Zwicky v. Premiere Vacation Collection: Arizona Timeshare Owners’ Right to Inspect Records

Posted on June 19, 2026 by [email protected]

Arizona Timeshare & HOA Records | A.R.S. § 33-2209 | 1 CA-CV 16-0659

Zwicky is the leading published Arizona decision on a timeshare member’s statutory right to inspect association financial books and records. The Court of Appeals affirmed an order compelling production, adopted a member-friendly ‘proper purpose’ standard, and held the business judgment rule cannot defeat the statutory right — while protecting genuinely confidential financial data and barring litigation-recruitment notices.

Last updated June 19, 2026. Case: Norman Zwicky v. Premiere Vacation Collection Owners Association, Arizona Court of Appeals No. 1 CA-CV 16-0659, 244 Ariz. 309, 418 P.3d 1108 (App. 2018); Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2015-051911.

Download appellate opinion Download final judgment Source-file index FAQ

Scope note: This page covers the published Court of Appeals opinion (1 CA-CV 16-0659) and the uploaded trial and appellate record. The complete source-document index below is generated from the local raw source folder. This page is an educational summary, not legal advice.

The rule

A timeshare owner who follows the statutory request procedure and has a ‘proper purpose’ — a desire to obtain information that reasonably relates to protecting the owner’s interest as a member — may compel inspection of the association’s financial and other records under A.R.S. § 33-2209, and the board’s discretion and the business judgment rule are no defense. But an association cannot be ordered under A.R.S. § 33-2210 to circulate member notices whose real purpose is recruiting plaintiffs rather than legitimate association business, and genuinely confidential or proprietary financial data may be protected by a properly supported protective order.

What happened

Norman Zwicky paid about $26,000 for his timeshare interest in 2004 and watched his annual assessments climb to roughly $2,162 by 2015. Suspecting that the developer-affiliated manager (tied to Diamond Resorts) was shifting hotel-operation and unsold-inventory costs onto members, he made a written statutory request to inspect the association’s financial books and records so he could investigate whether assessments were calculated in good faith.

The association refused. The trial court (Judge John R. Hannah, Jr.) granted Zwicky summary judgment compelling production of twelve categories of financial records. The association appealed. On January 23, 2018, the Court of Appeals affirmed the core inspection right, vacated a member-notice order and a protective-order modification, and remanded; the parties then entered a stipulated final order on remand keeping certain documents confidential.

Video overview: a timeshare owner’s right to inspect records

Watch this overview of Zwicky v. Premiere Vacation Collection Owners Association, where an Arizona court enforced a timeshare member’s statutory right to inspect association financial and management records, with the appellate court largely affirming that right.

Procedural timeline

Step 2015-05-13 Zwicky files verified complaint to compel records inspection (CV2015-051911)

Step 2016-03-11 Superior court grants Zwicky summary judgment; denies association’s cross-motion

Step 2016-09-16 Final judgment ordering production; attorneys’ fees denied (not an action ‘arising out of contract’)

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file

2018-08-21_076_stipulated-order.pdf

Source 77 2018-11-30

Notice Of Change Of Firm Address

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file

2018-11-30_077_notice-of-change-of-firm-address.pdf

Why it matters

Statutory records-inspection rights are court-enforceable.
No board permission needed.
‘Proper purpose’ is read in the member’s favor.

Board discretion and the business judgment rule do not defeat the statutory right.
Confidential or proprietary financials can still be protected by a proper protective order.

An association cannot be forced to mail member notices that really serve class-action recruitment.
Inspection still runs through the statutory request procedure.

FAQ

Case Dossier

This generated dossier mirrors the structured data surfaced on the OAH/ADRE case pages. It is added from the curated court-case record and the custom page source package, while the hand-authored analysis below remains intact.

Case Summary

Case ID / citation	244 Ariz. 309, 418 P.3d 1108 (App. 2018), 1 CA-CV 16-0659
Court / tribunal	Court of Appeals
Decision / key date	January 23, 2018
Judge / panel	Judge Patricia A. Orozco, Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones, Judge Jon W. Thompson
Parties	A timeshare member sued his owners’ association to enforce his statutory right to inspect the association’s financial books and records after his annual assessments roughly tripled.
Governing law	A.R.S. § 33-2209 A.R.S. § 33-2210 A.R.S. § 12-341.01
Topics	records-inspectiontimeshareassessmentsboard-governanceattorneys-fees
Outcome / holding	A timeshare owner who follows the statutory request procedure and has a ‘proper purpose’ — a desire to obtain information that reasonably relates to protecting his interest as a member — may compel inspection of the association’s financial records under A.R.S. § 33-2209, and the business judgment rule is no defense; but an association cannot be ordered under A.R.S. § 33-2210 to circulate member notices whose real purpose is recruiting plaintiffs rather than legitimate association business.

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package	77 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	5 roadmap entries
Video overview	Zwicky v. Premiere Vacation Collection: Timeshare Owners’ Right to Inspect Records
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	3 questions
Curated download aliases	4 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

This is the leading published Arizona opinion on a timeshare owner’s right to inspect association records under A.R.S. § 33-2209. Norman Zwicky paid about $26,000 for his interest in 2004 and watched his annual assessments climb to roughly $2,162 by 2015. Suspecting that the developer-affiliated manager (tied to Diamond Resorts) was shifting hotel-operation and unsold-inventory costs onto members, he made a statutory written request to inspect the association’s financial books and records so he could investigate whether assessments were calculated in good faith. The association refused, and Zwicky sued. The trial court granted him summary judgment compelling production, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the core inspection right. The court borrowed the ‘proper purpose’ standard from shareholder-inspection law and defined it broadly in the owner’s favor, while separately protecting the association’s genuinely confidential financial data through a protective order and striking a trial-court order that would have forced the association to mail a member notice serving the owner’s class-action recruitment.

Key Issues & Findings

The court treated the statutory inspection right as analogous to a shareholder’s right to inspect corporate books, adopting the rule that ‘proper purpose’ means a desire to derive information that will enable the owner to protect his interest and that reasonably relates to his membership. Investigating a tripling of assessments easily satisfied that test, and the records sought — ADRE filings, management agreements, profit-and-loss statements, budgets, and occupancy and revenue data — fell within ‘financial and other records’ directly related to the timeshare plan. The court rejected the association’s argument that the board’s discretion under § 33-2209(C) and the business judgment rule could defeat the statutory right; an owner may judicially challenge the board’s records determination.

The court then balanced that access against confidentiality. It vacated the trial court’s modification of the protective order because the court had loosened confidentiality protections without reviewing the documents or letting the association show why proprietary financial data should stay protected, and it remanded for that evaluation. It also vacated the order forcing the association to mail a § 33-2210 notice, holding that the notice did not advance ‘legitimate association business’ because its real purpose was to help the owner and his lawyer assemble a group of plaintiffs for a proposed class action.

Why It Matters

For Arizona homeowners and timeshare owners, Zwicky is a strong, citable precedent that statutory records-inspection rights are enforceable in court, that an owner does not need the board’s blessing, and that ‘proper purpose’ is read in the member’s favor. For associations and managers, it confirms two things at once: members cannot be stonewalled on financial records by invoking board discretion or the business judgment rule, but associations retain the ability to protect truly confidential or proprietary financial information through a properly supported protective order, and they cannot be conscripted into circulating litigation-recruitment notices. The decision is frequently cited in Arizona disputes over member access to association financial records.

← Back to Court of Appeals cases

Bocchino v. Fountain Shadows HOA: Unawarded Attorney Fees and Assessments

Posted on June 2, 2026 by

Arizona HOA Attorney Fees | Assessments | 1 CA-CV 16-0710

Bocchino limits an HOA’s ability to put litigation attorney fees directly on a homeowner’s account. The Court of Appeals held the association could not assess fees from a justice-court harassment injunction when no court had awarded those fees.

Last updated June 3, 2026. Case: Patricia Bocchino v. Fountain Shadows Homeowners Association, Arizona Court of Appeals No. 1 CA-CV 16-0710; Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2015-012434.

Download appellate opinion Download trial ruling Watch video overview Source-file index FAQ

Scope note: This page covers the Court of Appeals opinion and the uploaded superior/appellate record. The complete uploaded source-document index below is generated from the local raw source folder, including court PDFs, court DOC/DOCX notices, and AI/source CSVs where present. AI-generated CSV summaries were reviewed only as orientation and are not treated as court authority.

The rule in one sentence

An HOA cannot simply assess a homeowner for attorney fees incurred in a judicial proceeding when the tribunal did not award those fees and the governing documents do not expressly authorize that unilateral charge.

Case snapshot

Court result

Summary judgment for Bocchino was affirmed.

Fee source

Fees came from a justice-court workplace-harassment injunction proceeding.

Key statute

A.R.S. 12-1810 requires court handling of harassment-injunction fee awards.

Practical use

Account charges for litigation fees need a real award or clear authority.

Case Dossier

Case Summary

Case ID / citation	1 CA-CV 16-0710
Court / tribunal	Court of Appeals
Decision / key date	April 3, 2018
Judge / panel	John C. Gemmill, Michael J. Brown, Maria Elena Cruz
Parties	A former homeowner challenged an HOA account charge for attorney fees the association incurred in a justice-court harassment-injunction proceeding but never obtained as a court award.
Governing law	A.R.S. § 12-1810 A.R.S. § 12-341.01 A.R.S. § 12-120.21 A.R.S. § 12-2101
Topics	attorneys-feesassessmentscc-and-rsprocedure
Outcome / holding	The Court of Appeals affirmed judgment for Bocchino and held the HOA improperly assessed attorney fees against her when no court had awarded those fees in the underlying injunction proceeding.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package	86 PDFs, 4 supporting source/review files
Step-by-step docket roadmap	6 roadmap entries
Video overview	Bocchino v. Fountain Shadows HOA: Wrongful HOA Escrow Charges
Study / briefing material	2 sections
FAQ / homeowner questions	3 questions
Curated download aliases	4 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Fountain Shadows obtained a workplace-harassment injunction against Patricia Bocchino in justice court but did not ask that court to award attorney fees. The association later charged those unawarded fees to Bocchino’s HOA account. Bocchino sued, and the Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment requiring repayment. The court held the association waived any fee claim in the injunction proceeding by not requesting fees there and that the declaration did not expressly allow the HOA to assess unawarded litigation fees directly against a homeowner.

Key Issues & Findings

A.R.S. § 12-1810 governs workplace-harassment injunctions and allows the court, after notice and hearing, to award costs and fees. Because the association did not request a fee award from the justice court, it could not later bypass that court by charging the fees directly to the owner. The declaration did not expressly authorize direct assessment of attorney fees incurred in judicial proceedings but not awarded by a tribunal.

Why It Matters

Bocchino is a practical limit on HOA fee accounting. It warns associations not to self-award litigation fees by placing them on an owner account after a separate court proceeding. For homeowners, it is a useful authority when an HOA account ledger includes attorney fees that were never awarded by the court or tribunal handling the underlying dispute.

Why this case matters

Bocchino is a practical fee-assessment case. The association obtained an injunction against Bocchino but did not ask the justice court to award fees. It later placed those attorney fees on her HOA account, and the Court of Appeals affirmed that the charge was improper.

The opinion matters because many governing documents contain broad enforcement-fee language. Bocchino shows that broad language does not automatically let an HOA bypass the court that handled the litigation and unilaterally convert unawarded fees into an owner-account debt.

Video overview: unawarded HOA attorney fees and owner accounts

Watch this overview for Bocchino v. Fountain Shadows HOA, where the court rejected an association’s attempt to place litigation fees on a homeowner’s account when the tribunal handling the injunction had not awarded those fees.

Homeowner study guide: escrow charges and fee recovery

Homeowner question	Study-guide answer	Why it matters
Can an HOA demand payment from escrow during a home sale?	An HOA may make a demand, but Bocchino shows the homeowner can sue to recover funds if the demand was not legally authorized.	The trial court awarded Bocchino the $3,887.28 collected from escrow.
Why did the escrow demand create practical pressure?	The homeowner argued she faced a Hobson’s choice: pay the disputed amount to close the sale or challenge the demand and risk the transaction.	Escrow timing can turn a disputed account charge into immediate leverage over a sale.
Can a homeowner recover attorney fees after successfully suing an HOA?	Potentially yes. A.R.S. 12-341.01 allows fee awards to a successful party in a contested action arising out of contract.	HOA disputes based on CC&Rs and assessment account rights often become contract-fee fights.
Can requested attorney fees exceed the disputed principal?	Yes. Bocchino’s fee application sought $22,937.50 after recovering $3,887.28.	Small account disputes can become expensive when an HOA refuses reimbursement and litigation proceeds through summary judgment and appeal.
What do courts consider when deciding whether to award fees?	Arizona courts may consider the Warner factors, including merits, avoidability, hardship, success, novelty, and deterrence.	The question is not just who won, but whether a fee award is appropriate under the circumstances.
How does the court evaluate whether a fee bill is reasonable?	Fee applications are tested under China Doll principles, including the work performed, rates, lawyer experience, difficulty, and result achieved.	A homeowner seeking fees should preserve detailed billing records and connect the work to the litigation result.
Does an HOA have to pay immediately if it appeals?	Not necessarily. The association may post a supersedeas bond to stay execution while the appeal is pending.	Fountain Shadows filed a bond for $4,149.67 during the appeal.

Briefing notes from the review packet

Escrow pressure point

The dispute arose during Bocchino’s property sale, when the association demanded payment through escrow and the homeowner completed the sale before suing to recover the funds.

Principal recovery

The Superior Court awarded Bocchino $3,887.28, the amount the court found had been wrongfully collected.

Trial-court fee request

After prevailing, Bocchino requested $22,937.50 in attorney fees under A.R.S. 12-341.01, supported by a China Doll-style billing submission.

Fee-application theory

The fee papers argued the association forced avoidable litigation by refusing to reimburse the charge before suit.

Supersedeas bond

During the appeal, the association filed a supersedeas bond for $4,149.67 to stay execution of the judgment while review was pending.

Appellate costs

After the appellate decision, the Court of Appeals awarded Bocchino $173.50 in costs.

Attorney-fee briefing context

Issue	Briefing position	Why it matters
Merits	Bocchino argued the association lacked a legal basis to self-assess fees that no tribunal had awarded.	This is the same practical point the appellate opinion later confirmed.
Avoidability	The fee application argued litigation could have been avoided if the association returned the escrowed funds before suit.	Shows why settlement posture became part of the fee dispute.
Degree of success	Bocchino sought to recover the full amount collected and obtained judgment for the principal recovery.	Explains why the requested fee award was much larger than the principal amount.
Deterrence	The briefing framed fee recovery as necessary for homeowners to challenge improper account charges.	Useful context for readers comparing litigation economics to the amount at stake.

Upload/source spreadsheet that helps cross-check filing order, source names, or AI review notes.

Download source file

undated_900_bocchino-v-fountain-shadows-hoa-case-documents-summary-table-1.csv

For homeowners

Check whether the fees on your account were actually awarded by the court or tribunal that handled the proceeding.
Ask whether the invoice is for assessment collection, covenant enforcement, or a separate judicial proceeding.
Preserve closing statements, account ledgers, demand letters, and the order from the underlying proceeding.

For boards and managers

Ask the tribunal for fees when the statute or rules require a fee award there.
Do not assume a broad CC&R fee clause lets the association self-award litigation fees after the fact.
Separate ordinary assessment collection costs from fees incurred in separate court proceedings.

FAQ

Did the HOA have an injunction against Bocchino?

Yes, but the problem was that the justice court did not award the association attorney fees in that injunction proceeding.

Could the HOA rely on its declaration instead?

Not on this record. The Court of Appeals held the declaration did not expressly allow the association to assess unawarded litigation fees directly against Bocchino.

Does Bocchino ban all HOA fee recovery?

No. It addresses unilateral assessment of fees that were incurred in a judicial proceeding but not awarded by the court.

← Back to Court of Appeals cases

Village of Oakcreek v. Bonham: Kalway and Arizona HOA Short-Term Rental Amendments

Posted on June 2, 2026 by

Arizona HOA Rental Restrictions | Kalway | 1 CA-CV 22-0780

Bonham is a practical short-term-rental amendment case. The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of an HOA enforcement suit because the original declaration did not give fair notice that the HOA could later ban short-term rentals by majority amendment.

Last updated June 3, 2026. Case: Village of Oakcreek Association v. Lance E. Bonham, Arizona Court of Appeals No. 1 CA-CV 22-0780; Yavapai County Superior Court No. V1300CV202280081.

Download appellate decision Download trial ruling Watch video overview Source-file index FAQ

Scope note: This page covers the nonprecedential Court of Appeals decision and the uploaded appellate/trial record. The complete uploaded source-document index below is generated from the local raw source folder, including court PDFs, court DOC/DOCX notices, and AI/source CSVs where present. AI-generated CSV summaries were reviewed only as orientation and are not treated as court authority.

The rule in one sentence

A general business-use restriction in original CC&Rs does not necessarily give homeowners fair notice that the HOA may later ban short-term rentals by majority amendment.

Case snapshot

Court result

Dismissal for homeowner Bonham was affirmed.

Core doctrine

Kalway reasonable-and-foreseeable notice for CC&R amendments.

Rental issue

2016 and 2017 amendments banned short-term rentals.

Fee result

Bonham received appellate fees and costs subject to ARCAP 21.

Case Dossier

Case Summary

Case ID / citation	1 CA-CV 22-0780
Court / tribunal	Court of Appeals
Decision / key date	October 3, 2023
Judge / panel	David D. Weinzweig, Michael S. Catlett, Maria Elena Cruz
Parties	A planned-community association sued a homeowner to stop short-term rentals after majority-approved CC&R amendments banned short-term rentals.
Governing law	A.R.S. § 12-120.21 A.R.S. § 12-2101 A.R.S. § 12-341 A.R.S. § 12-341.01
Topics	rental-restrictionscc-and-rsprocedureattorneys-fees
Outcome / holding	The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal for Bonham and held the challenged short-term-rental amendments were not enforceable against him because they were not reasonably foreseeable from the original declaration.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package	70 PDFs, 1 supporting source/review file
Step-by-step docket roadmap	5 roadmap entries
Video overview	Village of Oakcreek v. Bonham: HOA Short-Term Rental Restrictions After Kalway
Study / briefing material	2 sections
FAQ / homeowner questions	3 questions
Curated download aliases	4 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Village of Oakcreek Association sued Lance Bonham to enforce 2016 and 2017 CC&R amendments that banned short-term rentals. Bonham moved to dismiss under Kalway, arguing the original declaration did not provide fair notice that a majority could later impose that kind of rental restriction. The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal. It rejected the association’s argument that a generic no-business covenant made short-term-rental restrictions foreseeable, because the original declaration did not address residential rentals or lease duration.

Key Issues & Findings

The court applied Kalway and asked whether the original declaration gave objective notice of a future rental restriction. The declaration broadly barred business operations on lots, but it did not mention residential rentals. A business-use restriction was not enough to warn owners that a later majority amendment could ban short-term rentals. The court also treated Bonham as an owner with title before the relevant amendments based on the declaration’s broad definition of ownership and his trustee status.

Why It Matters

Bonham is a practical short-term-rental amendment case for Arizona HOAs and homeowners. It shows that an association cannot rely on generic business-use language as a substitute for a real leasing covenant when trying to enforce a later rental ban. It also pairs well with Gross: both cases apply Kalway to rental amendments and both warn boards to tie new rental restrictions to language already present in the original CC&Rs.

Why this case matters

Bonham is useful because it applies Kalway to the most common HOA amendment fight: short-term rentals. The association argued the original declaration barred business activity, so a later rental ban was foreseeable. The Court of Appeals disagreed because the business-use covenant did not say anything about residential rentals.

The decision gives homeowners a concrete argument when an HOA tries to convert a general residential-use or business-use clause into a later rental prohibition. It also gives boards a drafting warning: if rental restrictions are intended, the original declaration needs a clearer tether than a broad no-business provision.

Video overview: HOA short-term rental amendments after Kalway

Watch this overview for Village of Oakcreek v. Bonham, where the Court of Appeals held that a general business-use restriction did not give fair notice that the HOA could later ban short-term rentals by amendment.

Homeowner study guide: short-term rental enforcement questions

Homeowner question	Study-guide answer	Bonham-specific caution
What did the amended Village of Oakcreek leasing restriction define as a lease?	The study materials describe a broad definition covering any agreement, contract, grant, or arrangement giving a non-owner access to or use of a lot or unit.	That rule was part of the association’s enforcement theory; the appellate issue was whether the later restriction was valid and foreseeable.
Did the amended rule require at least a 30-day lease term?	Yes, the association relied on Section 4.23 language requiring lease terms of at least 30 days.	Bonham affirmed dismissal because the original declaration did not give fair notice that this later short-term-rental ban could be imposed by amendment.
What owner obligations did the association allege for allowed leases?	The study guide identifies whole-lot leasing, single-family use, no subleasing, owner responsibility for occupants, and a tenant registration form within five days.	Those are enforcement allegations and governing-document requirements to verify against the current declaration before relying on them.
What progressive enforcement steps did the association use?	The record describes a courtesy notice, notices of non-compliance, monetary penalties, and then litigation for injunction and money judgment relief.	The association alleged ongoing Airbnb activity, but the legal result turned on amendment validity, not just whether short stays occurred.
What penalty balance did the complaint allege?	The study materials identify an alleged $16,500.00 monetary penalty balance as of February 28, 2022.	An alleged account balance is not the same as a final judgment; always check the ruling and judgment.
Is a hearing required before fines?	A.R.S. 33-1803(B) requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before monetary penalties are imposed.	Procedural fine compliance is a separate issue from whether the underlying amended rental restriction is enforceable.
Can unpaid fines become a lien?	The study guide flags a distinction between fines themselves and enforcement costs such as attorney fees under the declaration.	Do not assume every fine is lienable; check A.R.S. 33-1803, the declaration language, and the specific account charge.
What is the homeowner takeaway?	A later rental restriction needs both procedural adoption and substantive foreseeability under Kalway.	Bonham is strongest as a fair-notice case, not as a general permission slip to ignore every rental rule.

Briefing notes from the review packet

Subject property

The enforcement action concerned Lot 75, Cathedral View, identified in the briefing as 40 Rio Verde Circle in Sedona.

Amended restriction

The association relied on a leasing restriction adopted in 2016 and re-recorded in 2017 that barred leases shorter than 30 days.

Owner status

Bonham acquired title by quitclaim deed recorded in January 2017, which placed him inside the association’s enforcement theory.

Association allegations

The association alleged ongoing Airbnb rentals, including advertised and reviewed stays shorter than 30 days.

Fines alleged

The complaint sought to collect a penalty balance the association alleged had reached $16,500.00 by February 28, 2022.

Why allegations did not decide it

Even assuming the alleged rentals, the dispositive issue was whether the later rental ban was valid and foreseeable under Kalway.

Enforcement history summarized from the briefing

Date or period	Association action or allegation	Relevance
June 22, 2021	Courtesy notice reportedly warned Bonham about alleged short-term-rental violations.	Shows the beginning of the association’s progressive enforcement record.
October-November 2021	The association alleged Airbnb reviews and short stays, then issued notices of non-compliance and fines.	Documents the alleged factual basis for enforcement, separate from the legal validity of the amendment.
December 2021-February 2022	Additional notices and alleged rentals increased the claimed penalty balance.	Frames the monetary judgment request in the complaint.
April 2022	The association sued for injunction, personal judgment, and implied-covenant relief.	Moves the dispute into the court system where Kalway controlled the amendment-validity question.
October 3, 2023	The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal for Bonham.	The appellate court focused on the original declaration’s lack of fair notice for a short-term-rental ban.

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

Download source file

2023-11-28_000_order-awarding-attorneys-fees-and.pdf

Source 71 2024-04-24

Civil Mandate

Type: Decision or judgment

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

Download source file

2024-04-24_000_civil-mandate.pdf

For homeowners using this case

Compare the original declaration to the new rental restriction line by line.
Do not stop at the amendment-vote percentage; Kalway asks whether the new burden was fairly foreseeable.
Look for older language that actually mentions leasing, occupancy, rental duration, transient use, or business use.
Use Bonham with Gross to separate invalid rental bans from narrower occupancy refinements.

For boards and managers

A majority vote alone may not save an amendment that creates a new rental burden.
Generic no-business language is a weak foundation for a short-term-rental ban.
Before enforcement, audit the original CC&Rs and any earlier leasing provisions against Kalway, Gross, and Bonham.
Fee exposure can follow if the association litigates an amendment that lacks a clear covenant tether.

FAQ

Did the HOA win in Bonham?

No. The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of the association’s suit against Bonham.

Is Bonham published precedent?

No. It is a memorandum decision, but it is still useful as a practical Kalway example and was cited in the later published Gross opinion.

What was missing from the original declaration?

The court found the original declaration generally barred business operations but did not provide fair notice of a future short-term-rental restriction.

← Back to Court of Appeals cases

Dreamland Villa v. Raimey: Mandatory Assessments and New HOA Obligations

Posted on June 2, 2026 by

Arizona HOA Assessments | Deed Restrictions | 1 CA-CV 08-0388

Dreamland explains why a generic amendment clause cannot always turn a voluntary community club into a mandatory assessment regime. The Court of Appeals reversed and held the Second Amended Declarations unenforceable against the homeowners.

Last updated June 3, 2026. Case: Dreamland Villa Community Club, Inc. v. Daryle G. Raimey, et al., Arizona Court of Appeals No. 1 CA-CV 08-0388.

Download appellate opinion Download mandate package Watch video overview Source-file index FAQ

Scope note: This page covers the appellate opinion and uploaded appellate docket notices. The complete uploaded source-document index below is generated from the local raw source folder, including court PDFs, court DOC/DOCX notices, and AI/source CSVs where present. AI-generated CSV summaries were reviewed only as orientation and are not treated as court authority.

The rule in one sentence

A generic deed-restriction amendment power did not authorize a majority to impose new mandatory club membership, assessments, and liens on owners in a community with no common areas and historically voluntary club participation.

Case snapshot

Court result

Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Community structure

Age-restricted residential community with no common areas.

Disputed amendment

Second Amended Declarations created mandatory association obligations and assessments.

Fee result

Homeowners were awarded reasonable appellate fees subject to ARCAP 21.

Case Dossier

Case Summary

Case ID / citation	1 CA-CV 08-0388
Court / tribunal	Court of Appeals
Decision / key date	March 16, 2010
Judge / panel	Jon W. Thompson
Parties	A voluntary community club tried to enforce amended deed restrictions requiring mandatory membership, assessments, and lien rights against homeowners in an older age-restricted community.
Governing law	A.R.S. § 10-3601 A.R.S. § 33-1803 A.R.S. § 12-341.01
Topics	assessmentscc-and-rsboard-governanceattorneys-fees
Outcome / holding	The Court of Appeals held the Second Amended Declarations were invalid and unenforceable against the homeowners, reversed the judgment, and remanded. It awarded the homeowners reasonable appellate attorney fees subject to ARCAP 21.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package	1 PDF, 19 supporting source/review files
Step-by-step docket roadmap	3 roadmap entries
Video overview	Dreamland Villa v. Raimey: Can an HOA Create Mandatory Assessments Later?
Study / briefing material	2 sections
FAQ / homeowner questions	3 questions
Curated download aliases	3 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Dreamland Villa Community Club involved an older residential community with no common areas and historically voluntary club participation. The club relied on Second Amended Declarations that attempted to require association membership, assessments, and lien rights. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment for the club and held the new declarations could not be enforced against the homeowners. A generic amendment clause did not give owners adequate notice that a majority could later impose new mandatory club and assessment obligations.

Key Issues & Findings

The court emphasized that Dreamland Villa had no common areas, that homeowners had no appurtenant right to use the club facilities by virtue of lot ownership, and that participation had long been voluntary. Because the original restrictions did not alert owners that mandatory assessments, liens, or club membership could later be imposed, a majority could not use a generic amendment power to create those new affirmative burdens.

Why It Matters

Dreamland is an important Arizona foundation for later Kalway-style amendment limits. It is especially useful for older subdivisions, recreation clubs, and hybrid HOA-like entities that try to convert voluntary participation into mandatory assessments. For homeowners, it supports the argument that a new economic burden must be tethered to the original covenant scheme, not simply approved by majority vote.

Why this case matters

Dreamland is a pre-Kalway building block for Arizona amendment-limit doctrine. It rejected the idea that a broad amendment clause could create an entirely new economic regime where owners had not been fairly warned that mandatory assessments and liens could be imposed later.

The opinion is especially useful for older Arizona communities, recreation clubs, and hybrid entities that try to move from voluntary participation to mandatory membership or mandatory assessments without a clear original covenant basis.

Video overview: mandatory assessments and new HOA obligations

Watch this overview for the central holding in Dreamland Villa v. Raimey: a majority amendment power did not give fair notice that a voluntary recreation club could later impose mandatory membership, assessments, and liens on objecting homeowners.

Homeowner study guide: amendment and assessment questions

Homeowner question	Short answer	Case lesson
Can a majority vote require everyone to join a private recreation club and pay annual fees?	Not through a generic amendment clause when that mandatory club structure was not part of the original recorded bargain.	Dreamland treats mandatory club membership, assessments, and lien exposure as a substantial new burden that requires fair notice in the original covenants.
Why did the lack of common areas matter?	The court emphasized that Dreamland Villa had no common areas owned for all lot owners’ use.	Without shared common property appurtenant to the lots, the club could not justify the new fees as ordinary common-area maintenance assessments.
Does broad language allowing restrictions to be changed mean owners accepted any future obligation?	No. Amendment power has limits even when owners bought subject to a change clause.	The key question is whether the later burden was reasonable and foreseeable from the recorded restrictions.
What happened to Section 18, where some fees already appeared in the original documents?	The court still did not treat Section 18 as proof of mandatory club membership.	The Section 18 language recognized non-member status and did not create a running covenant that guaranteed club rights in exchange for mandatory dues.
What happened to the Second Amended Declarations?	They were held invalid and unenforceable against the objecting homeowners.	The Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment that had favored DVCC.
Who received appellate fee relief?	The homeowners prevailed on the appeal and cross-appeal fee issue.	The mandate reflected appellate costs and attorney fees awarded to the homeowners.

Briefing notes from the review packet

Community structure

Dreamland Villa was developed in 18 sections between 1958 and 1972, with separate recorded restrictions for the sections and an age-restricted residential profile.

Club history

DVCC was incorporated in 1961 as a nonprofit recreational club with clubhouses, pools, shuffleboard courts, and a ballroom. Participation had historically been voluntary.

No common-area hook

The appellate opinion treated the absence of common areas as central. The club facilities were not common property appurtenant to every lot.

Amendment target

The 2003-2004 Second Amended Declarations attempted to require membership, annual and special assessments, and liens to fund club operations.

Section 18 argument

The court rejected DVCC’s separate Section 18 theory because the original language did not create a running covenant for mandatory club membership.

Final financial result

The mandate reflected appellate costs of $805.30 and attorney fees of $33,477.50 awarded to the homeowners.

Procedural highlights from the briefing

Date	Event	What changed
September 2007	Superior Court summary judgment	The trial court accepted DVCC’s amendment theory and entered judgment in favor of the club.
May 12, 2009	Appeal taken under advisement	The Court of Appeals took the case under advisement after the appellate proceedings.
March 16, 2010	Opinion filed	The Court of Appeals reversed and held the Second Amended Declarations unenforceable against the objecting homeowners.
June 30, 2010	Mandate issued	The appellate mandate finalized the reversal, remand, costs, and fee award.

Upload/source spreadsheet that helps cross-check filing order, source names, or AI review notes.

Download source file

undated_900_dreamland-villa-community-club-legal-documents-summary-table-1.csv

For homeowners

Ask whether the original deed restrictions warned owners about mandatory assessments or association membership.
Look for common areas or shared property obligations; Dreamland emphasized their absence.
Use Dreamland with Kalway when an amendment creates new affirmative obligations rather than refining existing restrictions.

For boards and clubs

Do not assume a majority amendment clause can create mandatory assessments in an older voluntary community.
Before imposing liens or assessments, identify the original covenant that authorizes that burden.
Expect fee exposure if the amendment materially changes the owners’ original bargain.

FAQ

Did Dreamland have common areas?

No. The opinion emphasized that Dreamland Villa had no common areas and that club membership had historically been voluntary.

What did the court do with the Second Amended Declarations?

The Court of Appeals held they could not be enforced against the homeowners and reversed/remanded.

How does Dreamland relate to Kalway?

Kalway later cited Dreamland as part of Arizona’s rule that amendments must be reasonable and foreseeable from the original declaration.

← Back to Court of Appeals cases

Lisa Marx v. Tara Condominiums: Open Meetings, Records, Insurance, and Direct-versus-Derivative Claims

Posted on May 30, 2026 by

Arizona Condo Governance | Open Meetings | Direct Claims

This page organizes the uploaded Superior Court record in Marx v. Tara, including the June 2025 preliminary-injunction and derivative-claim rulings, Tara’s May 2026 Rule 12(c) motion, and Marx’s June 2026 response packet.

Last updated June 3, 2026. Case: Lisa Marx v. Tara Condominiums Association, Inc., Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2025-012980; Hon. Randall H. Warner and Hon. Adele Ponce.

Download June 26 order Download complaint June 2026 briefing Document roadmap Source index FAQ

Posture note: This is a pending Superior Court record guide, not a final merits summary. The uploaded packet includes important interim rulings, but it does not include a final judgment resolving every claim.

The posture in one sentence

Marx v. Tara is a pending Arizona condominium governance case where the central practical question is whether alleged open-meeting, records, insurance, voting, and declaration violations are enforceable as a member’s direct rights or must be handled as derivative association claims.

Case snapshot

Core dispute

A Tara condominium owner alleges the association acted without proper board votes, notice, records access, statutory compliance, and member approval.

Interim rulings

The court denied a preliminary injunction, denied Tara’s first derivative-claim dismissal motion against the association, and dismissed individual board members.

Current fight

Tara’s May 27, 2026 Rule 12(c) motion renews the derivative-claim issue after newer appellate authority; Marx’s June 2 response argues those claims remain direct member-right claims.

Source packet

The public source set preserves 168 uploaded PDFs; the generated index deduplicates them to 164 public PDF entries plus a normalized filing roadmap.

Case Dossier

Case Summary

Case ID / citation	CV2025-012980
Court / tribunal	Superior Court
Decision / key date	April 14, 2025
Judge / panel	Hon. Randall H. Warner, Hon. Adele Ponce
Parties	Lisa Marx, a Tara condominium owner, sued Tara Condominiums Association over alleged open-meeting, records, insurance, common-element, voting, and declaration/bylaw violations.
Governing law	A.R.S. § 33-1248 A.R.S. § 33-1250 A.R.S. § 33-1258 A.R.S. § 33-1212 A.R.S. § 33-1247 A.R.S. § 33-1253 A.R.S. § 10-11601 A.R.S. § 12-1831
Topics	meetings-and-recordsboard-governancecc-and-rsrecords-requestsprocedureattorneys-fees
Outcome / holding	No final merits ruling appears in the uploaded public court-source file set. The June 2025 record denied preliminary injunctive relief, treated Marx’s association claims as member-right claims rather than derivative claims for that motion, and the July 2025 record dismissed individual board members. Tara’s May 27, 2026 motion for judgment on the pleadings was pending in the uploaded public court-source packet.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package	164 PDFs, 1 supporting source/review file
Step-by-step docket roadmap	No separate litigation roadmap table on this page
Video overview	No video embed currently configured
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	5 questions
Curated download aliases	12 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Lisa Marx filed Maricopa County Superior Court case CV2025-012980 against Tara Condominiums Association after disputes over board votes, open meetings, records inspection, landscaping/common-element decisions, insurance changes, amendments, expenditures, and alleged governance defects. The uploaded record shows a mixed pending posture: the court denied a preliminary injunction in June 2025, denied Tara’s first partial derivative-claims dismissal motion as to the association, dismissed individual board members Mark Gottmann and Dennis Anderson, and Tara’s May 2026 motion for judgment on the pleadings renewed the direct-versus-derivative issue after newer Arizona appellate authority.

Key Issues & Findings

The June 2025 preliminary-injunction ruling found that some alleged board-action defects could be addressed through later ratification or records handling and did not show irreparable harm warranting immediate injunctive relief. The June 26, 2025 derivative-claims ruling treated claims against the association as attempts to enforce Marx’s own membership rights under the declaration, bylaws, and statutes, with damages limited to her own proven harm. The July 31, 2025 dismissal ruling distinguished claims against the association from personal liability claims against individual directors.

Why It Matters

This pending condo case is useful because it places Arizona Condominium Act open-meeting, records, insurance, common-element, amendment, and direct-versus-derivative arguments in one source packet. It is especially relevant after Iqtunheimr and the Sunland Springs appellate decision because Tara’s May 2026 motion asks how those authorities apply when a homeowner frames governance defects as direct statutory and contractual injuries.

What the record shows

The Second Amended Complaint frames the case as breach of contract, Arizona Condominium Act, corporate-records, and declaratory-judgment claims against Tara Condominiums Association. Marx alleges that board actions were taken without proper notice, agenda, discussion, vote, or approval and that she was denied statutory inspection rights.

The early motion practice produced several important but limited rulings. The court denied preliminary injunctive relief in June 2025 because the record did not show irreparable harm requiring immediate intervention, even while noting that some board actions allegedly should have been voted on in an open meeting.

The court then denied Tara’s first partial motion to dismiss claims as derivative, treating the claims against the association as attempts to enforce Marx’s own membership rights under the declaration, bylaws, and law. A later ruling dismissed individual board members Mark Gottmann and Dennis Anderson from the case.

What the court has already done

Preliminary injunction denied

The June 2025 preliminary-injunction ruling did not give emergency relief on insurance, meeting, or records issues because the court did not find irreparable harm on that record.

Association derivative motion denied

The June 26, 2025 minute entry denied Tara’s first partial motion to dismiss, explaining that member-right claims against the association were not derivative as framed.

Individual directors dismissed

The July 31, 2025 ruling dismissed Mark Gottmann and Dennis Anderson, distinguishing association obligations from personal liability claims against board members.

Later derivative fight remains pending

Tara’s May 2026 Rule 12(c) motion asks the court to revisit parts of the direct-versus-derivative dispute after Iqtunheimr; Marx’s June 2026 opposition asks the court to deny the motion or narrow relief rather than dismiss claims with prejudice.

The May 2026 direct-versus-derivative motion

Tara’s May 27, 2026 motion for judgment on the pleadings argues that community-wide claims over common property, association funds, insurance, and governance belong to the association and must satisfy derivative-action requirements.

Marx’s June 2, 2026 opposition accepts that Iqtunheimr is published Arizona authority, but argues it decided only a common-area maintenance derivative claim and does not convert open-meeting, notice, voting, records, insurance-accounting, or declaration-amendment claims into derivative claims.

The same June 2 packet also opposes Tara’s request to stay the pending Colby Management discovery dispute. Marx argues the subpoenaed Colby materials go to direct claims already recognized by the June 26, 2025 ruling and that the motion to compel should be decided before discovery deadlines and trial preparation overtake the issue.

The uploaded packet includes two proposed orders. Those proposed forms are not court rulings; they show the relief Marx asked the court to enter.

What the June 2026 response packet adds

Rule 12(c) opposition

Marx argues her claims seek direct relief for her own Condominium Act, declaration, voting, inspection, and fair-administration rights, not recovery of association funds or generalized damages for all units.

Colby discovery stay opposition

Marx argues the court should not pause her motion to compel Colby Management records about the February 2024 insurance claim, board directives, communications, checks, and accounting treatment.

Claim organization exhibit

Exhibit D is Marx’s organizational aid. It asserts that 89 of 103 listed claim paragraphs are open-meeting violations and that Tara’s motion targets 60 open-meeting items.

Proposed orders

The proposed orders ask the court to deny the Rule 12(c) motion and deny the discovery stay. They should be read as requested relief, not as decisions entered by the judge.

June 2026 filings added to the record guide

Date	Document	What it adds	Download
June 2, 2026	Plaintiff’s response opposing stay of Colby Management production	Argues the Colby subpoena remains relevant to direct claims and should not be paused while Tara’s Rule 12(c) motion is pending.	Response opposing Colby stay
June 2, 2026	Plaintiff’s opposition to Tara’s Rule 12(c) motion	Argues Iqtunheimr does not eliminate direct member-right claims over open meetings, voting, records, insurance accounting, declaration amendments, or individualized statutory relief.	Rule 12(c) opposition
June 2, 2026	Exhibit D – Organization of Claims for Presentation	Organizes 103 claim paragraphs for presentation. Treat this as plaintiff’s categorization aid, not an independent court finding.	Claim organization exhibit
June 2, 2026	Proposed order denying Tara’s Rule 12(c) motion	Proposed form of relief that would deny judgment on the pleadings or, alternatively, narrow relief/allow amendment rather than dismiss with prejudice.	Proposed Rule 12(c) order
June 2, 2026	Proposed order denying Tara’s motion to stay Colby discovery ruling	Proposed form of relief that would deny the stay and leave the pending Colby motion to compel for ordinary-course decision.	Proposed Colby stay order

Timeline highlights

Date	Event	Why it matters
April 2025	Original complaint packet begins the CV2025-012980 record.	The initial claims focused heavily on open meetings, board authority, records, committee action, and association governance.
June 23, 2025	The court held an evidentiary hearing on preliminary injunctive relief.	The hearing created the record for the June 2025 emergency-relief ruling.
June 25, 2025	The court denied the motion for preliminary injunction.	The ruling matters because it separates alleged procedural defects from the emergency showing needed for immediate injunctive relief.
June 26, 2025	The court denied Tara’s partial motion to dismiss association claims as derivative.	This is the key early ruling treating the claims against the association as member-right claims rather than derivative claims, at least for that motion.
July 31, 2025	The court dismissed Mark Gottmann and Dennis Anderson.	The ruling draws a line between claims against the association and personal liability theories against individual directors.
October 2025	The record includes emergency TRO filings over master insurance, amendments, and owner insurance obligations.	The case expanded from meeting and records issues into insurance/amendment governance disputes.
March 2026	The uploaded record indicates related insurance/amendment litigation was treated as a supplemental pleading in this case.	That procedural move matters because later Rule 12(c) briefing addresses both the original and supplemental dispute.
May 27, 2026	Tara filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.	The motion asks the court to treat many community-wide claims as derivative after newer Arizona appellate authority.
June 2, 2026	Marx filed opposition papers and proposed orders addressing the Rule 12(c) motion and the Colby discovery stay.	This moves the live briefing posture from Tara’s motion alone to a disputed pending motion, with Marx asking the court to preserve direct claims or narrow relief rather than dismiss.

Curated document roadmap

After comparing the page against the AI-agent CSV, the missing piece was not the raw source coverage; it was a document-by-document narrative roadmap. The generated source index below already lists the public files, but the table here preserves the CSV’s chronology, document type, and stated case relevance so readers can understand how each filed or public-source item fits into the dispute.

This roadmap intentionally excludes unfiled draft materials that have not been confirmed as part of the court record.

The source-reference numbers in the final column are the CSV’s own reference numbers. They are not separate legal findings by this site, and the underlying PDFs remain the controlling source record.

Document roadmap from uploaded AI CSV

Date	Document	Type	How it fits the case	CSV refs
February 19, 1970	Declaration of Restrictions, Establishment of Board of Management and Lien Rights	CC&Rs	Foundational governing document defining common elements, board authority, maintenance, lien, and insurance duties. Marx uses it as the contract source for alleged breaches involving board authority, maintenance, and building-structure insurance.	1-7
March 29, 2022	CC&R Amendment Update from the Arizona Supreme Court – CHDB Law	Article / news	Kalway-related legal analysis used by Marx to argue that the 2025 insurance amendments were not reasonable or foreseeable enough to bind owners.	8
July 31, 2023	Homeowner Tara COA July 2023 Financials	Financial statement	Historical association financial record used as a comparison point for later disputed budget, insurance, and expense decisions.	7
January 11, 2024	Organizational Meeting Minutes	Meeting minutes	Board organizational minutes. Marx cites them to show board-position decisions, knowledge of meeting requirements, and alleged inaccuracies about leadership and procedure.	9, 10
January 20, 2024	January 20, 2024 Board Meeting Minutes	Meeting minutes	Documents committee-volunteer discussion and the Landscaping Committee, which Marx later uses to challenge the committee’s dissolution and her removal.	7, 9
January 30, 2024	Trench on Newcastle done by Mark and Dennis	Evidence / report	Maintenance-work documentation used to support claims that individual board members acted unilaterally or performed unauthorized maintenance work.	7
February 1, 2024	Email removing Lisa from committees and dissolving them	Email	Evidence that Marx was removed from the Landscaping Committee and committees were dissolved, supporting alleged open-meeting violations and selective targeting.	7, 10
February 5, 2024	Email announcing new board member	Email	Announcement of a new board member without a recorded open board vote, supporting the A.R.S. § 33-1248 board-action theory.	7, 11
February 5, 2024	Gmail – Claim Message from USAA – 13601 N Newcastle Drive	Email	Insurance-claim correspondence used to support allegations about improper insurance handling and board-member maintenance involvement.	7
February 17, 2024	February 17, 2024 Board Meeting Minutes	Meeting minutes	Minutes reflecting discussion and speaking limits. Marx alleges those rules were used selectively and that board-membership status was misdocumented.	7, 9
March 16, 2024	March 16, 2024 Board Meeting Minutes	Meeting minutes	Minutes referencing a workers-comp policy and Bermuda-grass plan, cited as examples of alleged unilateral chair action without open meeting votes.	7, 9
March 17, 2024	Spring newsletter 3-17-24	Newsletter	Association communication to residents, used as evidence of public board statements and owner-facing messaging.	7
May 27, 2024	Dennis working on the shutters	Evidence / report	Documentation of Dennis Anderson performing maintenance work, supporting allegations that board members acted outside authorized roles.	7
June 15, 2024	June 15, 2024 Tara Board Meeting Minutes	Meeting minutes	Procedural record of board actions during summer 2024.	7
July 2, 2024	DAnderson 07 02 24 Expense Voucher	Expense voucher	Financial record used to test whether board-member reimbursement and expenditures were properly authorized.	7
July 16, 2024	07 16 24 Letter to Lisa Marx re Petition Response	Letter	Association correspondence to Marx about a petition, part of the pre-litigation governance-dispute history.	7
July 23, 2024	American Family Master Insurance Policy Invoice Voucher 2024 2025	Financial document	Shows prior master-insurance cost and coverage before the disputed 2025 insurance amendments and policy changes.	7
July 27, 2024	July 27 2024 Tara Board Meeting Minutes	Meeting minutes	Procedural record of board actions and decisions.	7
July 31, 2024	Travis Law Firm July Inv Voucher	Invoice voucher	Legal-fee invoice used to support claims about association legal spending and approval procedure.	7
August 29, 2024	Travis Law Firm August 2024 Invoice Voucher	Invoice voucher	Additional legal-fee record used in the unauthorized-expenditure and approval-procedure theory.	7
November 1, 2024	2025 Tara Condominiums Budget Letter	Budget letter	Board letter recommending a $50 assessment increase due to insurance, sewer, and legal-fee increases; part of the financial buildup to the insurance dispute.	12
November 3, 2024	Issues regarding the 2025 Budget Vote	Email	Marx email arguing that the budget-vote process violated statute, used to show an earlier voting-procedure objection.	13
April 11, 2025	Civil Complaint for Breach of Contract	Complaint	Original filing against the association and individual board members, opening the litigation and asserting governance and CC&R breach theories.	14-16
April 14, 2025	Minute Entry Denying TRO	Court order	Early ruling denying temporary restraining relief because emergency TRO requirements were not met.	17
April 16, 2025	Amended Emergency Orders: TRO and Temporary Injunctive Relief	Motion for injunctive relief	Request to preserve declaration and insurance status quo while the case proceeded.	18, 19
May 28, 2025	Association’s Partial Motion to Dismiss	Motion	Association argued many claims were derivative and Marx lacked individual standing to pursue community-wide harms.	20
June 4, 2025	Responsive Memorandum to Association’s Partial Motion to Dismiss	Responsive memorandum	Marx opposed dismissal by arguing the claims asserted direct individual harms and member-right violations.	14-16
June 6, 2025	Reply to Response to Request for TRO and Injunctive Relief	Reply memorandum	Reply supporting emergency relief and addressing alleged service-delay and response-timing issues.	18
June 26, 2025	Minute Entry – Claim not Derivative	Court order	Key early ruling treating Marx’s claims against the association as direct member-right claims rather than derivative claims for that motion.	21, 22
July 15, 2025	Motion to Dismiss Defendants Mark Gottmann and Dennis Anderson	Motion	Individual board members sought dismissal based on director protections and lack of personal liability.	23
July 20, 2025	Response Memorandum to Motion to Dismiss Individual Defendants	Responsive memorandum	Marx opposed dismissal by arguing Gottmann and Anderson acted in bad faith and outside their authority.	14, 24, 25
July 25, 2025	Minute entry order to file amended complaint	Court order	Order requiring a more definite statement, leading to amended pleadings.	26
July 31, 2025	Ruling dismissing Mark and Dennis	Court order	Dismissed individual defendants, creating a major procedural setback for the personal-liability claims.	27, 28
August 6, 2025	Travis Law Firm Budget Letter / Proposing Amendments	Budget letter / letter	Counsel letter explaining proposed amendments to shift insurance responsibilities to owners, initiating the core insurance-amendment dispute.	4-6, 29-31
August 10, 2025	Motion for Partial Reconsideration of July 31, 2025 Ruling	Motion	Marx sought reconsideration of the dismissal of the individual board members.	32
August 11, 2025	Exhibit N Cert of Ins for 25 26	Certificate of liability insurance	Insurance certificate showing property coverage effective August 1, 2025 to August 1, 2026, used to contrast later claimed coverage changes.	6, 33
August 12, 2025	Order Denying Motion for reconsideration	Court order	Maintained dismissal of Gottmann and Anderson.	34
August 15, 2025	First Amended Complaint (FAC)	Amended complaint	Updated pleading reasserting claims and refining the legal counts against the association and directors.	2, 14
September 6, 2025	Plaintiff’s Initial Rule 26.1 Disclosure Statement	Discovery disclosure	Mandatory disclosure identifying factual bases, witnesses, and evidence Marx expected to use.	35, 36
September 11, 2025	Stipulation for Extension of Time	Legal stipulation	Agreement extending Marx’s deadline to respond to fee applications; later relevant to arguments about premature fee rulings.	28, 37
September 15, 2025	Order Denying Motion to Strike Reply	Court order	Denied Marx’s request to strike Tara’s reply regarding the amended complaint.	38
September 15, 2025	Second Amended Complaint (SAC)	Amended complaint	Operative complaint against the association after dismissal of the individual defendants.	28, 39-41
September 15, 2025	Order on Stipulation to Extend Time	Court order	Granted an extension to respond to attorney-fee requests.	42
September 20, 2025	Minutes for a Board Meeting of the Tara Condominiums Association	Meeting minutes	Board minutes covering approval of the plan to present CC&R amendments for owner vote.	43
September 22, 2025	Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint	Motion	Marx sought to reinstate direct claims against individual board members and add alleged post-filing violations.	14, 44, 45
September 24, 2025	Urgent Concerns on Proposed CC&R Amendments	Email / letter	Marx letter to owners identifying claimed risks of the proposed amendments, including costs, title, loan, and insurance issues.	4, 46
September 25, 2025	Meeting needs to be called to turn in ballots	Email	Marx demanded an open meeting for the amendment vote, preserving her objection to the voting process.	6, 47
September 27, 2025	Proposed Insurance amendments (Board/Owner Emails)	Email	Correspondence framing the association’s justification for the insurance shift and Marx’s objections under statutory and declaration duties.	5, 6, 30, 48
September 30, 2025	Minute Entry Denying Motion to Vacate	Court order	Denied Marx’s request to vacate a fee-related order before the fee award was entered.	49
October 1, 2025	Order Granting Application for Attorney’s Fees	Court order	Awarded individual defendants $5,957.70 in fees after dismissal; Marx contends the award was premature.	28, 49, 50
October 5, 2025	Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction	Motion	Attempt to block implementation of proposed amendments based on alleged statutory and declaration violations.	6, 51
October 9, 2025	Motion for Expedited Hearing	Motion	Request for a hearing within five days before the amendment-vote deadline.	31, 52, 53
October 14, 2025	Scheduling Order	Court order	Set discovery tiers, litigation deadlines, and a September 14, 2026 trial date.	54
October 15, 2025	Action by Written Consent	Voting form	Owner written-consent form used for three proposed declaration amendments.	55
October 17, 2025	Amendment to Declaration of Restrictions	Recorded amendment	Recorded amendment No. 2025-0605584 shifting insurance responsibility to owners; Marx challenges its validity.	31, 56, 57
October 18, 2025	Results of Tara CC&R amendment vote	Email	Announcement that amendments passed and owners had to obtain insurance by November 15, 2025.	58, 59
October 22, 2025	Stipulation to Continue Case Deadlines	Legal stipulation	Joint extension of deadlines due to Marx’s medical hospitalization.	60
October 26, 2025	Meeting to view ballots (Transcript)	Transcript	Transcript in which Gottmann allegedly refused to show owner signatures or vote choices, supporting A.R.S. § 33-1258 inspection-right claims.	61, 62
October 29, 2025	Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order	Motion	Emergency request to stop cancellation of master insurance and implementation of recorded amendments.	31, 63
October 30, 2025	2025 Budget	Financial document	Association budget showing a $50 assessment increase for insurance premiums, part of the financial basis for the amendment dispute.	64
October 30, 2025	Order Granting Leave to File Reply Out of Time	Court order	Procedural relief allowing Marx to file a late reply related to the third amended complaint.	65
November 6, 2025	Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Set Evidentiary Hearing	Motion	Request for an evidentiary hearing on the voting process and alleged harm from insurance lapse.	66, 67
November 10, 2025	Reminder to obtain homeowner insurance	Email	Board email setting a December 1, 2025 proof-of-structural-insurance deadline.	68
November 12, 2025	Notice of Appeal	Legal notice	Notice concerning dismissal of individual defendants and cost/fee issues.	69, 70
November 13, 2025	Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant’s Consolidated Response	Motion / reply	Reply supporting preliminary-injunction relief based on claimed individualized harm and flawed amendment process.	71
November 17, 2025	Minute Entry (Dismissing TAC and Injunction)	Court order	Denied leave to file the Third Amended Complaint and denied injunction relief, prompting later judge-change efforts.	70, 72
November 21, 2025	Official Ballot 2026 Budget Ratification	Ballot	Budget ballot showing a proposed $15 assessment decrease after removing association insurance duties.	73, 74
November 21, 2025	Civil Complaint for Declaratory Judgment	Complaint	New action CV2025-062973 challenging the October 2025 amendments and potential master-policy cancellation.	75
November 23, 2025	Motion for Change of Judge for Cause	Motion	Marx sought to remove Judge Warner, leading to reassignment to Judge Adele Ponce.	72, 76
November 24, 2025	Request for Answers to Interrogatories	Discovery request	Interrogatories targeting board decisions and maintenance work to develop the ultra vires theory.	11
November 25, 2025	Case Reassignment / First Amended Civil Complaint	Court order / complaint	Case reassignment to Judge Ponce and amended pleading in the second insurance-shift action.	70, 75, 77-79
December 1, 2025	Motion for Reconsideration of Nov 17 Minute Entry	Motion	Marx asked Judge Ponce to reconsider denial of the third amended complaint and injunction relief.	70, 80
December 3, 2025	Minute Entry Case Consolidation	Court order	Consolidated CV2025-062973 with CV2025-012980, folding the insurance-amendment dispute into the main litigation path.	81
December 3, 2025	Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Consolidation	Motion	Marx opposed consolidation, arguing the actions involved distinct facts and emergency concerns.	82
December 4, 2025	Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification and Expedited Hearing	Motion	Challenge to characterization of the complaint and request for expedited hearing on insurance risk.	75
December 5, 2025	Joint Notice of Outstanding Motions and Hearings	Legal notice	Catalog of pending matters for Judge Ponce after reassignment.	70
January 4, 2026	Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss	Response memorandum	Opposition to dismissal of the second action, arguing insurance termination was a new occurrence requiring separate attention.	19
January 20, 2026	Certificate of Liability Insurance (Master Policy 2025-2026)	Insurance certificate	Certificate showing liability and D&O coverage but no building property insurance, used as key evidence that buildings became uninsured.	83, 84
January 20, 2026	Notice of Intent to Serve Amended Subpoena	Discovery notice	Notice for records subpoena to Colby Management, part of the discovery fight over association records.	85
January 30, 2026	Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Reconsideration	Legal memorandum	Filing using the January 20 insurance certificate as new evidence of claimed statutory insurance violations.	83
February 26, 2026	Notice of Withdrawal of Motion to Compel	Legal notice	Procedural withdrawal of a discovery motion.	86
March 16, 2026	Minute Entry (Oral Argument and Rule 15d conversion)	Court order	Converted the second lawsuit into a Rule 15(d) supplemental-pleading path in the main case.	41, 87
May 27, 2026	Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings	Motion	Tara’s attempt to dismiss asserted community-wide claims as derivative after newer appellate authority.	88
June 2, 2026	Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Motion to Stay Colby Management Discovery	Response memorandum	Marx opposes Tara’s request to stay a ruling on the Colby Management subpoena dispute, arguing the requested insurance-claim accounting, communications, checks, and board-directive materials remain relevant to direct claims and that discovery deadlines were approaching.	166
June 2, 2026	Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings	Response memorandum	Marx argues Iqtunheimr does not convert her open-meeting, notice, voting, records, insurance-accounting, amendment-validity, and individualized statutory-right claims into derivative claims, and asks the court to deny dismissal or narrow relief/allow amendment.	167
June 2, 2026	Exhibit D – Organization of Claims for Presentation	Exhibit / organizational aid	Marx’s exhibit groups 103 claim paragraphs for presentation, including her assertion that 89 are open-meeting violations and that Tara’s motion targets 60 open-meeting items.	168
June 2, 2026	Proposed Order Denying Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings	Proposed order	Proposed form of order submitted by Marx. It is not a ruling unless and until the court signs or enters an order.	169
June 2, 2026	Proposed Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Stay Ruling on Colby Production	Proposed order	Proposed form of order submitted by Marx to deny Tara’s requested stay of the Colby discovery ruling. It is not a court ruling.	170
Not dated in CSV	Plaintiff’s First Requests for Production of Documents	Discovery request	Formal request for insurance, financial, and related records, aimed at evidence about the 2024 insurance claim and policy-rate increases.	90
September 10, 2020	Marx Warranty Deed	Deed	Warranty deed conveying Unit 5 to Lisa Marx, establishing her standing as unit owner and association member.	2, 91, 92

How to read this case without overclaiming it

Treat interim rulings as interim rulings. The June and July 2025 orders are important, but they do not equal a final merits judgment on every later claim.
Separate association claims from individual-director claims. The uploaded record shows the court was willing to let some claims proceed against the association while dismissing individual board members.
Track the exact injury theory. The direct-versus-derivative question turns on whether the claim seeks to remedy a member’s individual statutory/contractual injury or a generalized association injury.
Do not skip the procedural posture. Preliminary injunction, motion to dismiss, judgment on the pleadings, and final judgment apply different standards.
Use the source index. The upload is large. The normalized roadmap and complete source-document index are the safest way to follow the record in order.

Practical lessons for condo disputes

For owners

Tie each claim to the specific statute, declaration section, bylaw, vote, notice, record request, or personal harm.
Preserve agendas, minutes, emails, insurance notices, amendment materials, ballots, and records-request correspondence.
Do not assume that proving a board process defect automatically proves irreparable harm.
Keep direct personal injury theories separate from generalized association harm.

For boards and counsel

Document board authorization, open-meeting votes, executive-session limits, and ratification steps.
Handle records requests with clear statutory deadlines, production logs, and written explanations.
Treat insurance and amendment changes as high-risk governance events requiring clean notices, votes, and member communications.
Do not rely on derivative-action arguments without addressing member-right statutes and declaration enforcement language.

Complete source set

Download the filing roadmap

The source files were normalized into the standard court-case download layout. Use the roadmap CSV to cross-check original filenames against public filenames, then use the generated source-document index below for direct downloads.

Download roadmap CSV

FAQ

Is this case finally decided?

No. The uploaded packet includes important interim rulings and May/June 2026 briefing, but it does not include a final judgment resolving the full case.

Did the court say all of Marx’s claims are direct claims?

No. The June 26, 2025 minute entry denied Tara’s first partial derivative-claims motion as to the association and described the claims as member-right claims as framed. Tara’s May 2026 Rule 12(c) motion asks the court to revisit direct-versus-derivative treatment for asserted community-wide claims, and Marx’s June 2026 opposition disputes that characterization.

Were the individual board members kept in the case?

No. The uploaded July 31, 2025 ruling dismissed Mark Gottmann and Dennis Anderson, while distinguishing those personal-liability theories from claims against the association.

Why does insurance appear in an open-meeting case?

The record expanded beyond early open-meeting and records allegations. Later filings challenged master-insurance changes, declaration amendments, owner insurance obligations, and related voting/notice procedures.

Type: Court order/minute entry

Starts or reframes the case and identifies the claims or relief requested.

Download source file

2025-09-15_015_10-order-9-15-25-denying-motion-to-strike-reply-in-support-of-motion-to-strike-portions-of-amended-complaint.pdf

Source 165 No docket date in filename

Source File Roadmap 2026 05 31

Type: Source roadmap CSV

Upload/source spreadsheet that helps cross-check filing order, source names, or AI review notes.

Download source file

source-file-roadmap-2026-05-31.csv

Primary sources

Reviewed against the uploaded Superior Court filings through June 2, 2026 and the normalized source-file roadmap. Proposed orders are identified as proposed forms of relief, not signed court rulings. Unfiled draft materials are not treated as court sources. This page is educational information for Arizona HOA and condominium governance research. It is not legal advice for any specific dispute.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Gusich v. Sun City Grand: Arizona HOA Board Removal, Title 10, and Fee Exposure

Posted on May 25, 2026 by

Arizona HOA Board Removal | Superior Court CV2025-002634 | Court of Appeals 1 CA-CV 25-0929

Gusich is a useful Arizona HOA governance case because it separates several issues that often get blended together: recall petitions under A.R.S. § 33-1813, nonprofit-corporation removal authority under Title 10, standing after a director has been removed, director indemnification, and how a court can slash an oversized fee request even after the HOA wins.

Last updated May 25, 2026. Case: Thomas J. Gusich v. Sun City Grand Community Association, Inc., Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2025-002634; Court of Appeals No. 1 CA-CV 25-0929; Hon. Jennifer Ryan-Touhill.

Download dismissal ruling Download fee judgment Appeal docket Homeowner guide Board guide Filing roadmap FAQ Primary sources

Scope note: This page covers Superior Court rulings in CV2025-002634 and the pending Court of Appeals docket 1 CA-CV 25-0929. The Superior Court rulings are trial-court decisions and the appeal remains pending in the uploaded docket. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The rule in one sentence

An Arizona planned-community board-removal dispute may involve both Title 33 recall procedure and Title 10 nonprofit-corporation authority, but a removed director still must show a live justiciable controversy, and even a winning HOA must prove that requested attorney fees are reasonable and tied to the litigation.

Case snapshot

Case name

Thomas J. Gusich v. Sun City Grand Community Association, Inc.

Superior Court docket

Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2025-002634.

Trial-court result

Motion to dismiss granted; final judgment entered for the association with reduced fees and taxable costs.

Appeal status

Court of Appeals No. 1 CA-CV 25-0929 was pending in the uploaded May 22, 2026 docket, with reply/cross-answer briefing due June 30, 2026.

Case Dossier

Case Summary

Case ID / citation	CV2025-002634 / 1 CA-CV 25-0929
Court / tribunal	Superior Court
Decision / key date	September 23, 2025
Judge / panel	Hon. Jennifer Ryan-Touhill
Parties	A former Sun City Grand board member challenged his removal, the association’s board conduct standards, meeting exclusions, indemnification position, and later fee request.
Governing law	A.R.S. § 33-1813 A.R.S. § 10-3808 A.R.S. § 10-3810 A.R.S. § 12-1831 A.R.S. § 10-3851 A.R.S. § 10-3852 A.R.S. § 12-341.01 A.R.S. § 33-1805
Topics	board-governanceprocedureattorneys-feesrecords-requests
Outcome / holding	The Superior Court dismissed the claims, entered final judgment for Sun City Grand, awarded reduced attorney fees and costs, and the matter was pending on appeal in 1 CA-CV 25-0929 in the uploaded docket.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package	50 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	3 roadmap entries
Video overview	Gusich v. Sun City Grand: Arizona HOA Board Removal, Title 10, and Fee Exposure
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	4 questions
Curated download aliases	3 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

CURRENT STATUS (June 2026): NOT FINAL — this trial-court matter is on appeal (1 CA-CV 25-0929); both sides appealed and briefing is ongoing. Thomas J. Gusich sued Sun City Grand Community Association after a board-removal dispute involving conduct standards, a special membership meeting, recall/petition procedure, executive-session exclusion allegations, and indemnification. The Superior Court granted the association’s motion to dismiss, reasoning that A.R.S. § 33-1813 did not eliminate Title 10 and bylaw-based director-removal paths, that claims about board-only conduct standards lacked a live controversy after removal, and that indemnification did not require the HOA to fund a former director’s affirmative lawsuit against the association. The court later awarded fees and costs to the association but reduced a $353,388 fee request to $44,619 plus $355.85 in taxable costs. The uploaded Court of Appeals docket showed the appeal and cross-appeal pending as of May 22, 2026.

Key Issues & Findings

The court distinguished petition-based removal procedure under A.R.S. § 33-1813 from other removal mechanisms under Title 10 and the association’s bylaws. Because the bylaws allowed a special membership meeting and member vote after notice, the court did not need to issue advisory rulings on disputed petition format or electronic-signature questions. The court also held that Gusich lacked standing to challenge board-only standards after he was no longer a director, and that indemnification language protects directors against liability to others rather than funding a director’s own lawsuit against the association. On fees, the court found entitlement but reduced rates, duplicative work, pre-suit work, and work tied to statutory records issues.

Why It Matters

Gusich is a practical roadmap for Arizona HOA board-removal litigation. It warns homeowners and boards not to assume Title 33 is the only authority source, shows why declaratory claims need a live controversy, limits director-indemnification theories when a director sues the HOA, and demonstrates that even a prevailing HOA’s fee request can be aggressively reduced when the bills are not reasonable or properly tied to the litigation.

Why this case matters

The dispute started after Thomas Gusich, an elected Sun City Grand board member, challenged the association’s board conduct standards, recall/removal process, meeting exclusions, and indemnification position. The Superior Court treated the case as a pleading-stage question: assuming the alleged facts, did the amended complaint state claims the court could decide?

The July 2025 ruling is important because it rejected a narrow reading of A.R.S. § 33-1813. The court reasoned that Title 33 recall-petition procedure did not eliminate other removal paths available under the association’s bylaws and Title 10 nonprofit-corporation statutes.

The September 2025 fee ruling is just as useful. The association won dismissal and was entitled to fees, but the court reduced a $353,388 request to $44,619 plus $355.85 in taxable costs after finding rates, duplicated work, pre-suit work, and record-request-related work were not fully shiftable.

Video overview: HOA board recall, Title 10, and fee exposure

Watch this overview of Gusich v. Sun City Grand Community Association, a dispute over a board member’s recall, the validity of electronically signed recall petitions, and whether a director can challenge the association’s ‘Grand Standards’ code of conduct.

What Judge Ryan-Touhill decided

1. A.R.S. § 33-1813 did not displace Title 10

The court held that the HOA-removal statute governs petition-based removal procedure but does not eliminate other director-removal mechanisms available under Title 10 and the association bylaws.

2. The removal vote survived the motion to dismiss challenge

Because the bylaws allowed a special membership meeting and a member vote after notice, the court did not need to decide whether the disputed petition format or electronic signatures satisfied A.R.S. § 33-1813.

3. The Grand Standards claim lacked a live controversy

Once Gusich was no longer on the board, the court found he was not subject to the board-only conduct standards and therefore lacked standing for declaratory relief about those standards.

4. Indemnification did not fund a director’s lawsuit against the HOA

The court read the indemnification language as protection against liability to others, not as a promise that the association would finance a former director’s affirmative lawsuit against the association.

5. The HOA was entitled to fees

The court found fee entitlement under the governing documents, A.R.S. § 33-1813(A)(4)(f), and A.R.S. § 12-341.01, then moved to reasonableness.

6. The fee award was heavily reduced

The court reduced requested fees from $353,388 to $44,619, plus $355.85 in taxable costs, after reviewing rates, duplication, pre-suit work, record-request issues, and excessive staffing.

For homeowners and board members

If you are challenging a board removal, separate the removal mechanism from the political facts. This ruling turned on the governing documents and statutes, not on whether the recall campaign was wise, fair, or popular.

Do not assume A.R.S. § 33-1813 is the only removal statute in play. If the association is a nonprofit corporation, Title 10 and the bylaws may matter. A strong filing should explain why the specific statutory path used is exclusive, conflicting, or unavailable.

If you seek declaratory relief, preserve a live controversy. A claim about board-only conduct rules can become moot if you are no longer a director and cannot show a present legal effect.

Fee exposure is real, but this record also shows that a court may scrutinize HOA defense bills. The court declined to shift fees for statutory records issues, duplicative work, excessive rates, and work not clearly tied to the litigation.

For HOA boards and managers

This case supports a practical compliance point: before removing a director, identify every authority source being used. That means the declaration, bylaws, Title 10 nonprofit-corporation statutes, and A.R.S. § 33-1813 when removal by petition is involved.

Document notice, quorum, eligible voters, and the vote result. The court emphasized that the membership received notice and voted at a special meeting.

Do not assume every dollar of defense spend will be shifted to the opposing member. If the HOA hires multiple firms or high-rate counsel, a later fee application still has to show reasonable rates and reasonable work tied to recoverable claims.

Keep statutory records requests separate from litigation strategy. The fee ruling expressly noted that the court would not order the homeowner to pay fees related to records to which he was statutorily entitled.

Suggested workflow for similar disputes

Map the authority source. Identify whether the challenged action was taken under the bylaws, Title 10, A.R.S. § 33-1813, or a combination.
Preserve the meeting record. Keep the petition or request, notices, agenda, quorum proof, voting materials, minutes, and result certification together.
Define the live controversy. For declaratory relief, state exactly what current legal relationship the court needs to resolve.
Separate records rights from recall politics. A homeowner may have statutory records rights even when other claims fail.
Audit fee requests line by line. Compare rates, staffing, pre-suit work, duplicative work, and work tied to non-shiftable issues.

A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.

Download source file

undated_050_motion.pdf

Current posture

Superior Court

Dismissed in the association’s favor with final judgment entered September 26, 2025.

Court of Appeals

Appeal and cross-appeal pending as 1 CA-CV 25-0929 in the uploaded May 22, 2026 docket.

Next listed date

Reply/cross-answer brief due June 30, 2026, according to the uploaded docket snapshot.

FAQ

Is this a published appellate precedent?

No. The uploaded merits and fee rulings are Superior Court rulings. The Court of Appeals case was pending in the uploaded docket, so the final appellate result may change the practical significance.

Did the court decide that every electronic recall signature is valid?

No. The court said it did not need to decide the disputed petition-signature issue because the membership-removal path under the bylaws and Title 10 was enough for the motion-to-dismiss ruling.

Does this mean an HOA can recover all fees whenever it beats a board-removal lawsuit?

No. The court found fee entitlement, but then reduced the requested fees sharply after reviewing reasonableness, duplication, hourly rates, and work not properly shifted to the homeowner.

Why does indemnification matter here?

Gusich argued the bylaws required the association to fund or reimburse his own lawsuit. The court rejected that theory, reading indemnification as protection against liability to others, not affirmative financing for a director’s suit against the HOA.

Primary sources

← Back to Superior Court cases

R. L. Whitmer v. Hilton Casitas CV2021-050888: Statutory HOA Claims and Fee Awards

Posted on May 15, 2026 by

Arizona Condominium Act • Budget/Audit Claims • Attorney Fees

CV2021-050888 shows how a statutory HOA enforcement case can be dismissed on the merits while still producing an important fee issue: the Court of Appeals vacated fee awards because the claims did not arise out of contract.

Last updated May 16, 2026. Case: R. L. Whitmer v. Hilton Casitas Homeowners Association, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2021-050888; Arizona Court of Appeals No. 1 CA-CV 22-0202.

Download appellate memorandum decision Download dismissal order Download 2021 judgment Case family map Filing roadmap + 82 PDFs Primary sources Homeowner guide Association guide FAQ

Scope note: This page covers a Superior Court case and a nonprecedential Court of Appeals memorandum decision. The memorandum decision is not published precedent under Arizona Rule of the Supreme Court 111(c), but it explains the fee ruling in this case record. AI-generated briefing/audio files in the upload were reviewed only as orientation and are not treated as source authority on this page.

The rule in one sentence

A statutory HOA enforcement suit is not automatically an action arising out of contract for A.R.S. § 12-341.01 fee purposes merely because the association is governed by recorded condominium documents.

Case snapshot

Case name

R. L. Whitmer v. Hilton Casitas Homeowners Association.

Court and dockets

Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2021-050888; Arizona Court of Appeals No. 1 CA-CV 22-0202.

Superior Court result

The complaint was dismissed with prejudice and the trial court awarded fees and costs to the association.

Appeal result

The Court of Appeals vacated the attorney-fee awards, holding the lawsuit did not arise out of contract under A.R.S. § 12-341.01.

Case Dossier

Case Summary

Case ID / citation	CV2021-050888 / 1 CA-CV 22-0202
Court / tribunal	Superior Court
Decision / key date	January 19, 2023
Judge / panel	Hon. Sara J. Agne, Judge Michael J. Brown, Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins, Judge James B. Morse Jr.
Parties	A condominium owner brought statutory budget, assessment, audit, and administrative-order enforcement claims against Hilton Casitas; the Superior Court dismissed the claims and the Court of Appeals later vacated contract-based fee awards.
Governing law	A.R.S. § 33-1243 A.R.S. § 33-1255 A.R.S. § 12-341.01
Topics	procedureattorneys-feesboard-governance
Outcome / holding	The Superior Court dismissed the statutory enforcement claims, but the Court of Appeals vacated the contract-based attorney-fee awards because the case did not arise out of contract under A.R.S. § 12-341.01.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package	65 PDFs, 2 other source files
Step-by-step docket roadmap	82 roadmap entries
Video overview	No video embed currently configured
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	4 questions
Curated download aliases	3 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

R. L. Whitmer filed a 2021 Maricopa County Superior Court action against Hilton Casitas over alleged failures tied to Arizona condominium budgeting, assessments, audits, and a prior administrative order. The Superior Court dismissed the case with prejudice and awarded fees to the association. In a nonprecedential memorandum decision, the Court of Appeals vacated the attorney-fee awards because the lawsuit did not arise out of contract for purposes of A.R.S. § 12-341.01; its essential basis was statutory enforcement, not breach or enforcement of the condominium declaration.

Key Issues & Findings

The Superior Court concluded the pleaded claims did not support contempt, prospective injunction, or audit relief. The later appellate fee ruling focused on the source of the dispute. Although the declaration was part of the condominium relationship, the claims were framed as statutory enforcement under the Arizona Condominium Act and a prior administrative order, so the declaration was not the cause or origin of the dispute for § 12-341.01 fee purposes.

Why It Matters

This docket is useful for separating merits loss from fee exposure. A homeowner can lose statutory HOA claims, but that does not automatically make the case a contract action for attorney-fee purposes. The memorandum decision is not published precedent, but the case record is a practical warning about pleading theory and fee motions in HOA litigation.

Appellate outcome: On appeal (1 CA-CV 22-0202, mem. dec. filed Jan. 19, 2023), the Court of Appeals VACATED the superior court’s attorneys’-fee award, holding the dispute did not “arise out of contract” under A.R.S. § 12-341.01; the dismissal of the underlying claims was not disturbed.

Why this case matters

The case began as a budget, assessment, audit, and administrative-order enforcement dispute under Arizona condominium statutes. The Superior Court dismissed the claims, including requested contempt and injunctive relief.

The important appellate issue was fees. The Superior Court treated the dispute as contract-based because the condominium declaration was part of the setting. The Court of Appeals disagreed, explaining that the essential basis of the suit was statutory enforcement, not breach or enforcement of the declaration.

For homeowners and associations, this case separates losing a statutory enforcement claim from automatically owing contract-based attorney fees. That distinction can matter as much as the merits in HOA litigation.

What the courts decided

Claims dismissed with prejudice

The Superior Court granted Hilton Casitas motion to dismiss and concluded the pleaded claims did not support contempt, prospective injunction, or audit relief.

Trial court awarded fees

The October 2021 judgment awarded fees and costs under A.R.S. § 12-341.01.

Fee award vacated on appeal

The Court of Appeals vacated the fee awards because Whitmers suit did not arise out of contract.

Memo decision is nonprecedential

The appellate decision is useful record context but is not published precedent except as Arizona rules allow.

For homeowners: using the fee ruling carefully

The useful point in this docket is not that the homeowner won the case. He did not. The useful point is that a statutory HOA enforcement case is not automatically a contract action for A.R.S. § 12-341.01 fee purposes.

For homeowners, that means the way a claim is framed matters. If the essential basis is statutory enforcement or enforcement of an administrative order, the fee analysis may be different from a declaration-based contract dispute. The result still depends on the pleadings, record, and fee statute invoked.

Suggested statutory-claim workflow

Separate merits risk from fee risk. A dismissed statutory claim can still generate a fight over what fee statute applies.
Identify the source of each claim. Label whether the claim arises from statute, administrative order, declaration, contract, or some combination.
Preserve fee objections early. If the association seeks contract fees, respond with the essential-basis analysis before judgment is entered.
Remember the memorandum-decision limits. The appellate fee ruling is useful record context but is not a published precedential opinion.

For associations and managers: fee motions still need the right source

Do this

Tie any fee request to the actual source of the claims and the statute authorizing fees.
Distinguish contract claims from statutory enforcement claims in the fee application.
Preserve the dismissal record and the basis for the fee request separately.
Account for nonprecedential limits when relying on memorandum decisions.

Avoid this

Do not assume every condominium dispute arises out of contract.
Do not treat recorded CC&Rs as the automatic origin of every statutory claim.
Do not overlook fee exposure just because the merits claims were dismissed.
Do not cite this page as legal advice or as a substitute for the actual appellate memorandum decision.

What this memorandum decision does not do

The memorandum decision does not revive the dismissed statutory claims. It vacated contract-based fee awards because the action did not arise out of contract for A.R.S. § 12-341.01 purposes.

It is also not published precedent. Its value on this site is practical: it shows how fee framing can become a separate appellate issue after the merits case is lost.

Frequently asked questions

Did Whitmer win the 2021 Superior Court case?

No. The Superior Court dismissed the claims with prejudice.

What did the Court of Appeals change?

It vacated the contract-based attorney-fee awards because the case did not arise out of contract under A.R.S. § 12-341.01.

Is the appellate memorandum decision published precedent?

No. The page treats it as useful record context, subject to Arizona rules governing memorandum decisions.

Why does this matter for HOA cases?

Fee exposure can turn on whether the essential basis of a lawsuit is statutory, contractual, or something else.

Review note and disclaimer

Reviewed against the Superior Court docket materials and the Court of Appeals memorandum decision in No. 1 CA-CV 22-0202. This page is educational information and is not legal advice.

Whitmer / Hilton Casitas case family

These pages separate the three court dockets while keeping the shared administrative-order background visible.

Related page	Role in the case family	Connection
Published 2018 Whitmer case	Related docket	Earlier published jurisdiction decision about Superior Court enforcement of HOA administrative orders.
CV2022-014709	Related docket	Later contempt petition over the scope of the 2015 ALJ budget order.

Type: AI-generated source table

AI-generated review material from the upload. Use it only for orientation; verify any legal claim against the linked court filings and orders.

Download source file

ai-document-summary-cv2021-050888.csv

Source 67 No docket date in filename

AI The Brutal Machinery Of Civil Procedure

Type: AI-generated media review asset

AI-generated review material from the upload. Use it only for orientation; verify any legal claim against the linked court filings and orders.

Download source file

ai-the-brutal-machinery-of-civil-procedure.m4a

Primary sources

Core source documents used for this page.

← Back to Superior Court cases

R. L. Whitmer v. Hilton Casitas CV2022-014709: Limits on Enforcing an Old HOA ALJ Order

Posted on May 15, 2026 by

Arizona HOA Contempt • Administrative Orders • Budget Ratification

CV2022-014709 is the later Whitmer contempt case. The courts treated the 2015 ALJ order as tied to the 2013-2014 budget dispute, not as an indefinite contempt hook for later budget years.

Last updated May 16, 2026. Case: R. L. Whitmer v. Hilton Casitas Homeowners Association, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2022-014709; Arizona Court of Appeals No. 1 CA-CV 23-0350; Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-24-0047-PR.

Download appellate mandate/memo decision Download dismissal minute entry Download final fee judgment Watch video overview Case family map Filing roadmap + 42 PDFs Primary sources Homeowner guide Association guide FAQ

Scope note: This page covers a Superior Court contempt petition and a nonprecedential Court of Appeals memorandum decision. It is educational and is not legal advice. AI-generated briefing/audio/video files in the upload were reviewed only as orientation and are not treated as source authority on this page.

The rule in one sentence

A contempt petition based on an administrative HOA order must tie the later conduct to a clear enforceable command; a broad instruction to comply with a statute in the future may be too limited or too vague to support later contempt.

Case snapshot

Case name

R. L. Whitmer v. Hilton Casitas Homeowners Association.

Court and dockets

Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2022-014709; Arizona Court of Appeals No. 1 CA-CV 23-0350.

Core dispute

Whether the 2015 ALJ budget order could support contempt claims over alleged 2021 and 2022 legal-budget overages.

Final outcome

Dismissal affirmed on appeal; later judgment awarded Hilton Casitas $16,506.63 in appellate and trial-level fees/costs.

Case Dossier

Case Summary

Case ID / citation	CV2022-014709 / 1 CA-CV 23-0350
Court / tribunal	Superior Court
Decision / key date	January 30, 2024
Judge / panel	Hon. John C. Rea, Presiding Judge Daniel J. Kiley, Judge Kent E. Cattani, Judge D. Steven Williams, Hon. Susanna C. Pineda
Parties	A condominium owner sought contempt enforcement of a 2015 administrative budget order against Hilton Casitas based on alleged 2021 and 2022 legal-budget overages.
Governing law	A.R.S. § 33-1243 A.R.S. § 32-2199.02 A.R.S. § 12-341.01
Topics	procedureboard-governanceattorneys-fees
Outcome / holding	The courts rejected contempt enforcement against Hilton Casitas because the 2015 administrative budget order did not clearly impose an indefinite future directive covering the later 2021 and 2022 budget allegations.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package	44 PDFs, 3 other source files
Step-by-step docket roadmap	42 roadmap entries
Video overview	Whitmer v. Hilton Casitas: Enforcing Arizona HOA ALJ Orders
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	4 questions
Curated download aliases	3 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

In CV2022-014709, R. L. Whitmer asked the Superior Court to hold Hilton Casitas in contempt based on a 2015 administrative decision requiring future compliance with A.R.S. § 33-1243(D). The petition alleged later 2021 and 2022 legal-budget overages. The Superior Court dismissed the amended petition, reading the 2015 administrative order as tied to the specific 2013-2014 budget dispute and anticipated ratification, not as an indefinite command governing later years. The Court of Appeals affirmed in a nonprecedential memorandum decision, and the Arizona Supreme Court denied review. A final 2024 judgment awarded Hilton Casitas fees and costs after appeal.

Key Issues & Findings

The Superior Court read the 2015 ALJ decision in context. The decision addressed specific 2013 and 2014 legal-budget issues and an anticipated meeting to ratify increased legal costs. The court concluded that the phrase requiring compliance in the future did not create an open-ended contempt command for future budget years. It also stated that if the order were intended to apply indefinitely, it was too vague to enforce by contempt. The appellate memorandum decision affirmed the dismissal.

Why It Matters

This later Whitmer docket is the limiting companion to the 2018 published jurisdiction decision. It shows that a homeowner may have a Superior Court forum to enforce a final administrative HOA order, but contempt still requires a clear, specific, enforceable command tied to the alleged later violation.

Appellate outcome: On appeal (1 CA-CV 23-0350, mem. dec. filed Jan. 30, 2024), the Court of Appeals AFFIRMED the dismissal.

Why this case matters

This case is the limiting companion to the 2018 published Whitmer decision. The earlier appeal confirmed that Superior Court can enforce a final HOA administrative decision. This later case asks how far an old administrative order reaches.

The Superior Court read the 2015 ALJ order as addressing the specific 2013-2014 budget dispute and anticipated ratification, not as an open-ended command governing every future budget year. The court also stated that if the order were meant to operate indefinitely, it would be too vague to enforce by contempt.

The Court of Appeals affirmed in a 2024 memorandum decision, and the Arizona Supreme Court denied review. The final 2024 judgment awarded fees and costs to Hilton Casitas after the appellate process.

Video overview: enforcing Arizona HOA ALJ orders

Watch this overview for the larger Whitmer/Hilton Casitas enforcement problem. The video explains why Superior Court jurisdiction matters after an OAH win and why later contempt enforcement still depends on a clear order and proof of violation.

What the courts decided

Dismissal of amended petition

The Superior Court granted the associations motion to dismiss the amended contempt petition.

Old ALJ order read narrowly

The court construed the 2015 ALJ decision as focused on the 2013-2014 budget context and an anticipated ratification meeting.

Vagueness problem for contempt

The court stated that if the ALJ intended an indefinite future directive, the order was too vague to enforce by contempt.

Appeal affirmed dismissal

The Court of Appeals affirmed in No. 1 CA-CV 23-0350, and the Supreme Court denied review.

For homeowners: contempt needs a precise order

This later Whitmer case is the limiting companion to the published 2018 enforcement decision. It shows that a homeowner may have a Superior Court forum but still lose if the old administrative order does not clearly command the later conduct at issue.

For homeowners, the practical takeaway is to build the contempt record around the exact order language, the exact later conduct, and why the order clearly applies to that later conduct. A broad instruction to comply with a statute in the future may not be enough.

Suggested contempt-enforcement workflow

Quote the command. Start with the precise words of the administrative order you want enforced.
Identify the later act. State the later budget, assessment, meeting, record, or other conduct alleged to violate that command.
Explain the bridge. Show why the old order clearly applies to the later act instead of only the original dispute.
Anticipate vagueness arguments. If the order is broad or indefinite, explain why contempt is still a proper remedy.

For associations and managers: keep administrative orders narrow and documented

Do this

Read old administrative orders in context before assuming they apply to later years.
Keep budget, ratification, and assessment records by fiscal year.
Document how the association complied with the specific order entered.
Address vague or overbroad enforcement demands with the order language and timeline.

Avoid this

Do not ignore a final administrative order simply because it is old.
Do not treat every later statutory dispute as contempt of an earlier order.
Do not rely on generic compliance statements without budget-year records.
Do not assume the 2018 jurisdiction ruling guarantees contempt relief.

What this later Whitmer case does not do

This case does not erase the published Whitmer enforcement rule. The Superior Court still had an enforcement forum. The problem was the reach and clarity of the older ALJ order as applied to later 2021 and 2022 budget allegations.

It also does not say future administrative HOA orders can never be enforced. It says contempt requires a clear, specific, enforceable command tied to the alleged violation.

Frequently asked questions

How does this case relate to the 2018 published Whitmer decision?

The 2018 decision confirms jurisdiction to enforce final administrative HOA orders. This later case shows the limits of contempt when the old order does not clearly cover later conduct.

Why did the contempt theory fail?

The courts read the 2015 ALJ order as tied to the original 2013-2014 budget dispute and too limited or vague to support later contempt over 2021 and 2022 allegations.

Does this mean administrative orders are useless?

No. It means enforcement depends on the wording of the order and proof that the later conduct violated a clear command.

Why include fee and mandate documents?

The later fee and appellate documents show the full consequence of the enforcement attempt, not just the dismissal order.

Review note and disclaimer

Reviewed against the Superior Court contempt docket, the Court of Appeals memorandum decision, and the mandate/fee materials. This page is educational information and is not legal advice.

Whitmer / Hilton Casitas case family

These pages separate the three court dockets while keeping the shared administrative-order background visible.

Related page	Role in the case family	Connection
Published 2018 Whitmer case	Related docket	The earlier published decision confirmed Superior Court jurisdiction to enforce final HOA administrative decisions.
CV2021-050888	Related docket	Related statutory budget/audit enforcement case with a fee-award appeal.

Type: AI-generated source table

AI-generated review material from the upload. Use it only for orientation; verify any legal claim against the linked court filings and orders.

Download source file

ai-uploaded-chronology-cv2016-summary-stale-for-cv2022.csv

Source 47 No docket date in filename

AI Whitmer V

Type: AI-generated media review asset

AI-generated review material from the upload. Use it only for orientation; verify any legal claim against the linked court filings and orders.

Download source file

ai-whitmer-v.mp4

Primary sources

Core source documents used for this page.

← Back to Superior Court cases

William M. Brown v. Terravita Country Club: When an Arizona HOA Records Win Moves to Superior Court

Posted on May 15, 2026 by

Arizona HOA Records • A.R.S. § 33-1805 • Superior Court Enforcement

Brown shows what can happen after a homeowner wins an Arizona HOA records case at ADRE/OAH and then asks the Superior Court to enforce the order: the court can narrow the dispute to exactly what remains missing, treat later production as compliance, and still deny the association fees.

Last updated May 16, 2026. Case: William M. Brown v. Terravita Country Club, Inc., et al., Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2017-055475; final minute entry June 4, 2018; Hon. John R. Hannah Jr.

Download final minute entry Download verified complaint How the case got there Related OAH records Filing roadmap + 50 PDFs Primary sources Homeowner guide Association guide FAQ

Scope note: This page covers a Maricopa County Superior Court enforcement case tied to Arizona planned-community records requests under A.R.S. § 33-1805. It is a trial-court record, not a published appellate precedent. It is educational and is not legal advice.

The rule in one sentence

Winning an Arizona HOA records order at ADRE/OAH may create a path to Superior Court enforcement, but the court can require a precise missing-records showing and may dismiss the enforcement request if later productions satisfy the administrative order.

Case snapshot

Case name

William M. Brown v. Terravita Country Club, Inc., et al.

Court and docket

Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2017-055475.

Final order

June 4, 2018 minute entry by Hon. John R. Hannah Jr.

Core statute

A.R.S. § 33-1805, Arizona planned-community association records.

Case Dossier

Case Summary

Case ID / citation	CV2017-055475
Court / tribunal	Superior Court
Decision / key date	June 4, 2018
Judge / panel	Hon. John R. Hannah Jr.
Parties	A homeowner asked the Maricopa County Superior Court to enforce an ADRE/OAH records-order win against Terravita Country Club, Inc. and related defendants.
Governing law	A.R.S. § 33-1805 A.R.S. § 33-1803 A.R.S. § 12-341 A.R.S. § 12-341.01
Topics	records-requestsprocedureboard-governanceattorneys-fees
Outcome / holding	The superior court found Terravita had complied with the administrative records order, dismissed the application for an order to show cause with prejudice, and denied the defendants’ request for fees and costs.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package	51 PDFs, 3 supporting source/review files
Step-by-step docket roadmap	21 roadmap entries
Video overview	No video embed currently configured
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	5 questions
Curated download aliases	3 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

William M. Brown filed a Maricopa County Superior Court action after winning an administrative records-request order against Terravita Country Club, Inc. The case asked the court to force compliance with an ADRE/OAH order arising from A.R.S. § 33-1805. The court first required Brown to identify exactly what remained unproduced, then reviewed the later production history. On January 31, 2018, the court dismissed the individual board-director defendants and the attorney defendants, and denied transfer of a related civil case. On June 4, 2018, the court found Terravita had complied with the administrative order, dismissed the order-to-show-cause application with prejudice, and denied defendants’ fees and costs.

Key Issues & Findings

Judge Hannah focused the enforcement case on what the administrative order required and what remained missing. After the October 27, 2017 status conference, Brown was ordered to specify precisely which records he still claimed had not been produced and why the omission violated the administrative law judge’s order. The court later concluded that the October 27 production, earlier production at the time of the July ALJ order, and information forwarded through Terravita’s attorney together supplied a complete and coherent response. The court also ruled that the director defendants did not owe fiduciary duties directly to Brown individually, and that the attorney defendants were not liable where the complaint did not allege wrongdoing or a duty to Brown as an opposing party.

Why It Matters

The case is a practical example of both the power and limits of taking an Arizona HOA records win from ADRE/OAH into superior court. A homeowner can seek judicial enforcement after an association loses an A.R.S. § 33-1805 records case, but the court may require a precise missing-records showing and may treat later production as compliance. The case also warns against overnaming individual directors and opposing counsel unless the pleadings identify a viable duty and conduct. For boards, the fee ruling is also notable: even after dismissal, the court declined fees because some responsive documents may have been produced only after suit was filed.

Why this case matters

Brown is useful because it shows the second stage of an Arizona HOA records fight. The homeowner had already won administrative relief in an ADRE/OAH records case. The Superior Court case was about enforcing that win after Brown alleged Terravita had not fully complied.

The case did not end with new penalties against the association. It ended with a compliance finding for Terravita, dismissal of the order-to-show-cause application with prejudice, and denial of the defendants’ request for fees and costs.

That mix is the practical lesson. A records requester may be able to use court enforcement, but the court will focus on the exact production gap, the actual production history, and whether later disclosure cured the alleged noncompliance.

What Judge Hannah decided

1. Terravita complied with the administrative order

The court found the October 27, 2017 production, earlier production around the July ALJ order, and information forwarded through defense counsel together provided a complete and coherent response.

2. The order-to-show-cause application was dismissed

The court dismissed Brown’s application for an order to show cause with prejudice and entered judgment under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 54(c).

3. Director defendants were dismissed

The court ruled that fiduciary duties of HOA directors are owed to the HOA, not directly to an individual member such as Brown.

4. Attorney defendants were dismissed

The court ruled the complaint did not state a claim against the law firm or lawyers, and noted that lawyers ordinarily owe no duty to an opposing party.

5. Transfer of a related case was denied

The court denied Brown’s request to transfer related civil case CV2017-013317 to Judge Hannah.

6. Defendants did not recover fees

Even though the case was dismissed, the court denied fees and costs, noting the association arguably did not produce some responsive documents until after suit was filed.

For homeowners: using a records-order win in court

Brown shows that a homeowner can move from an ADRE/OAH records win into Superior Court enforcement, but the court may narrow the case to a document-by-document compliance question.

The strongest enforcement record identifies the administrative order, lists each still-missing record, explains why the order required that record, and tracks later production. Broad frustration with the association is less useful than a precise missing-records chart.

Suggested records-enforcement workflow

Start with the ADRE/OAH order. Identify exactly what the administrative decision required the association to produce or do.
Build a missing-records chart. List each requested record, what was produced, what remains missing, and why it matters under A.R.S. § 33-1805.
Track later production. If the association produces records after suit is filed, update the chart rather than relying on the original gap alone.
Name defendants carefully. Brown shows risk in naming individual directors or opposing counsel without a viable duty and conduct theory.

For associations and managers: compliance proof matters

Do this

Track each records request against each production batch.
Document when records were sent, by whom, and in what form.
Preserve explanations when a requested record does not exist or is withheld under a claimed exception.
Resolve compliance gaps early instead of waiting for an enforcement hearing.

Avoid this

Do not rely on general statements that all records were produced.
Do not ignore an ADRE/OAH records order after a homeowner wins administratively.
Do not assume late production eliminates all fee or litigation risk.
Do not let attorney communications obscure the basic production timeline.

How the case got to Superior Court

The Superior Court case grew out of Brown’s earlier ADRE/OAH records disputes against Terravita. In 17F-H1716005-REL, the administrative tribunal found Terravita failed to timely fulfill a records request under A.R.S. § 33-1805 and ordered compliance plus a $500 filing-fee refund. In 17F-H1717032-REL, Brown won another records-access ruling after Terravita argued the pending-litigation exception barred disclosure.

Brown then filed this Superior Court case to enforce the administrative order. The complaint named Terravita, several directors, the association law firm, and individual lawyers. The case quickly narrowed into two tracks: whether Terravita had complied with the records order, and whether the individual defendants belonged in the case at all.

At the October 27, 2017 status conference, Judge Hannah required Brown to specify precisely what records were still missing and why the failure to produce them violated the administrative order. That order became the organizing point for the rest of the case.

Related ADRE/OAH records

These administrative cases supply the background for the Superior Court enforcement fight. The first two are the records-request wins tied to the court case; the third shows the separate penalty/notice dispute pending in the same general Terravita conflict.

Administrative matter	Date	Result	Why it matters here
17F-H1716005-REL	July 10, 2017	Homeowner win under A.R.S. § 33-1805; compliance ordered and $500 filing-fee refund.	This is the administrative records order Brown sought to enforce in Superior Court.
17F-H1717032-REL	July 14, 2017	Homeowner win under A.R.S. § 33-1805; pending-litigation exception rejected on the available record.	Shows the broader records-access dispute between Brown and Terravita.
18F-H1717041-REL	October 11, 2017	Association win on A.R.S. § 33-1803(B) notice/penalty issue.	Separate administrative matter involving penalties and notice, not the final enforcement ruling in CV2017-055475.

The records issue the court narrowed

By late October 2017, the court was no longer treating the dispute as a broad grievance about Terravita’s conduct. Judge Hannah required a document-by-document showing of what remained missing from the administrative order.

The later briefing focused on specific insurance and billing-related information tied to prior litigation, including whether certain legal fees and related expenses were covered by insurance and whether insurer communications or payments existed. Terravita responded that the responsive documents and information had been provided through the October 27 production, prior production, and counsel communications.

The final minute entry accepted Terravita’s compliance position. The court did not make a broad finding that every earlier response had been ideal; instead, it found Brown had not made a colorable showing that additional responsive information was likely to exist.

Practical lessons from the case

For homeowners enforcing records orders

Preserve the administrative order. The court will want to know exactly what the ALJ or agency ordered the association to produce.
Build a missing-records chart. Track each requested record, what was produced, when it was produced, and why anything still missing falls within the order.
Expect later production to matter. If the association produces records after suit is filed, the court may treat that production as compliance even if the timing was disputed.
Be cautious about individual defendants. Claims against directors or opposing counsel need a specific duty and specific conduct, not just their involvement in the association dispute.

For boards, managers, and counsel

Respond within the A.R.S. § 33-1805 deadline. The statute gives ten business days to fulfill examination requests and ten business days to provide requested copies.
Document every production. Keep a clean production log showing date, records produced, withheld categories, redactions, and transmission method.
Do not rely on vague compliance claims. A later court may need to see how each records category was answered.
Fee recovery is not automatic. Even after dismissal, the court denied fees where some production arguably came only after the lawsuit began.

What this case does not mean

Brown does not eliminate the administrative records remedy. The related OAH cases still show that a homeowner can prevail when an association fails to timely provide records under A.R.S. § 33-1805.

It also does not say an association may wait until a lawsuit is filed to produce records without consequence. The court denied Terravita’s fee request partly because some responsive documents arguably came after suit was filed. The narrower point is that by the time of the final ruling, the court believed the administrative order had been satisfied.

Finally, this is not a published appellate rule. It is a useful trial-court roadmap for how one Superior Court judge handled enforcement of an HOA records order on a developed production record.

Filing roadmap and PDF downloads

The raw docket package below was renamed from opaque court-download filenames into date-and-title filenames. Duplicate docket downloads are preserved and labeled rather than deleted.

Step 1 September 5, 2017

Complaint and opening order-to-show-cause package

Filed by: William M. Brown

Brown opened the superior-court enforcement case, asking the court to enforce the ADRE/OAH records order.

Download 5 PDFs

2017-09-05_001_verified-complaint-application-order-show-cause.pdf
2017-09-05_002_request-to-schedule-order-to-show-cause-hearing.pdf
2017-09-05_003_civil-cover-sheet.pdf
2017-09-05_004_certificate-of-compulsory-arbitration.pdf
2017-09-05_005_order-to-appear-september-15-hearing.pdf

Step 2 September 6, 2017

Change of judge request

Filed by: William M. Brown

The early file includes duplicate copies of the Rule 42.1 change-of-judge paperwork.

Download 2 PDFs

2017-09-06_006_rule-42-1-change-of-judge.pdf
2017-09-06_006b_rule-42-1-change-of-judge-duplicate.pdf

Step 3 September 8, 2017

Case reassigned to Judge Hannah

Filed by: Court

The civil presiding judge reassigned the matter to Hon. John R. Hannah Jr.

Download 3 PDFs

2017-09-08_007_case-reassignment-to-judge-hannah.pdf
2017-09-08_007b_case-reassignment-to-judge-hannah-duplicate.pdf
2017-09-08_007c_case-reassignment-to-judge-hannah-duplicate.pdf

Step 4 October 2, 2017

Application for provisional remedy with notice

Filed by: William M. Brown

Brown renewed the request for court action after the opening filing package.

Download 2 PDFs

2017-10-02_008_application-for-provisional-remedy-with-notice.pdf
2017-10-02_008b_application-for-provisional-remedy-with-notice-duplicate.pdf

Step 5 October 6-16, 2017

Service and non-service returns

Filed by: William M. Brown / Process server

The docket shows extensive service activity on Terravita, directors, and attorney defendants.

Download 8 PDFs

2017-10-06_009_return-of-service-sterling-laaveg.pdf
2017-10-06_009b_return-of-service-sterling-laaveg-duplicate.pdf
2017-10-06_010_return-of-service-paul-tolk.pdf
2017-10-06_011_return-of-service-william-greig.pdf
2017-10-11_012_return-of-service-terravita-registered-agent.pdf
2017-10-11_013_return-of-service-carpenter-hazlewood-delgado-bolen.pdf
2017-10-11_014_return-of-service-anjali-patel.pdf
2017-10-16_015_return-of-non-service-michael-ellington.pdf

Step 6 October 11, 2017

Motion to transfer related civil case

Filed by: William M. Brown

Brown asked to move a related civil case to the same judge; that request was later denied.

Download PDF

2017-10-11_016_motion-to-transfer-related-civil-case.pdf

Step 7 October 13, 2017

Motion to dismiss board-director defendants

Filed by: Board-director defendants

The individual directors challenged whether Brown had stated claims against them personally.

Download PDF

2017-10-13_017_motion-to-dismiss-board-director-defendants.pdf

Step 8 October 16, 2017

Attorney-defendant dismissal motion and filing-fee memo

Filed by: Attorney defendants / Clerk

The attorney defendants challenged personal liability, and the docket recorded the appearance-fee issue.

Download 2 PDFs

2017-10-16_018_first-appearance-filing-fee-credit-memo.pdf
2017-10-16_019_motion-to-dismiss-attorney-defendants.pdf

Step 9 October 18, 2017

Return hearing and status conference order

Filed by: Court

The court told Brown to advise if Terravita had satisfied the administrative order, otherwise further proceedings would be set.

Download 3 PDFs

2017-10-18_020_order-to-appear-october-18-hearing.pdf
2017-10-18_020b_order-to-appear-october-18-hearing-duplicate.pdf
2017-10-18_021_status-conference-minute-entry.pdf

Step 10 October 26-27, 2017

Answer and order narrowing the records issue

Filed by: Terravita / Court

The court ordered Brown to identify precisely what remained missing and why that violated the ALJ order.

Download 2 PDFs

2017-10-26_022_terravita-answer-to-complaint.pdf
2017-10-27_023_order-entered-status-conference.pdf

Step 11 October 30-November 1, 2017

Transfer-motion briefing

Filed by: Defendants / William M. Brown

The parties briefed whether a related case should be moved to Judge Hannah.

Download 2 PDFs

2017-10-30_024_defendants-objection-to-transfer-related-case.pdf
2017-11-01_025_plaintiff-response-to-objection-transfer-related-case.pdf

Step 12 November 6-8, 2017

Extension request, objection, and denial

Filed by: William M. Brown / Defendants / Court

The court denied Brown’s request for more time to respond to the dismissal motions.

Download 3 PDFs

2017-11-06_026_plaintiff-motion-for-extension-of-time.pdf
2017-11-08_027_defendants-objection-to-extension-of-time.pdf
2017-11-07_028_ruling-denying-extension-of-time.pdf

Step 13 November 9, 2017

Supplement to the order-to-show-cause application

Filed by: William M. Brown

Brown identified what he believed remained unproduced after the administrative order and later productions.

Download PDF

2017-11-09_029_plaintiff-supplement-to-order-to-show-cause.pdf

Step 14 November 13, 2017

Responses to dismissal motions

Filed by: William M. Brown

Brown opposed dismissal of the individual director and attorney defendants.

Download 2 PDFs

2017-11-13_030_plaintiff-response-to-board-director-dismissal-motion.pdf
2017-11-13_031_plaintiff-response-to-attorney-defendant-dismissal-motion.pdf

Step 15 November 22, 2017

Response to supplement and dismissal replies

Filed by: Defendants

Terravita argued it had produced the responsive records or information, while individual defendants pressed for dismissal.

Download 3 PDFs

2017-11-22_032_defendants-response-to-order-to-show-cause-supplement.pdf
2017-11-22_033_reply-support-motion-dismiss-attorney-defendants.pdf
2017-11-22_034_reply-support-motion-dismiss-board-directors.pdf

Step 16 November 27, 2017

Reply on the order-to-show-cause supplement

Filed by: William M. Brown

Brown replied on whether the administrative records order had been fully satisfied.

Download PDF

2017-11-27_035_plaintiff-reply-to-defendants-response-to-osc-supplement.pdf

Step 17 December 11-20, 2017

Continuance, address, and motion-to-strike filings

Filed by: William M. Brown / Defendants

The file shifted into continuance and stay-related requests before the final compliance ruling.

Download 5 PDFs

2017-12-13_036_notice-of-address-change.pdf
2017-12-13_037_plaintiff-motion-to-continue-multi-case.pdf
2017-12-11_037b_plaintiff-motion-to-continue-multi-case-duplicate.pdf
2017-12-11_038_plaintiff-motion-to-continue.pdf
2017-12-20_039_defendants-motion-to-strike-motion-to-continue.pdf

Step 18 January 31, 2018

Board-director defendants dismissed

Filed by: Court

The court ruled HOA directors fiduciary duties are owed to the HOA, not directly to an individual member such as Brown.

Download PDF

2018-01-31_040_partial-dismissal-board-director-defendants.pdf

Step 19 January 31, 2018

Attorney defendants dismissed

Filed by: Court

The court ruled the complaint did not state a claim against the law firm or lawyers and noted lawyers ordinarily owe no duty to an opposing party.

Download PDF

2018-01-31_041_partial-dismissal-attorney-defendants.pdf

Step 20 January 31, 2018

Related-case transfer denied

Filed by: Court

Judge Hannah denied transfer of the related civil case.

Download PDF

2018-01-31_042_ruling-denying-transfer-related-case.pdf

Step 21 June 4, 2018

Final minute entry: order-to-show-cause application dismissed

Filed by: Court

The court found Terravita had complied with the administrative order, dismissed the application with prejudice, denied fees and costs, and entered Rule 54(c) judgment.

Type: Source image/graphic

AI-generated review material from the upload. Use it only for orientation; verify any legal claim against the linked court filings and orders.

Download source file

ai-generated-case-timeline-graphic.png

Frequently asked questions

Did Brown win this Superior Court case?

No. The June 4, 2018 minute entry found Terravita had complied with the administrative order and dismissed the application for an order to show cause with prejudice.

Did Brown win the related administrative records cases?

Yes. The related OAH/ADRE records matters 17F-H1716005-REL and 17F-H1717032-REL were homeowner wins under A.R.S. § 33-1805.

Why were the individual directors dismissed?

The court ruled that fiduciary duties of HOA directors are owed to the HOA, not directly to an individual member such as Brown.

Why were the attorney defendants dismissed?

The court ruled the complaint did not state a claim against the law firm or lawyers and noted that lawyers ordinarily owe no duty to an opposing party.

Did the association recover attorney fees?

No. The court denied the defendants’ request for attorney fees and costs even though it dismissed the application, noting the timing of some responsive document production.

Primary sources

← Back to Superior Court cases

Laveen Meadows Homeowners Association v. Carlos Mejia

Posted on April 30, 2026 by [email protected]

Laveen Meadows Homeowners Association v. Carlos Mejia

1 CA-CV 18-0276 · Court of Appeals · May 5, 2020

At a Glance

Parties	An HOA sought to foreclose its assessment lien after default; the homeowner argued a later partial payment wiped out the foreclosure right.
Panel	Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz, Judge Kenton D. Jones, Judge Kent E. Cattani
Statutes interpreted	A.R.S. § 33-1807

Summary

This is a leading Arizona case on when an HOA’s foreclosure right attaches under the planned-community lien statute. Mejia defaulted, then tendered a partial payment and argued that because the payment covered the older unpaid assessments, the association had lost the right to foreclose. The Court of Appeals rejected that argument. It held that once the statutory threshold is reached, the lien may be foreclosed, and a later partial payment does not erase the association’s foreclosure remedy unless the statute says so. The court treated the threshold events as triggers, not moving targets that disappear whenever the balance later changes. That makes the case particularly important in settlement negotiations and default-judgment disputes where owners try to cure only part of the debt after litigation is already underway.

Holding

The court held that once A.R.S. § 33-1807’s foreclosure threshold is met, a later partial payment does not extinguish the HOA’s right to foreclose the lien.

Reasoning

The majority relied on the statute’s language stating that a lien may be foreclosed when the owner has been delinquent for the statutory amount or period, whichever occurs first. It treated that language as establishing threshold trigger events rather than a constantly re-measured condition precedent.

The court also reasoned that the statute expressly addresses when an association lien is extinguished by time, but it does not say that a partial post-default payment wipes out the whole lien or destroys the foreclosure remedy. That omission mattered. The panel therefore refused to add an owner-friendly extinguishment rule the legislature had not written.

Why This Matters for HOAs

Laveen Meadows is a strong collection-side precedent for Arizona HOAs. It makes late-stage partial cures much less likely to derail a case once statutory foreclosure eligibility has attached.

For homeowners and counsel, it means payoff strategy matters. A partial payment may reduce exposure, but it may not undo the association’s litigation leverage once the statutory trigger has already been crossed.

Topics

assessmentsforeclosureattorneys-feesprocedure

View the original opinion →

← Back to Court of Appeals cases