Dominick Abatemarco v. Canterra at Squaw Peak Condominium Association, Inc.: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on July 2, 2026 by [email protected]

Balcony Repairs & CC&R Enforcement | A.R.S. §§ 33-1255, 12-341.01 | CV2007-053132

In this Maricopa County Superior Court case, a condominium owner sued his association over a defective and dangerous balcony it refused to repair while its lawsuit against the community’s builder was pending. The court held the recorded Declaration made repair of the balconies — limited common elements — the association’s responsibility funded by equal assessments on all owners, mandatorily enjoined the association to promulgate a remediation plan and funding mechanism for all balconies, and, after a jury found the association breached the CC&Rs and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, entered a $90,000 damages judgment plus $250,000 in attorneys’ fees and $60,818.24 in costs for the owner.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Dominick Abatemarco v. Canterra at Squaw Peak Condominium Association, Inc., Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2007-053132.

Download final judgment and fee ruling

Current-status note: This page is published as a litigation record based on the source files available through 2010-11-01. Later filings, appeals, mandates, settlements, or dismissal orders may change the posture; the linked court records control.

Video/audio is held from this page until a fresh media package is generated from the approved source record.

Scope note: This page covers Dominick Abatemarco v. Canterra at Squaw Peak Condominium Association, Inc. (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2007-053132) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s own filed minute entries, including the April 9, 2008 under-advisement ruling, the July 9, 2008 preliminary-injunction ruling, the March 2010 trial minute entries, and the June 4, 2010 judgment and attorneys’-fee ruling; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: the collected minute entries end in November 2010, in the middle of post-judgment garnishment proceedings against the Association’s bank accounts. A fall 2008 minute entry shows the Association sought (and was denied) a stay pending appeal, and the minutes do not identify the order appealed or show the outcome of any appeal, so later developments are not reflected here. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The homeowner substantially prevailed. The court found the balconies were limited common elements that the Declaration — Sections 3.5, 4.2, and 6.7 — made the Association’s responsibility to repair, funded by equal assessments on all unit owners, and it mandatorily enjoined the Association to promulgate and approve a remediation plan and funding mechanism to repair all balconies in the community. A jury then found the Association breached the CC&Rs ($40,000) and the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing ($50,000), though it found for the Association on the claim for breach of a statutory duty to repair. Weighing the totality of the litigation under A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A) and the CC&Rs’ fee provision, the court held the owner was the successful party — but slashed his $591,475.50 fee request, which it called patently unreasonable, to $250,000 plus $60,818.24 in costs.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Dominick Abatemarco (Plaintiff)
Owner of condominium unit 226 at the Canterra at Squaw Peak complex in Phoenix since March 1998; a full-time resident who was current on his association dues. His balcony needed substantial repair, as did the balconies of many other owners.
Brian M. Bergin (Counsel)
Lead counsel for Plaintiff from the 2007 injunction proceedings through the 2010 jury trial and fee argument.
Brian J. Foster (Counsel)
Counsel for Plaintiff appearing from May 2009 onward, and counsel of record during the 2010 post-judgment garnishment proceedings.
Kenneth M. Frakes (Counsel)
Counsel for Plaintiff at the February 2010 final pretrial conference, the March 2010 jury trial, and the June 2010 fee argument.
Catherine Adams (Counsel)
Counsel appearing for Plaintiff on the first day of the March 2010 jury trial.

Respondent Side

Canterra at Squaw Peak Condominium Association, Inc. (Defendant)
Phoenix condominium association that had sued the community's builder over construction defects and, per the court's 2009 summary-judgment ruling, declared on October 17, 2005 that there would be no balcony repairs until that litigation concluded. Early minute entries caption additional individual defendants ("et al."); the court denied a 2008 motion to dismiss the claims against the individual defendants.
Mark A. Holmgren (Counsel)
Lead counsel for the Association throughout the case, from the 2007 injunction proceedings through trial, the fee ruling, and the 2010 garnishment proceedings.
Joshua M. Bolen (Counsel)
Counsel for the Association in the 2010 pretrial, trial, and fee-application proceedings.
Kellie J. Callahan (Counsel)
Counsel for the Association at the May 2009 and February 2010 pretrial conferences and the March 2010 jury trial.
J. Roger Wood (Counsel)
Counsel appearing for the Association at the May 2009 final pretrial conference.
Javier Delgado (Counsel)
Counsel appearing for the Association on the first day of the March 2010 jury trial.

Neutral Parties

Paul A. Katz (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court judge who presided over the preliminary-injunction phase, issued the April 2008 under-advisement ruling, and entered the July 2008 mandatory preliminary injunction.
Brian R. Hauser (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court judge who assumed the calendar in June 2008 and presided over the dispositive motions, the March 2010 jury trial, and the June 2010 judgment and fee ruling.
Gerald Porter (Commissioner)
Maricopa County Superior Court commissioner who presided over the fall 2010 post-judgment garnishment proceedings, including the September 28, 2010 judgment against garnishee Community Association Banc.

What happened

Dominick Abatemarco bought a condominium at the Canterra at Squaw Peak complex in Phoenix in about March 1998, lived there full time, and was current on his association dues. According to the court’s findings, many units and common areas in the complex had construction defects, including defective and dangerous balconies, and the Association had filed a construction-defect lawsuit against the builder that was expected to settle for less than the cost of the needed repairs. Abatemarco’s balcony was in need of substantial repair, as were the balconies of many other homeowners.

Abatemarco sued the Association in 2007 and applied for a preliminary injunction compelling the repairs. After a February 25, 2008 evidentiary hearing at which Abatemarco and the Association’s representative Eric Hayes testified, Judge Paul A. Katz issued an under-advisement ruling on April 9, 2008. The court found the balconies were limited common elements; that A.R.S. § 33-1255(C)(1) assigns their repair costs to the benefited units only “unless the declaration … provides otherwise”; and that this Declaration did provide otherwise — Section 4.2 makes maintenance, repair, and replacement of limited common elements the Association’s responsibility, and Section 6.7 requires the Association to assess all unit owners equally for the cost. The Association was therefore “clearly responsible” for repairing Abatemarco’s balcony, but the court initially denied the injunction, reasoning that he had an adequate remedy at law and that ordering his balcony repaired first would improperly give him priority over similarly situated owners.

On Abatemarco’s motion for reconsideration, the court reversed course in part. In a July 9, 2008 “Ruling and Preliminary Injunction,” Judge Katz found that Abatemarco did not have an adequate remedy at law and — because the court still could not prioritize one owner’s balcony without violating the CC&Rs — mandatorily enjoined the Association to promulgate and approve a remediation plan and funding mechanism to repair all balconies in the community pursuant to Sections 3.5 and 4.2 of the CC&Rs, with the plan due to the court by September 12, 2008 and all repairs completed by December 31, 2009. The Association’s motion for a stay pending appeal was denied on November 3, 2008.

The damages case narrowed sharply before trial. On February 5, 2009, Judge Brian R. Hauser — who had assumed the calendar in mid-2008 — denied Abatemarco’s motion for partial summary judgment on liability, finding fact questions about whether the Association timely performed its duties under the CC&Rs, but granted the Association summary judgment on all of Abatemarco’s non-contract claims as time-barred: no reasonable jury could find other than that his loss occurred on October 17, 2005, when the Association declared there would be no balcony repairs until its litigation with the developer concluded. On December 1, 2009, the court dismissed counts three through six, nine, and ten of the second amended complaint under the economic loss rule, since Abatemarco had full relief available on his contract theories and no separate personal injury or property damage, and it dismissed his punitive-damages claim as falling clearly below the required threshold of proof.

The surviving contract claims were tried to a jury before Judge Hauser over four days, March 1–4, 2010. On March 4, 2010 the jury returned verdicts for Abatemarco on his claim for breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing ($50,000) and on his claim for breach of the CC&Rs ($40,000), and for the Association on his claim for breach of the statutory duty to repair. Jury fees of $615.60 were assessed against the Association.

The June 4, 2010 judgment resolved the dueling attorneys’-fee applications. Applying A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A) and the totality-of-the-litigation test, the court held Abatemarco was the successful party: he won $90,000 in contract damages, and his injunction had produced real-world results — “defendant has repaired the defective balconies as a result of plaintiff’s efforts, at least in large part.” The CC&Rs’ own fee provision for prevailing enforcement parties, made conclusive by the jury’s breach verdict, reinforced the award. But the court found the requested $591,475.50 in fees ($523,825.50 from Rose Law Group, P.C. and $67,650.00 from Snell & Wilmer, LLP) “patently unreasonable” in an over-litigated case, remarking that “[t]his case exemplifies the profligacy that results when one is spending someone else’s money,” and awarded $250,000 in fees plus $60,818.24 in costs in the formal judgment entered June 4, 2010. Collection followed: Abatemarco garnished the Association’s accounts, judgment was entered against garnishee Community Association Banc on September 28, 2010 after the parties reached an agreement, and the collected minute entries end in November 2010 with a further unopposed garnishee judgment request pending.

Procedural timeline

Step 2005-10-17 Per the court's later summary-judgment ruling, the Association declares there will be no repairs to the defective balconies until its litigation against the developer is concluded.

Step 2007 (late) Abatemarco sues the Association in Maricopa County Superior Court (CV2007-053132); an order-to-show-cause hearing on his application for a preliminary injunction is held November 30, 2007.

Step 2008-02-25 Evidentiary hearing on the preliminary-injunction application; Abatemarco and Association representative Eric Hayes testify; the matter is taken under advisement.

Step 2008-04-09 Under-advisement ruling: the Association is "clearly responsible" for repairing the balconies under Declaration Sections 4.2 and 6.7, but the injunction is denied for an adequate remedy at law.

Step 2008-07-09 On reconsideration, the court finds no adequate remedy at law and mandatorily enjoins the Association to adopt a remediation plan and funding mechanism to repair all balconies, with repairs completed by December 31, 2009.

Step 2008-11-03 The court denies the Association's motion for a stay pending appeal.

Step 2009-02-05 Cross summary-judgment rulings: Abatemarco's partial motion on liability is denied; the Association wins summary judgment on all non-contract claims as barred by the statutes of limitations.

Step 2009-12-01 The court dismisses counts three through six, nine, and ten of the second amended complaint under the economic loss rule and dismisses the punitive-damages claim.

Step 2010-03-01 Jury trial begins before Judge Brian R. Hauser; it runs four days, March 1–4, 2010.

Step 2010-03-04 Jury verdicts: $50,000 for Abatemarco on breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, $40,000 on breach of the CC&Rs, and for the Association on breach of the statutory duty to repair.

Step 2010-06-04 Judgment signed and entered: Abatemarco is the successful party and is awarded $250,000 in attorneys' fees and $60,818.24 in costs; his $591,475.50 fee request is found patently unreasonable.

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

2010-09-28_062_oral-argument-set.pdf

Source 63 2010-11-01

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

2010-11-01_063_minute-entry.pdf

FAQ

Who won this case?

Substantially the homeowner, though not on everything. The court mandatorily enjoined the Association to adopt a plan to repair all balconies in the community, the jury awarded Abatemarco $90,000 on his two contract-based claims, and the court awarded him $250,000 in attorneys’ fees and $60,818.24 in costs as the successful party. The Association won the jury verdict on the claim for breach of a statutory duty to repair, won summary judgment on all of the non-contract claims as time-barred, and had the tort and punitive-damages claims dismissed before trial.

Who has to pay to repair a condominium balcony in Arizona?

It depends on the recorded Declaration. The default rule, A.R.S. § 33-1255(C)(1), assigns the cost of maintaining, repairing, or replacing a limited common element such as a balcony to the unit or units it serves — but only if the declaration does not provide otherwise. In this case the court found the Declaration did provide otherwise: Section 4.2 made repair of limited common elements the Association’s responsibility, and Section 6.7 required the Association to assess all unit owners equally for the cost. The Association was therefore “clearly responsible” for repairing the balconies.

Why did the court first deny and then grant the injunction?

In its April 9, 2008 ruling the court held that even though the Association was responsible for the repairs, it could not compel them by injunction because Abatemarco had an adequate remedy at law — he could repair the balcony himself and sue for reimbursement. On reconsideration, the court found on July 9, 2008 that he did not have an adequate remedy at law. Because ordering only his balcony repaired would give him priority over similarly situated owners in violation of the CC&Rs, the court instead ordered the Association to adopt a remediation plan and funding mechanism covering all balconies in the community.

Why were so many of the homeowner's claims dismissed before trial?

Two doctrines did most of the work. First, in February 2009 the court held all of the non-contract claims were barred by the statutes of limitations, because the loss occurred on October 17, 2005, when the Association declared there would be no balcony repairs until its lawsuit against the developer concluded. Second, in December 2009 the court applied the economic loss rule to dismiss six more counts of the second amended complaint, reasoning that Abatemarco had full relief available on his contract theories and had suffered no personal injury or property damage separate from the alleged breach. His punitive-damages claim was also dismissed as falling clearly below the required threshold of proof.

Why did the court award only $250,000 of the $591,475.50 in fees requested?

Because only reasonable fees may be awarded. The court found the case had been over-litigated even accounting for the intractable positions the parties took — “repetitive motions to dismiss, motions for summary judgment, motions to strike, motions to exclude, motions to file sur-replies and emergency motions that were anything but emergencies” — and that the plaintiff’s time entries were well beyond the norm for a case with, in the court’s words, “this lack of complexity,” with the second firm’s application duplicating the first’s inflated charges. It fixed reasonable fees at $250,000 plus $60,818.24 in costs, observing that “[t]his case exemplifies the profligacy that results when one is spending someone else’s money.”

Is this decision binding on other Arizona HOA disputes?

No. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties to the case and are not precedent. The case is still useful reading: it shows how a declaration can shift limited-common-element repair costs from the benefited units to the whole community, how a court can use a mandatory injunction to compel an association to plan and fund repairs for everyone rather than one complaining owner, and how the successful-party analysis under A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A) weighs injunctive relief alongside money damages. Note that the collected minute entries end in late 2010 during collection proceedings, and the minutes do not show the outcome of any appeal.

Case Dossier

This dossier combines the case metadata, linked court sources, and the explanatory sections below. It distinguishes court rulings from party filings, allegations, and requested relief.

Case Summary

Case ID / citation	CV2007-053132 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunal	Superior Court
Decision / key date	June 4, 2010
Judge / panel	Hon. Paul A. Katz, Hon. Brian R. Hauser, Commissioner Gerald Porter
Parties	Dominick Abatemarco (Plaintiff, condominium owner) v. Canterra at Squaw Peak Condominium Association, Inc. (Defendant)
Governing law	A.R.S. § 33-1255 A.R.S. § 12-341.01
Topics	CC&RsAssessmentsAttorney FeesProcedure
Outcome / holding	The association, not the individual unit owner, was responsible under the Declaration for repairing the defective balconies (limited common elements) through equal assessments on all owners; the court mandatorily enjoined the association to adopt a community-wide remediation plan and funding mechanism; a jury found the association breached the CC&Rs and the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, awarding $90,000; and the court held the owner was the successful party under A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A) and the CC&Rs' fee provision, awarding $250,000 in reasonable attorneys' fees and $60,818.24 in costs while rejecting the full $591,475.50 request as patently unreasonable.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package	63 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	13 roadmap entries
Video overview	Temporarily unavailable while the expanded case record is reviewed
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	6 questions
Featured download links	1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

A Phoenix condominium owner at the Canterra at Squaw Peak complex sued his association in 2007 over a defective and dangerous balcony that the association refused to repair while its construction-defect suit against the community's builder was pending. In an April 2008 under-advisement ruling the court held the balconies were limited common elements whose repair the recorded Declaration (Sections 4.2 and 6.7) assigned to the association, funded by equal assessments on all owners — displacing the default allocation in A.R.S. § 33-1255(C)(1) — but initially denied injunctive relief. On reconsideration in July 2008 the court found no adequate remedy at law and mandatorily enjoined the association to promulgate a remediation plan and funding mechanism to repair all balconies in the community by December 31, 2009. After the non-contract claims were cut down on limitations and economic-loss-rule grounds, a jury in March 2010 awarded the owner $50,000 for breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing and $40,000 for breach of the CC&Rs, while finding for the association on a statutory-duty-to-repair claim. On June 4, 2010 the court entered judgment declaring the owner the successful party and awarding him $250,000 in attorneys' fees and $60,818.24 in costs, after finding his $591,475.50 fee request patently unreasonable. Post-judgment garnishment of the association's bank accounts followed through late 2010.

Key Issues & Findings

In the April 9, 2008 under-advisement ruling, the court found that the complex suffered widespread construction defects, including defective and dangerous balconies, and that the association's suit against the builder was likely to settle for less than the needed repairs would cost. The balconies were limited common elements, and while A.R.S. § 33-1255(C)(1) by default assesses limited-common-element repair costs only against the units they serve, that rule yields to a contrary declaration. Section 4.2 of this Declaration made maintenance, repair, and replacement of limited common elements the association's responsibility, and Section 6.7 required the association to assess all unit owners equally for the cost — so the association was "clearly responsible" for the repairs. The court nonetheless first denied a preliminary injunction, reasoning that the owner had an adequate remedy at law and that repairing his balcony first would give him priority over similarly situated owners in violation of the CC&Rs. On reconsideration, the July 9, 2008 ruling found the owner did not have an adequate remedy at law and resolved the priority problem by mandatorily enjoining the association to promulgate and approve a remediation plan and funding mechanism to repair all balconies pursuant to Sections 3.5 and 4.2, with completion ordered by December 31, 2009.

The damages claims narrowed before trial. In February 2009 the court granted the association summary judgment on all non-contract claims as time-barred, holding that no reasonable jury could find other than that the loss occurred on October 17, 2005, when the association declared there would be no balcony repairs until its developer litigation concluded. In December 2009 the court dismissed six more counts of the second amended complaint under the economic loss rule — the owner had full relief available on his contract theories and no personal injury or property damage separate from the alleged breach — and dismissed the punitive-damages claim as clearly below the required evidentiary threshold. The surviving contract claims went to a four-day jury trial in March 2010, producing verdicts of $50,000 for breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing and $40,000 for breach of the CC&Rs, with a defense verdict on the claim for breach of the statutory duty to repair.

The June 4, 2010 fee ruling applied A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A) and the totality-of-the-litigation test from Schwartz v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona. Although the association won more claims on a purely mathematical basis, the court held the owner was the successful party: he recovered $90,000 in contract damages, and his injunction had worked — the association "has repaired the defective balconies as a result of plaintiff's efforts, at least in large part." The CC&Rs' provision awarding reasonable fees to a party who prevails in an enforcement action, made conclusive by the jury's breach-of-CC&Rs verdict, independently supported the award. But the court found the requested $591,475.50 ($523,825.50 from Rose Law Group, P.C. and $67,650.00 from Snell & Wilmer, LLP) patently unreasonable in an over-litigated case whose record was "replete with repetitive motions," and fixed reasonable fees at $250,000 plus $60,818.24 in costs, remarking that "[t]his case exemplifies the profligacy that results when one is spending someone else's money."

Why It Matters

This case is one of the clearer Arizona illustrations that a condominium declaration can flip the Condominium Act's default cost allocation in the owners' favor: A.R.S. § 33-1255(C)(1) would have charged balcony repairs to the benefited units, but because the Declaration made limited-common-element repair the association's obligation funded by equal assessments, the association could not defer the work — even while its construction-defect suit against the builder was pending. It also shows a court solving the fairness problem of single-owner injunctive relief by ordering a community-wide remedy: rather than move one complaining owner to the front of the line, the court compelled the association to plan, fund, and complete repairs for every balcony.

The endgame carries two more lessons. On fees, the successful-party analysis under A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A) looks at the totality of the litigation, so an owner who loses most of his claim count but wins the core contract claims and meaningful injunctive relief can still recover fees — yet the court will cut inflated bills sharply, here awarding $250,000 of a $591,475.50 request it labeled patently unreasonable. And on enforcement, the 2010 garnishment proceedings against the association's bank accounts show what collecting a judgment from an unwilling association can look like. As a superior-court decision the case binds only the parties, and the collected minute entries end in late 2010 without showing the outcome of any appeal.

← Back to Superior Court cases