Tag Archives: attorneys-fees

Jason Komorowski v. Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association Case Overview

Posted on by

HOA Drainage Easement Dispute (CV2018-014261)

The Maricopa County Superior Court addressed whether a homeowners association breached its contractual duties under subdivision covenants to maintain a drainage easement. After a bench trial, the court found the association failed to prevent sediment buildup from flooding a homeowner’s property. The court awarded repair costs and established strict engineering inspection and sediment removal guidelines.

Last updated July 17, 2026. Case: Jason Komorowski, et al. v. Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association, Maricopa County Superior Court, Docket No. CV2018-014261; Judgment for Plaintiffs.

Source-file index FAQ

Scope note: This page provides an educational summary of the superior court’s nonprecedential decision in Maricopa County Superior Court case CV2018-014261. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

An association’s failure to maintain a drainage easement in accordance with subdivision covenants and approved plans constitutes a breach of contract. When such a failure results in repeated flooding and physical property damage that cannot be remedied by money damages alone, the affected homeowners are entitled to compensatory damages for repairs and permanent injunctive relief establishing specific maintenance, inspection, and sediment clearing requirements.

Fact-checkers differed on whether “Fees awarded” best labels this holding. This page uses only the ruling labels both fact-checkers agreed on.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Jason Komorowski (Plaintiff)
    Owner of Lot 52 in the Whisper Mountain subdivision who sued the HOA for breach of contract and water flooding damage.
  • Melissa Komorowski (Plaintiff)
    Owner of Lot 52 in the Whisper Mountain subdivision who was granted leave to appear at trial virtually.

Respondent Side

  • Greg Wingert (Board President)
    Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association
    President of the HOA who testified during the trial regarding drainage maintenance and the difficulty of securing timely sediment clearing contractors.

Neutral Parties

  • Curt R. Peterson (Expert Witness)
    Arizona-licensed civil engineer who testified as an expert witness for the plaintiffs regarding the drainage ditch defects, sediment dams, and repair costs.
  • James Deatherage (Expert Witness)
    Geotechnical engineer who designed the remedial plan implemented by Tennyson Construction on behalf of the HOA.
  • Matthew Potter (Expert Witness)
    Arizona-licensed real estate agent who testified as an expert witness for the plaintiffs regarding speculative property value diminution.

What happened

In August 2013, Jason and Melissa Komorowski purchased Lot 52 in the Whisper Mountain subdivision in Mesa, Arizona, situated at the base of Whisper Mountain’s north slope.

The developer, VIP Construction, Inc., failed to build the planned drainage channel to the specifications set forth in the 2004 approved engineering plans.

In 2014, a major storm caused floodwaters to run down the mountain, across the drainage easement, and inundate the Komorowskis’ property.

In February 2015, homeowners assumed control of the HOA and filed a lawsuit against the developer, which they settled in October 2016; under the settlement, the developer cleared a shallow ditch but did not construct the planned engineering channel, and the HOA assumed sole responsibility for drainage maintenance.

Subsequent heavy rain events on July 24, 2017, and August 9, 2018, washed massive amounts of sediment down the mountain, forming a dam at a ditch chokepoint that backed up water and flooded the Komorowskis’ yard, coming within a foot or two of their home.

The Komorowskis made repeated requests for improvements starting in September 2017, and ultimately filed a lawsuit against the HOA in November 2018.

During the pendency of the litigation, in early September 2020, the HOA hired Tennyson Construction to grade the ditch and add a concrete curb under a plan designed by geotechnical engineer James Deatherage, completing the work on October 26, 2020.

Following a bench trial in November and December 2020, the court issued its decision on March 8, 2021, finding the HOA in breach of contract and awarding $17,800.01 in damages along with a permanent maintenance injunction.

On June 16, 2021, the court signed and entered a formal written judgment settling all claims and the plaintiffs’ application for attorneys’ fees and costs.

Video overview of the case record

An AI-generated video overview of Jason Komorowski, et al. v. Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association (CV2018-014261 (Maricopa Cnty. Super. Ct.)). Court ordered HOA to pay $17,800 in damages and permanently maintain a drainage ditch to prevent flooding. This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own records control.

Listen: audio deep dive on the case record

An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the case record in Jason Komorowski, et al. v. Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked records below.

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

Procedural timeline

Step 2013-08-01 Jason and Melissa Komorowski purchase Lot 52 in the Whisper Mountain subdivision.
Step 2014-09-01 A major storm causes runoff to flood the subdivision and the Komorowskis' property.
Step 2015-02-01 Homeowners take control of Whisper Mountain HOA from the developer.
Step 2016-10-01 The HOA settles defect litigation with developer VIP Construction, assuming drainage maintenance duties.
Step 2017-07-24 A storm washes mountain sediment into the drainage ditch, flooding the Komorowskis' backyard.
Step 2018-08-09 A second severe flood event occurs on Lot 52 due to a sediment dam in the unlined ditch.
Step 2018-11-01 The Komorowskis file their lawsuit against the HOA for breach of contract and equitable relief.
Step 2020-10-26 Contractor Tennyson Construction completes drainage improvements under the Deatherage Plan.
Step 2020-11-05 A four-day bench trial begins before Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Joseph P. Mikitish.
Step 2020-12-09 Trial concludes with closing arguments, and the case is taken under advisement.
Step 2021-03-08 Judge Mikitish issues findings of fact and conclusions of law, awarding $17,800.01 and a permanent injunction.
Step 2021-06-16 The court signs and files the formal written judgment against Whisper Mountain HOA, resolving the case.

Complete source-document index

This index contains 38 PDFs from the reviewed public source packet. Byte-identical copies are listed once. Files are ordered by the date and sequence in the public filename, and party filings or research materials are labeled separately from court rulings.

FAQ

What was the core dispute in Komorowski v. Whisper Mountain HOA?

Homeowners Jason and Melissa Komorowski sued the Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association, alleging that the association failed to maintain, repair, and replace drainage facilities in a drainage easement behind their lot, resulting in sediment dams and flooding on their property.

Did the court find that the HOA breached the CC&Rs?

Yes. The court concluded that the Amended and Restated Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) formed a binding contract, and the HOA breached Section 10.1 by failing to maintain the drainage ditch to prevent flooding of the homeowners’ property.

What damages were awarded to the homeowners?

The court awarded the Komorowskis $17,800.01 in compensatory damages, consisting of $16,000 to regrade their yard and repair a dry-stack wall, and $1,800.01 for out-of-pocket sandbag installation costs. Speculative damages for diminished property value were denied.

What injunctive relief did the court order?

The court issued a permanent injunction requiring the HOA to properly maintain the drainage ditch. This includes professional engineering inspections annually, after major rain events of 0.5 inches or more, or if flooding is documented, and sediment removal under specific capacity thresholds.

Is this superior court decision precedential?

No. This is a Maricopa County Superior Court case, which is an Arizona trial-level court decision and is nonprecedential.

Case Dossier

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

Case Summary

Case ID / citationCV2018-014261 (Maricopa Cnty. Super. Ct.)
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateJune 16, 2021
Judge / panelConnie Contes, Joseph P. Mikitish, Pamela Gates
PartiesPlaintiffs Jason and Melissa Komorowski v. Defendant Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association
Topics
CC&RsProcedureAttorney Fees
Outcome / holding

An association's failure to maintain a drainage easement in accordance with subdivision covenants and approved plans constitutes a breach of contract. When such a failure results in repeated flooding and physical property damage that cannot be remedied by money damages alone, the affected homeowners are entitled to compensatory damages for repairs and permanent injunctive relief establishing specific maintenance, inspection, and sediment clearing requirements.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package38 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap12 roadmap entries
Video overviewJason Komorowski, et al. v. Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links0 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

This case arose from a dispute between homeowners Jason and Melissa Komorowski (owners of Lot 52) and the Whisper Mountain Homeowners Association (WMHOA) over a drainage easement. Heavy rainfall in 2014, 2017, and 2018 washed sediment down Whisper Mountain, creating dams in the unlined drainage ditch, which caused flooding on the Komorowskis' property. Although the CC&Rs obligated the HOA to maintain all drainage facilities in accordance with approved plans, the HOA failed to construct the planned channel or make necessary improvements. The Komorowskis filed suit in November 2018 seeking damages and equitable relief. After a four-day bench trial, the court found the HOA in breach of the CC&Rs. The court awarded the plaintiffs $17,800.01 in compensatory damages for yard regrading, wall repair, and sandbag costs, but denied property diminution damages as speculative. The court also issued a permanent injunction requiring the HOA to perform regular inspections and clear sediment from the ditch under specific, engineering-backed guidelines.

Key Issues & Findings

The court interpreted the CC&Rs as a valid, binding contract between the HOA and individual homeowners. Under CC&Rs Section 10.1, the HOA was contractually obligated to maintain, repair, and replace all drainage facilities in the subdivision. The evidence established that the developer had failed to construct the channel to the specifications of the approved engineering plans, and the HOA assumed responsibility for these facilities following a 2016 settlement. Although the HOA undertook some remedial grading work in late 2020 via a contractor, the expert testimony showed that the property would remain at risk of future flooding unless the HOA adhered to a rigorous maintenance schedule. Because ongoing flooding would cause irreparable harm and deprive the owners of the use of their property, the balance of equities favored a permanent injunction. Compensatory damages for yard repairs and sandbags were awarded as they were directly caused by the breach and supported by credible, uncontradicted evidence, whereas claimed property value diminution was rejected as speculative due to the successful completion of the remedial drainage works.

Why It Matters

This case highlights the enforceability of CC&Rs against homeowners associations regarding common area and easement maintenance. It demonstrates that courts will hold HOAs strictly to their contractual obligations to maintain infrastructure, particularly when failure to do so results in physical damage to private lots. Additionally, the ruling outlines how courts may craft detailed, ongoing injunctive remedies—including specific engineering inspection triggers and cleaning thresholds—to ensure future compliance, rather than relying solely on speculative monetary awards for property depreciation.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Tucson Estates Property Owners Association, Inc. v. McGovern & Sines

Posted on by

Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two | No. 2 CA-CV 2015-0069

In Tucson Estates POA v. McGovern, the Arizona Court of Appeals addressed whether unilateral attorney fee provisions in HOA covenants require reciprocal awards to prevailing homeowners. While fees remain discretionary, the court ruled that recovery of litigation costs is mandatory under A.R.S. § 12-341.

Last updated July 15, 2026. Case: Tucson Estates Property Owners Association, Inc. v. McGovern, Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division Two, No. 2 CA-CV 2015-0069, Filed January 15, 2016; Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Source-file index FAQ

Scope note: This page summarizes the court’s decision in Tucson Estates Property Owners Association, Inc. v. McGovern regarding unilateral fee clauses in CC&Rs and mandatory litigation costs under Arizona law. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A) permits but does not mandate an award of attorney fees to a prevailing party when the contract contains a unilateral fee provision favoring only the other party. However, A.R.S. § 12-341 mandatorily requires that the successful party in a civil action recover their costs.

Case Participants

Respondent Side

  • Holly A. McGovern (Defendant / Appellant)
    Tucson Estates homeowner
  • Tucson Estates Property Owners Association, Inc. v. McGovern, Sines (Defendant / Appellant)
    Tucson Estates homeowner who replaced the shed

Neutral Parties

  • Judge Miller (Appellate Judge)
    Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two
    Author of the appellate opinion
  • Presiding Judge Vásquez (Appellate Judge)
    Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two
    Concurred in the appellate opinion
  • Chief Judge Eckerstrom (Appellate Judge)
    Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two
    Concurred in the appellate opinion
  • Richard S. Fields (Trial Judge)
    Superior Court in Pima County
    Presided over the trial court proceedings

What happened

In 2012, McGovern and Sines purchased property in Tucson Estates with an existing 35-year-old shed.

Sines submitted a change request to replace the shed and received verbal approval from a TEPOA inspector; TEPOA failed to send their written denial form.

Sines completed the shed, and more than a year later TEPOA sent a letter alleging a violation of the CC&Rs.

Sines corresponded with TEPOA and ultimately moved the shed to the cement pad where the original shed had stood.

TEPOA sued the homeowners seeking an injunction, liquidated damages, and attorney fees for breach of contract.

The trial court denied TEPOA’s injunction, vacated the fines, and ordered both sides to bear their own fees and costs.

The homeowners appealed the denial of attorney fees under A.R.S. § 12-341.01 and sanctions under A.R.S. § 12-349, and the denial of costs under A.R.S. § 12-341.

The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of attorney fees but reversed the denial of trial court costs.

Video overview of the case record

An AI-generated video overview of Tucson Estates Property Owners Association, Inc. v. McGovern (2 CA-CV 2015-0069 (Ariz. Ct. App.)). Unilateral CC&R fee provisions do not mandate reciprocal fee awards under A.R.S. 12-341.01(A). This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own records control.

Listen: audio deep dive on the case record

An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the case record in Tucson Estates Property Owners Association, Inc. v. McGovern. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked records below.

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

Procedural timeline

Step 2016-01-15 The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two, files its opinion in the case.

Complete source-document index

This index contains 1 PDF, 1 other source file from the reviewed public source packet. Byte-identical copies are listed once. Files are ordered by the date and sequence in the public filename, and party filings or research materials are labeled separately from court rulings.

FAQ

Are reciprocal attorney fees mandatory when CC&Rs contain a unilateral fee provision?

No. The Arizona Court of Appeals held that A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A) permits but does not mandate an award of attorney fees to a prevailing homeowner when the CC&Rs unilaterally grant fees only to the association.

Is a trial court required to award litigation costs to the successful party under Arizona law?

Yes. Under A.R.S. § 12-341, the successful party to a civil action is entitled to recover all expended or incurred costs, and the court has no discretion to deny costs once the successful party is identified.

What was the core dispute in the Tucson Estates case?

The dispute began when homeowners replaced and relocated a 35-year-old shed after receiving verbal approval. The HOA later sued for an injunction to remove the shed, alleging a violation of the CC&Rs, and sought fines and attorney fees.

Why did the HOA lose its claims in the trial court?

The trial court found that the homeowners relied on actual or implicit approval to build. The court denied the injunction because the HOA delayed over a year in giving notice of violation and failed to send its written rejection form.

Were sanctions awarded against the HOA for bringing the lawsuit?

No. The homeowners sought attorney fees as a sanction under A.R.S. § 12-349, but the court denied them because there was conflicting evidence regarding notice of plan denial, showing the claim was not groundless or in bad faith.

Case Dossier

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

Case Summary

Case ID / citation2 CA-CV 2015-0069 (Ariz. Ct. App.)
Court / tribunalCourt of Appeals
Decision / key dateJanuary 15, 2016
Judge / panelJudge Miller, Presiding Judge Vásquez, Chief Judge Eckerstrom
PartiesPlaintiff/Appellee Tucson Estates Property Owners Association, Inc. v. Defendants/Appellants Holly A. McGovern and Tucson Estates Property Owners Association, Inc. v. McGovern, Sines
Governing law
  • A.R.S. § 12-341.01
  • A.R.S. § 12-341
  • A.R.S. § 12-349
Topics
CC&RsArchitectural ReviewAttorney FeesFines
Outcome / holding

A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A) permits but does not mandate an award of attorney fees to a prevailing party when the contract contains a unilateral fee provision favoring only the other party. However, A.R.S. § 12-341 mandatorily requires that the successful party in a civil action recover their costs.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package1 PDF, 1 other source file
Step-by-step docket roadmap1 roadmap entry
Video overviewTucson Estates Property Owners Association, Inc. v. McGovern
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links0 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Tucson Estates Property Owners Association (TEPOA) sued homeowners Holly McGovern and Donald Sines after they replaced a 35-year-old shed, seeking an injunction, fines, and attorney fees. The trial court found the homeowners relied on verbal or implicit approval, denied TEPOA's requests, and vacated all fines, but ordered each party to bear their own fees and costs. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of attorney fees under A.R.S. § 12-341.01, ruling that unilateral contractual fee clauses do not mandate reciprocal fee awards for prevailing homeowners. However, the court reversed the denial of costs, holding that costs under A.R.S. § 12-341 are mandatory for the successful party.

Key Issues & Findings

The court analyzed A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A) and found that its plain language states courts 'may' award fees in contract actions, but does not mandate equity or reciprocity where the contract's unilateral terms favor only one party. Any correction to asymmetrical statutory treatment of parties must come from the legislature. For litigation costs, the court found that A.R.S. § 12-341 uses mandatory language ('shall recover'), and because the homeowners completely defeated all of TEPOA's claims, they were the sole successful party and were entitled to costs as a matter of law.

Why It Matters

This case clarifies that unilateral attorney fees provisions in HOA CC&Rs do not establish a mandatory right to reciprocal fees for homeowners under A.R.S. § 12-341.01, keeping such awards discretionary. Importantly, it emphasizes that trial courts have no discretion to deny litigation costs to a fully successful party under A.R.S. § 12-341.

← Back to Court of Appeals cases

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

Posted on by

FDCPA / Judgment Renewal Allegations

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

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

Download complaint Download answer FAQ

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

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

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

The takeaway

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

Public-interest record: serious allegations, no adjudicated wrongdoing

What Reed alleged

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

What CHDB answered

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

How it ended

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

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

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

Respondent Side

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

Neutral Parties

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

What happened

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

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

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

Video overview of the case record

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

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

Listen: audio deep dive on the case record

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

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

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

Litigation record

Step 2 2026-02-02

Answer filed denying liability and asserting defenses.

Filed by: CHDB

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

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

Notice of settlement filed.

Filed by: Parties

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

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

Complete source-document index

This index contains 3 PDFs from the reviewed public source packet. Byte-identical copies are listed once. Files are ordered by the date and sequence in the public filename, and party filings or research materials are labeled separately from court rulings.

Source 3 2026-05-14

Notice Of Settlement

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

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

FAQ

Did the court find CHDB liable in Reed?

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

Why publish a settled allegation case?

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

Can this page say CHDB acted unlawfully?

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

What should homeowners learn from it?

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

Primary sources

Case Dossier

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

Case Summary

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

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

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

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

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

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

Key Issues & Findings

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

Why It Matters

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

← Back to Federal Court cases

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

Posted on by

HOA Summary Judgment | CV2004-092611

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

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

Download ruling

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

Scope note: This page covers Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corp. v. Gary Tibshraeny (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2004-092611) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s collected minute entries through 2005-03-10; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: later filings, satisfaction history, appeals, and the formal written orders referenced by the minutes may not be included in these records. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The sourced disposition is limited: summary judgment was granted and fees were found reasonable, with no substantive analysis in the collected entries.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

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

Respondent Side

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

Neutral Parties

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

What happened

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

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

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

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

Video overview of the case record

An AI-generated video overview of Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corp. v. Gary Tibshraeny (CV2004-092611 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). Tempe Gardens obtained summary judgment and a reasonable-fee finding in a thin minute-entry record. This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own ruling controls.

Listen: audio deep dive on the case record

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

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

Procedural timeline

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

Complete source-document index

This index contains 2 PDFs from the reviewed public source packet. Byte-identical copies are listed once. Files are ordered by the date and sequence in the public filename, and party filings or research materials are labeled separately from court rulings.

Source 1 2005-01-05

Oral Argument Set

Type: Court/source PDF

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

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

Oral Argument

Type: Court/source PDF

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

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

FAQ

What did the superior court decide?

It granted the association’s motion for summary judgment.

Is this superior-court ruling precedent?

No. It binds the parties in this case but is useful only as a public record of how this dispute was handled.

Does the page summarize addresses or unit numbers?

No. Residential addresses and unit identifiers from the minute entries are intentionally omitted.

Who was the association party?

The association party identified in the collected court records was Tempe Gardens Townhouse Corp..

Does this replace legal advice?

No. This is an educational case guide based on public minute entries, not legal advice.

Case Dossier

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

Case Summary

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

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

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

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

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

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

Key Issues & Findings

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

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

Why It Matters

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

← Back to Superior Court cases

Hilton Casitas Council Of Co-owners v. R L Whitmer: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on by

Receivership & Post-Judgment Motions | CV2015-053091

The collected entries show dismissal of a Hilton Casitas receivership case and later denial of Rule 60 efforts to unwind judgments.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Hilton Casitas Council Of Co-owners v. R L Whitmer, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2015-053091.

Download ruling

Current-status note: This page is published as a litigation record based on the source files available through 2026-03-30. Later filings, appeals, mandates, settlements, or dismissal orders may change the posture; the linked court records control.

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

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

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

Scope note: This page covers Hilton Casitas Council Of Co-owners v. R L Whitmer (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2015-053091) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s collected minute entries through 2026-03-30; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: later filings, satisfaction history, appeals, and the formal written orders referenced by the minutes may not be included in these records. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The sourced record is procedural: dismissal and post-judgment denial, not a detailed interpretation of HOA governing documents.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Procaccianti Az Ii, L P (Intervenor)
    Listed in the court party records as intervenor. Court party records list counsel as Dina Aouad.
  • Colleen London (Plaintiff)
    Listed in the court party records as plaintiff. Court party records list counsel as Ross Meyer.
  • Diana R Shaffer (Plaintiff)
    Listed in the court party records as plaintiff. Court party records list counsel as Robert Porter.
  • R L Whitmer (Plaintiff)
    Opposing homeowner or property-side party identified in the case caption. Court party records list counsel as Ross Meyer.

Respondent Side

  • Zadok Eli (Consolidated)
    Listed in the court party records as consolidated.
  • Hilton Casitas Council Of Co-owners (Defendant)
    Association party in the HOA-related dispute.
  • Hilton Casitas Council Of Homeowners (Defendant)
    Listed in the court party records as defendant. Court party records list counsel as R Hill.
  • City Of Scottsdale (Garnishee Defendant)
    Listed in the court party records as garnishee defendant.
  • Jpmorgan Chase Bank N A (Garnishee Defendant)
    Listed in the court party records as garnishee defendant.

Neutral Parties

  • Hon. Susan M. Brnovich (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.
  • Hon. John R. Hannah Jr (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.
  • Hon. Theodore Campagnolo (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.
  • Hon. Melissa Iyer Julian (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.

What happened

The case involved a request for receivership relief against Hilton Casitas and related defendants.

After oral argument in January 2016, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, denied the request for an evidentiary hearing, and found in favor of the defendants on the receivership application.

The post-judgment docket later became part of consolidated Rule 60 proceedings. In August 2019, the court denied Rule 60(d)(3) and Rule 60(b)(6) relief, denied motions to vacate judgments, and found attorneys’ fees under A.R.S. § 12-349 appropriate.

Later entries reflect additional post-judgment requests and record-correction issues, but the collected minutes do not supply a fresh merits ruling on association governance.

Procedural timeline

Step 2015-09-09 IT IS ORDERED granting Intervenor Procaccianti AZ II, L.
Step 2015-09-28 IT IS ORDERED granting the Motion to Intervene.
Step 2015-10-05 IT IS ORDERED Procaccianti AZ II, L.
Step 2016-01-12 IT IS ORDERED setting Oral Argument on Plaintiff’s Request for Evidentiary Hearing on Receivership Application and Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on January 15, 2016 at 1:30 p.
Step 2016-01-15 IT IS ORDERED the motion for new trial is denied.
Step 2016-06-06 Minute entry filed.
Step 2016-07-25 IT IS ORDERED Plaintiffs' Motion to Vacate Judgment is denied.
Step 2016-12-05 the Court finds that they are not entitled to such an order so long as the amount of the bond remains at issue.
Step 2019-06-10 IT IS ORDERED granting the Motion, all in accordance with the formal written Order Discharging Garnishee (Non-Earnings) signed by the court on June 7, 2019 and entered (filed) by the clerk on June 10, 2019.
Step 2019-06-13 IT IS ORDERED denying the Motion to Consolidate Cases, without prejudice to Plaintiff re-filing a motion to consolidate that contains sufficient bases for the Court to determine if consolidation is appropriate.
Step 2019-07-17 IT IS ORDERED setting a telephonic Scheduling Conference for the purpose of setting briefing deadlines and an oral argument date regarding Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b)(6) and (d)(3) Motions to Vacate Judgment and Request for a New Trial on August 7, 2019 at 10:45 a.
Step 2019-08-07 IT IS ORDERED setting Oral Argument on Plaintiffs’ Rule 60 (b)(6) and (d)(3) Motions to Vacate Judgment and Request for New Trial on August 22, 2019 at 10:00 a.

Complete source-document index

This index contains 26 PDFs from the reviewed public source packet. Byte-identical copies are listed once. Files are ordered by the date and sequence in the public filename, and party filings or research materials are labeled separately from court rulings.

Source 1 2015-09-09

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2015-09-09_001_ruling.pdf
Source 2 2015-09-28

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2015-09-28_002_minute-entry.pdf
Source 3 2015-10-05

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2015-10-05_003_minute-entry.pdf
Source 4 2016-01-12

Oral Argument Set

Type: Court/source PDF

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file
2016-01-12_004_oral-argument-set.pdf
Source 5 2016-01-15

Oral Argument

Type: Court/source PDF

Minute entry granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss, denying a receivership evidentiary hearing, and finding for Hilton Casitas and Procaccianti on the receivership application.

Download source file
2016-01-15_005_oral-argument.pdf
Source 6 2016-06-06

Oral Argument

Type: Court/source PDF

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file
2016-06-06_006_oral-argument.pdf
Source 7 2016-07-25

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2016-07-25_007_minute-entry.pdf
Source 8 2016-12-05

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2016-12-05_008_minute-entry.pdf
Source 9 2019-06-10

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2019-06-10_009_minute-entry.pdf
Source 10 2019-06-13

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2019-06-13_010_minute-entry.pdf
Source 11 2019-07-17

Oral Argument

Type: Court/source PDF

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file
2019-07-17_011_oral-argument.pdf
Source 12 2019-08-07

Oral Argument

Type: Court/source PDF

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file
2019-08-07_012_oral-argument.pdf
Source 13 2019-08-22

Oral Argument

Type: Court/source PDF

Minute entry denying Rule 60(d)(3) and Rule 60(b)(6) relief and finding attorneys’ fees under A.R.S. § 12-349 appropriate.

Download source file
2019-08-22_013_oral-argument.pdf
Source 14 2022-08-17

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2022-08-17_014_minute-entry.pdf
Source 15 2022-08-17

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2022-08-17_015_minute-entry.pdf
Source 16 2023-01-25

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2023-01-25_016_minute-entry.pdf
Source 17 2023-02-03

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2023-02-03_017_minute-entry.pdf
Source 18 2023-05-11

Oral Argument

Type: Court/source PDF

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file
2023-05-11_018_oral-argument.pdf
Source 19 2023-08-07

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2023-08-07_019_minute-entry.pdf
Source 20 2023-10-11

Oral Argument

Type: Court/source PDF

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file
2023-10-11_020_oral-argument.pdf
Source 21 2023-10-11

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2023-10-11_021_minute-entry.pdf
Source 22 2023-10-20

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2023-10-20_022_minute-entry.pdf
Source 23 2024-01-04

Status Conference

Type: Court/source PDF

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file
2024-01-04_023_status-conference.pdf
Source 24 2024-06-03

Status Conference

Type: Court/source PDF

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file
2024-06-03_024_status-conference.pdf
Source 25 2026-01-26

Oral Argument

Type: Court/source PDF

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file
2026-01-26_025_oral-argument.pdf
Source 26 2026-03-30

Oral Argument

Type: Court/source PDF

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file
2026-03-30_026_oral-argument.pdf

FAQ

What did the superior court decide?

It dismissed the receivership case and later denied Rule 60 relief.

Is this superior-court ruling precedent?

No. It binds the parties in this case but is useful only as a public record of how this dispute was handled.

Does the page summarize addresses or unit numbers?

No. Residential addresses and unit identifiers from the minute entries are intentionally omitted.

Who was the association party?

The association party identified in the collected court records was Hilton Casitas Council Of Co-owners.

Does this replace legal advice?

No. This is an educational case guide based on public minute entries, not legal advice.

Case Dossier

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

Case Summary

Case ID / citationCV2015-053091 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateJanuary 15, 2016
Judge / panelHon. Melissa Iyer Julian, Hon. John R. Hannah Jr, Hon. Theodore Campagnolo, Hon. Susan M. Brnovich
PartiesR.L. Whitmer and other plaintiffs v. Hilton Casitas Council of Co-Owners and other defendants
Governing law
  • A.R.S. § 12-349
Topics
ProcedureAttorney FeesBoard Governance
Outcome / holding

The court dismissed the receivership case, denied the receivership hearing request, denied later Rule 60 efforts to vacate judgments, and awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees rather than double damages or other sanctions.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package26 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap12 roadmap entries
Video overviewTemporarily unavailable while the expanded case record is reviewed
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, denied an evidentiary hearing on a receivership application, and found in favor of Procaccianti and Hilton Casitas on the receivership application. Later, in consolidated post-judgment proceedings, the court denied Rule 60 relief and found an award of attorneys’ fees under A.R.S. § 12-349 appropriate.

Key Issues & Findings

The January 2016 minute entry records oral argument on the defendants’ motion to dismiss and the plaintiffs’ request for an evidentiary hearing on a receivership application. The court granted dismissal, denied the hearing request, and found in favor of the defendants on the receivership application.

The later post-judgment record shows repeated attempts to vacate judgments across related cases. In August 2019, after consolidated briefing and argument, the court denied Rule 60(d)(3) and Rule 60(b)(6) relief, denied the motion to vacate judgments and request to vacate trial, and found attorneys’ fees under A.R.S. § 12-349 appropriate.

Later entries continued to reject attempts to reopen or expand post-judgment proceedings. The collected entries do not provide a full merits explanation for the original dismissal ruling.

Why It Matters

This is a standard procedural record of an HOA-adjacent receivership and post-judgment attack. It is useful for tracking litigation history, but not a must-read HOA merits ruling because the core dismissal reasoning is mostly on the oral record rather than in the minute text.

← Back to Superior Court cases

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

Posted on by

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

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

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

Download ruling

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

Scope note: This page covers Paloma Paseo Homeowners Association v. David Falk (Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2018-000421) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s collected minute entries through 2019-01-14; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: later filings, satisfaction history, appeals, and the formal written orders referenced by the minutes may not be included in these records. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

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

Case Participants

Respondent Side

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

Neutral Parties

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

What happened

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

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

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

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

Video overview of the case record

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

Listen: audio deep dive on the case record

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

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

Procedural timeline

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

Complete source-document index

This index contains 2 PDFs from the reviewed public source packet. Byte-identical copies are listed once. Files are ordered by the date and sequence in the public filename, and party filings or research materials are labeled separately from court rulings.

Source 1 2018-11-19

Oral Argument

Type: Court/source PDF

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

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

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2019-01-14_002_ruling.pdf

FAQ

What did the superior court decide?

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

Is this superior-court ruling precedent?

No. It binds the parties in this case but is useful only as a public record of how this dispute was handled.

Does the page summarize addresses or unit numbers?

No. Residential addresses and unit identifiers from the minute entries are intentionally omitted.

Who was the association party?

The association party identified in the collected court records was Paloma Paseo Homeowners Association.

Does this replace legal advice?

No. This is an educational case guide based on public minute entries, not legal advice.

Case Dossier

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

Case Summary

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

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

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

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

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

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

Key Issues & Findings

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

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

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

Why It Matters

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

← Back to Superior Court cases

Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association v. John Dickerson: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on by

Architectural Enforcement & Fees | CV2005-012018

Mountain Vista Ranch received a small judgment, but the court denied attorney fees after the garage repair was completed before service.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association v. John Dickerson, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2005-012018.

Download ruling

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

Scope note: This page covers Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association v. John Dickerson (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2005-012018) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s collected minute entries through 2006-06-08; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: later filings, satisfaction history, appeals, and the formal written orders referenced by the minutes may not be included in these records. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

Winning a small enforcement balance does not guarantee attorney fees; the court treated fees as discretionary and focused on the fact that the core repair issue was already resolved.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

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

Respondent Side

  • Holly Dickerson (Defendant)
    Listed in the court party records as defendant.
  • John Dickerson (Defendant)
    Opposing homeowner or property-side party identified in the case caption.

Neutral Parties

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

What happened

Mountain Vista Ranch sued over a garage-repair dispute and related charges. The first collected ruling said the garage had been fixed before service of the lawsuit and that the only apparent remaining issue was attorney fees.

The court declined sanctions and later considered the association’s motion for reconsideration and clarification.

On June 8, 2006, the court denied attorney fees as a discretionary matter. It explained that the main thrust of the case had been accomplished before service and that the owners admitted the late-fee, fine, and NSF obligations.

The court entered judgment for $454.00, with interest, and signed the minute entry as a formal order.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association v. John Dickerson (CV2005-012018 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). The court entered $454 for late fees, fines, and NSF charges but denied association attorney fees. This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own ruling controls.

Listen: audio deep dive on the ruling

An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the court’s reasoning and disposition in Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association v. John Dickerson. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

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

Procedural timeline

Step 2006-03-17 IT IS ORDERED placing this matter on the Inactive Calendar for dismissal on April 17, 2006 without further notice, unless prior thereto a stipulation to dismiss is received.
Step 2006-04-21 Minute entry filed.
Step 2006-04-24 IT IS ORDERED dismissing this cause without prejudice.
Step 2006-05-15 Minute entry filed.
Step 2006-06-08 IT IS ORDERED GRANTING Plaintiff judgment against John Dickerson and Holly Dickerson, husband and wife, in the sum of $454.

Complete source-document index

This index contains 5 PDFs from the reviewed public source packet. Byte-identical copies are listed once. Files are ordered by the date and sequence in the public filename, and party filings or research materials are labeled separately from court rulings.

Source 1 2006-03-17

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

Ruling placing the case on the inactive calendar after finding the garage was fixed before service and declining sanctions.

Download source file
2006-03-17_001_ruling.pdf
Source 2 2006-04-21

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2006-04-21_002_ruling.pdf
Source 3 2006-04-24

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2006-04-24_003_minute-entry.pdf
Source 4 2006-05-15

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2006-05-15_004_minute-entry.pdf
Source 5 2006-06-08

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

Ruling entering $454.00 judgment for Mountain Vista Ranch while denying attorney fees as discretionary.

Download source file
2006-06-08_005_ruling.pdf

FAQ

What did the superior court decide?

It entered a $454.00 judgment for charges but denied the association’s attorney-fee request.

Is this superior-court ruling precedent?

No. It binds the parties in this case but is useful only as a public record of how this dispute was handled.

Does the page summarize addresses or unit numbers?

No. Residential addresses and unit identifiers from the minute entries are intentionally omitted.

Who was the association party?

The association party identified in the collected court records was Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association.

Does this replace legal advice?

No. This is an educational case guide based on public minute entries, not legal advice.

Case Dossier

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

Case Summary

Case ID / citationCV2005-012018 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateJune 8, 2006
Judge / panelHon. Barry
PartiesMountain Vista Ranch Owners Association (Plaintiff) v. John and Holly Dickerson (Defendants)
Topics
Architectural ReviewFinesAttorney FeesProcedure
Outcome / holding

The court granted Mountain Vista Ranch judgment for $454.00 but denied attorney fees because the main repair issue had been resolved before service and the owners did not dispute the late-fee, fine, and NSF obligations.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package5 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap5 roadmap entries
Video overviewMountain Vista Ranch Owners Association v. John Dickerson
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

In a garage-repair enforcement case, the court found the garage was fixed before service and declined sanctions and attorney fees. On reconsideration, it entered judgment for $454.00 in late fees, fines, and NSF charges with interest, while explaining that fees were discretionary and not appropriate on this record.

Key Issues & Findings

The first collected ruling stated that the only remaining issue appeared to be attorney fees and that the garage had been fixed before service of the lawsuit. The court declined sanctions and placed the case on the inactive calendar.

On reconsideration and clarification, the court explained that attorney-fee awards were discretionary. It found denial appropriate because the main thrust of the lawsuit, repair of the garage, had been accomplished before service, and the owners admitted the late-fee, fine, and NSF obligations.

The court calculated $24.00 in late fees, $405.00 in fines, and $25.00 in NSF charges, totaling $454.00, and signed the minute entry as a formal order.

Why It Matters

This is a useful but nonprecedential reminder that even when an association wins a small enforcement judgment, the court may still deny attorney fees as a matter of discretion when the core violation was fixed before service.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Edet Effiong Asuquo v. La Fuente Condominium Association: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on by

Condo Maintenance Settlement | Rule 80 | CV2019-015684

A condominium owner’s roof and HVAC claims against La Fuente ended when the court enforced a signed Rule 80 settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Edet Effiong Asuquo v. La Fuente Condominium Association, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2019-015684.

Download ruling

Current-status note: This page is published as a litigation record based on the source files available through 2026-03-06. Later filings, appeals, mandates, settlements, or dismissal orders may change the posture; the linked court records control.

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

Scope note: This page covers Edet Effiong Asuquo v. La Fuente Condominium Association (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2019-015684) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s collected minute entries through 2026-03-06; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: later filings, satisfaction history, appeals, and the formal written orders referenced by the minutes may not be included in these records. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

A signed Rule 80 settlement can be enforced even if the parties expected to prepare a later formal document. Once the case was dismissed with prejudice, later settlement disputes had to follow the settlement’s own dispute-resolution path.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Edet Effiong Asuquo (Plaintiff)
    Listed in the court party records as plaintiff.

Respondent Side

  • La Fuente Condominium Association (Defendant)
    Listed in the court party records as defendant. Court party records list counsel as Jonathan Wallack.

Neutral Parties

  • Hon. James D. Smith (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.
  • Hon. James Smith (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.
  • Hon. Scott Minder (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.

What happened

The owner sued La Fuente over a series of condominium maintenance disagreements. The court first required a clearer pleading, then dismissed all claims except the alleged failure to properly level the roof beneath the owner’s HVAC unit around September 2015.

After arbitration and trial scheduling, the parties attended a settlement conference and signed an Agreement Between the Parties Pursuant to Rule 80(a). The owner later argued no enforceable settlement existed.

The court held an evidentiary hearing and found a binding settlement. It rejected arguments based on separate rooms at the settlement conference, the absence of a later formal settlement document, lack of association-member notice, and alleged coercion by the judge pro tempore.

The settlement order dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice and required La Fuente, through its insurance carrier, to pay the owner $10,000 within ten days of the order. It assigned future responsibility for the HVAC/heat pump equipment servicing only the unit to the owner, and left La Fuente responsible for common elements and general common elements as defined in the CC&Rs. Later efforts to reopen or enforce the settlement in the closed case were denied.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Edet Effiong Asuquo v. La Fuente Condominium Association (CV2019-015684 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). The court enforced a Rule 80 settlement resolving roof and HVAC claims against La Fuente. This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own ruling controls.

Listen: audio deep dive on the ruling

An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the court’s reasoning and disposition in Edet Effiong Asuquo v. La Fuente Condominium Association. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

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

Procedural timeline

Step 2020-06-09 The court dismissed all claims except the alleged September 2015 roof/HVAC leveling claim.
Step 2021-08-31 The court found the parties had an enforceable Rule 80 settlement agreement.
Step 2021-09-02 The court adopted the settlement terms and dismissed the case with prejudice.
Step 2022-04-01 The court denied a Rule 60-style request for relief from judgment.
Step 2026-03-06 The court denied a later motion to enforce or rescind settlement terms in the closed case.

Complete source-document index

This index contains 37 PDFs from the reviewed public source packet. Byte-identical copies are listed once. Files are ordered by the date and sequence in the public filename, and party filings or research materials are labeled separately from court rulings.

Source 1 2020-04-22

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2020-04-22_001_minute-entry.pdf
Source 2 2020-06-09

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

Ruling granting La Fuente’s renewed motion to dismiss in part and leaving only the alleged September 2015 roof/HVAC leveling claim.

Download source file
2020-06-09_002_minute-entry.pdf
Source 3 2020-06-30

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2020-06-30_003_minute-entry.pdf
Source 4 2020-07-15

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2020-07-15_004_minute-entry.pdf
Source 5 2020-08-17

Default Judgment

Type: Decision or judgment

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

Download source file
2020-08-17_005_default-judgment.pdf
Source 6 2020-09-16

Default Judgment

Type: Decision or judgment

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

Download source file
2020-09-16_006_default-judgment.pdf
Source 7 2020-12-03

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2020-12-03_007_minute-entry.pdf
Source 8 2020-12-03

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2020-12-03_008_minute-entry.pdf
Source 9 2021-01-04

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2021-01-04_009_minute-entry.pdf
Source 10 2021-01-04

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2021-01-04_010_minute-entry.pdf
Source 11 2021-01-08

Status Conference

Type: Court/source PDF

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file
2021-01-08_011_status-conference.pdf
Source 12 2021-02-01

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2021-02-01_012_minute-entry.pdf
Source 13 2021-02-02

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2021-02-02_013_ruling.pdf
Source 14 2021-04-09

Oral Argument

Type: Court/source PDF

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file
2021-04-09_014_oral-argument.pdf
Source 15 2021-05-19

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2021-05-19_015_minute-entry.pdf
Source 16 2021-05-21

Oral Argument

Type: Court/source PDF

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file
2021-05-21_016_oral-argument.pdf
Source 17 2021-05-21

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2021-05-21_017_ruling.pdf
Source 18 2021-05-27

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2021-05-27_018_minute-entry.pdf
Source 19 2021-06-08

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2021-06-08_019_minute-entry.pdf
Source 20 2021-06-15

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2021-06-15_020_minute-entry.pdf
Source 21 2021-06-16

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2021-06-16_021_minute-entry.pdf
Source 22 2021-06-17

Status Conference

Type: Court/source PDF

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file
2021-06-17_022_status-conference.pdf
Source 23 2021-06-29

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2021-06-29_023_minute-entry.pdf
Source 24 2021-07-06

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2021-07-06_024_minute-entry.pdf
Source 25 2021-07-12

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2021-07-12_025_minute-entry.pdf
Source 26 2021-07-19

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2021-07-19_026_ruling.pdf
Source 27 2021-07-23

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2021-07-23_027_minute-entry.pdf
Source 28 2021-07-23

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2021-07-23_028_minute-entry.pdf
Source 29 2021-08-23

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2021-08-23_029_minute-entry.pdf
Source 30 2021-08-25

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2021-08-25_030_minute-entry.pdf
Source 31 2021-08-31

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

Ruling finding the parties had a binding Rule 80 settlement agreement after an evidentiary hearing.

Download source file
2021-08-31_031_minute-entry.pdf
Source 32 2021-08-31

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2021-08-31_032_minute-entry.pdf
Source 33 2021-09-02

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

Ruling adopting the settlement terms, dismissing the case with prejudice, and entering a Rule 54(c) final order.

Download source file
2021-09-02_033_minute-entry.pdf
Source 34 2022-02-10

Judgment Entered

Type: Decision or judgment

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

Download source file
2022-02-10_034_judgment-entered.pdf
Source 35 2022-04-01

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

Ruling denying the owner’s Rule 60-style request for relief from the settlement judgment.

Download source file
2022-04-01_035_minute-entry.pdf
Source 36 2024-12-12

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2024-12-12_036_minute-entry.pdf
Source 37 2026-03-06

Judgment Entered

Type: Decision or judgment

Ruling denying the owner’s motion to enforce or rescind settlement terms in the closed case.

Download source file
2026-03-06_037_judgment-entered.pdf

FAQ

What did the superior court decide?

It enforced the parties’ settlement agreement — under which La Fuente, through its insurer, paid the owner $10,000 and the owner took over servicing the HVAC/heat-pump equipment for the unit — and dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice.

Is this superior-court ruling precedent?

No. It binds the parties in this case but is useful only as a public record of how this dispute was handled.

Does the page summarize addresses or unit numbers?

No. Residential addresses and unit identifiers from the minute entries are intentionally omitted.

Who was the association party?

The association party identified in the collected court records was La Fuente Condominium Association.

Does this replace legal advice?

No. This is an educational case guide based on public minute entries, not legal advice.

Case Dossier

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

Case Summary

Case ID / citationCV2019-015684 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateSeptember 2, 2021
Judge / panelHon. James D. Smith, Hon. James Smith, Hon. Scott Minder
PartiesEdet Effiong Asuquo (Plaintiff) v. La Fuente Condominium Association (Defendant)
Governing law
Topics
CC&RsCovenantsProcedureAttorney FeesCondominiumsPro Se Litigant
Outcome / holding

The court held the signed Rule 80 agreement was an enforceable settlement, adopted its terms as the court’s dismissal order, and later denied post-judgment attempts to avoid or enforce the settlement in the closed case.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package37 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap5 roadmap entries
Video overviewEdet Effiong Asuquo v. La Fuente Condominium Association
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

The court narrowed the owner’s claims to an alleged September 2015 roof/HVAC leveling issue, later found the parties had an enforceable Rule 80 settlement, adopted settlement terms allocating future HVAC responsibility to the owner while preserving La Fuente’s responsibility for common elements, and dismissed the case with prejudice. Later efforts to undo or enforce the settlement in the closed case were denied.

Key Issues & Findings

The June 2020 dismissal ruling applied Arizona pleading and limitations principles and left only one timely contract-type claim: whether La Fuente failed to properly level the roof beneath the owner’s HVAC unit around September 2015.

After the parties attended a settlement conference, the court held an evidentiary hearing and found a binding agreement under Rule 80(a). The court rejected arguments that separate rooms, lack of a later formal signature, lack of member notice, and alleged coercion defeated assent. The September 2021 order adopted the settlement terms, dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice, and entered a Rule 54(c) judgment.

Post-judgment, the court denied a Rule 60-style request and later denied efforts to enforce or revise the settlement in the closed case, noting the settlement directed disputes to the named judge pro tempore and that the superior court had not retained enforcement jurisdiction.

Why It Matters

This case is a practical caution about settlement finality in owner-association maintenance litigation. It is not precedential, but it shows that a signed Rule 80 agreement can end an HOA dispute even when one side later regrets the terms or wants a more formal settlement document.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Doubletree Canyon Homeowners Association v. Teodora Cupes: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on by

Architectural Review | CC&Rs | CV2021-014955

The court granted summary judgment for Doubletree Canyon and ordered owners to correct exterior doors and windows that did not match the approved architectural plan.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Doubletree Canyon Homeowners Association v. Teodora Cupes, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2021-014955.

Download ruling

Scope note: This page covers Doubletree Canyon Homeowners Association v. Teodora Cupes (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2021-014955) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s collected minute entries through 2023-01-20; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: later filings, satisfaction history, appeals, and the formal written orders referenced by the minutes may not be included in these records. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

Architectural-control language can reach the whole exterior improvement when the operative CC&R text is broader than the section heading.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Doubletree Canyon Homeowners Association (Plaintiff)
    Association party in the HOA-related dispute. Court party records list counsel as Curtis Ekmark.

Respondent Side

  • Cipriano Ionutescu (Defendant)
    Listed in the court party records as defendant. Court party records list counsel as John Moore.
  • Teodora Cupes (Defendant)
    Opposing homeowner or property-side party identified in the case caption. Court party records list counsel as John Moore.

Neutral Parties

  • Hon. John R. Hannah Jr (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.
  • Hon. Judge John Hannah (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.
  • Hon. John Hannah (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.

What happened

Doubletree Canyon sued homeowners over exterior doors and windows that did not match the plan submitted to the Architectural Review Committee.

At oral argument on the association’s summary-judgment motion, the court found the property as built was admittedly inconsistent with the CC&Rs because the approved plan showed matching doors and windows.

The court rejected the owners’ interpretation of section 3.2.21. Although the heading referred to window coverings, the operative sentence prohibited reflective material on any improvement without prior written Architectural Review Committee consent.

The court granted summary judgment, gave the owners 90 days to remedy the issue, and required the parties to follow the CC&R approval process for the work to be done. A formal judgment followed in January 2023.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Doubletree Canyon Homeowners Association v. Teodora Cupes (CV2021-014955 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). Nonmatching exterior doors and windows violated the CC&Rs and had to be corrected in 90 days. This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own ruling controls.

Listen: audio deep dive on the ruling

An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the court’s reasoning and disposition in Doubletree Canyon Homeowners Association v. Teodora Cupes. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

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

Procedural timeline

Step 2021-11-01 IT IS ORDERED that no action will be taken by this division on the above-referenced document(s).
Step 2022-03-02 IT IS ORDERED setting a Telephonic Trial Scheduling Conference for the purpose of assigning a trial date on August 9, 2022 at 8:45 a.
Step 2022-03-02 IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall participate in a mandatory settlement conference.
Step 2022-07-12 IT IS ORDERED relieving Mr.
Step 2022-07-13 Minute entry filed.
Step 2022-08-19 IT IS ORDERED setting a virtual Status Conference on September 1, 2022 at 9:30 a.
Step 2022-08-19 IT IS ORDERED setting virtual oral argument on September 7, 2022 at 9:00 a.
Step 2022-09-01 IT IS ORDERED amending the Scheduling Order to extend the deadline for the parties to participate in a settlement conference.
Step 2022-09-07 IT IS ORDERED plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.
Step 2022-11-22 IT IS ORDERED setting virtual oral argument on January 10, 2023 at 9:00 a.
Step 2022-11-28 IT IS ORDERED extending the deadline for replacing the non-compliant windows in the structure from December 7, 2022 to January 15, 2023.
Step 2023-01-10 IT IS ORDERED awarding plaintiff $54,000.

Complete source-document index

This index contains 13 PDFs from the reviewed public source packet. Byte-identical copies are listed once. Files are ordered by the date and sequence in the public filename, and party filings or research materials are labeled separately from court rulings.

Source 1 2021-11-01

Default Judgment

Type: Decision or judgment

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

Download source file
2021-11-01_001_default-judgment.pdf
Source 2 2022-03-02

Oral Argument

Type: Court/source PDF

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file
2022-03-02_002_oral-argument.pdf
Source 3 2022-03-02

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2022-03-02_003_minute-entry.pdf
Source 4 2022-07-12

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2022-07-12_004_minute-entry.pdf
Source 5 2022-07-13

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2022-07-13_005_minute-entry.pdf
Source 6 2022-08-19

Status Conference

Type: Court/source PDF

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file
2022-08-19_006_status-conference.pdf
Source 7 2022-08-19

Oral Argument Set

Type: Court/source PDF

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file
2022-08-19_007_oral-argument-set.pdf
Source 8 2022-09-01

Oral Argument

Type: Court/source PDF

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file
2022-09-01_008_oral-argument.pdf
Source 9 2022-09-07

Oral Argument

Type: Court/source PDF

Ruling granting Doubletree Canyon summary judgment, rejecting the owners’ CC&R interpretation, and ordering correction within 90 days.

Download source file
2022-09-07_009_oral-argument.pdf
Source 10 2022-11-22

Oral Argument Set

Type: Court/source PDF

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file
2022-11-22_010_oral-argument-set.pdf
Source 11 2022-11-28

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2022-11-28_011_minute-entry.pdf
Source 12 2023-01-10

Oral Argument

Type: Court/source PDF

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file
2023-01-10_012_oral-argument.pdf
Source 13 2023-01-20

Judgment Entered

Type: Decision or judgment

Judgment-entry minute granting judgment in favor of Doubletree Canyon under the formal written judgment.

Download source file
2023-01-20_013_judgment-entered.pdf

FAQ

What did the superior court decide?

It granted summary judgment for the association and ordered the exterior mismatch corrected.

Is this superior-court ruling precedent?

No. It binds the parties in this case but is useful only as a public record of how this dispute was handled.

Does the page summarize addresses or unit numbers?

No. Residential addresses and unit identifiers from the minute entries are intentionally omitted.

Who was the association party?

The association party identified in the collected court records was Doubletree Canyon Homeowners Association.

Does this replace legal advice?

No. This is an educational case guide based on public minute entries, not legal advice.

Case Dossier

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

Case Summary

Case ID / citationCV2021-014955 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateSeptember 7, 2022
Judge / panelHon. John R. Hannah Jr, Hon. Judge John Hannah, Hon. John Hannah
PartiesDoubletree Canyon Homeowners Association (Plaintiff) v. Teodora Cupes and Cipriano Ionutescu (Defendants)
Topics
Architectural ReviewCC&RsCovenantsProcedureAttorney Fees
Outcome / holding

The court granted the association’s summary-judgment motion, held that the CC&R prohibition on reflective materials applied beyond window coverings to exterior building surfaces including doors, and ordered the owners to correct the nonmatching windows and doors through the CC&R approval process.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package13 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap12 roadmap entries
Video overviewDoubletree Canyon Homeowners Association v. Teodora Cupes
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

The court granted Doubletree Canyon summary judgment in an architectural-control dispute. It found the property was admittedly in violation because the approved plan showed matching doors and windows but the installed doors and windows did not match, rejected the owners’ narrow reading of CC&R section 3.2.21, and ordered the owners to remedy the issue within 90 days.

Key Issues & Findings

The court began from the undisputed condition of the property: the plan submitted to the Architectural Review Committee showed matching doors and windows, but the installed doors and windows did not match. That mismatch made the property noncompliant.

The owners argued that CC&R section 3.2.21 was limited by its heading, “Window Coverings.” The court rejected that interpretation because the second sentence barred reflective material on any “Improvement” without prior written Architectural Review Committee consent. The court read “Improvement” to include the building itself, so the restriction applied to exterior surfaces including doors.

The remedy was prospective and compliance-focused. The owners received 90 days to fix the nonmatching doors and windows and had to follow the CC&R approval process by submitting materials to the Architectural Review Committee.

Why It Matters

This is must-read for architectural-review disputes because it applies CC&R text to an exterior-material dispute and shows that a section heading may not confine broader operative language. It also shows how a court can order a practical compliance remedy rather than only damages.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Camelback House Homeowners Association INC v. Marc Secter: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on by

Condo Assessment Foreclosure | A.R.S. § 33-1256 | CV2013-095878

The court treated A.R.S. § 33-1256(A) as a foreclosure trigger once the condominium owner was delinquent for more than twelve months and more than $1,200.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Camelback House Homeowners Association INC v. Marc Secter, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2013-095878.

Download ruling

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

Scope note: This page covers Camelback House Homeowners Association INC v. Marc Secter (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2013-095878) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s collected minute entries through 2015-12-14; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: later filings, satisfaction history, appeals, and the formal written orders referenced by the minutes may not be included in these records. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

A condominium association can survive dismissal and obtain summary judgment when the recorded CC&Rs impose assessment obligations and the A.R.S. § 33-1256(A) delinquency threshold is met.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Camelback House Homeowners Association INC (Plaintiff)
    Association party in the HOA-related dispute. Court party records list counsel as Mark Waldron.

Respondent Side

  • Marc Secter (Defendant)
    Opposing homeowner or property-side party identified in the case caption.

Neutral Parties

  • Hon. David (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.
  • Hon. John Rea (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.

What happened

Camelback House sued Marc Secter over unpaid condominium assessments. The owner first moved to dismiss, arguing the complaint failed to state a claim.

In September 2014, the court denied dismissal. It found the complaint alleged a history of nonpayment and that A.R.S. § 33-1256(A) allows a condominium association to exercise foreclosure rights when the statutory delinquency threshold is met.

In May 2015, after oral argument on the association’s summary-judgment motion, the court found the Camelback House CC&Rs applied to the owner, required payment of assessments and charges, and supported late fees, costs, and attorney fees.

The court found the owner remained $3,237.00 in arrears, had been delinquent for more than twelve months and more than $1,200, and granted summary judgment. The June 2015 minute entry granted the association’s fee application and entered final judgment.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Camelback House Homeowners Association INC v. Marc Secter (CV2013-095878 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). A condo association could foreclose once A.R.S. § 33-1256 delinquency thresholds were met. This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own ruling controls.

Listen: audio deep dive on the ruling

An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the court’s reasoning and disposition in Camelback House Homeowners Association INC v. Marc Secter. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

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

Procedural timeline

Step 2014-09-16 The court denied the owner’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the association’s assessment-foreclosure claim.
Step 2015-05-15 The court granted Camelback House summary judgment, entered $3,237.00 against the owner, and awarded fees and costs.
Step 2015-06-29 The court granted the association’s fee application and entered final judgment under Rule 54(c).
Step 2015-08-20 The court modified a later order to remove language regarding lien voidance and allowed payoff information to be provided to the title company.

Complete source-document index

This index contains 15 PDFs from the reviewed public source packet. Byte-identical copies are listed once. Files are ordered by the date and sequence in the public filename, and party filings or research materials are labeled separately from court rulings.

Source 1 2014-02-12

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2014-02-12_001_minute-entry.pdf
Source 2 2014-07-09

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2014-07-09_002_minute-entry.pdf
Source 3 2014-07-24

Oral Argument Set

Type: Court/source PDF

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file
2014-07-24_003_oral-argument-set.pdf
Source 4 2014-07-24

Oral Argument

Type: Court/source PDF

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file
2014-07-24_004_oral-argument.pdf
Source 5 2014-09-11

Oral Argument

Type: Court/source PDF

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file
2014-09-11_005_oral-argument.pdf
Source 6 2014-09-16

Under Advisement Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

Under-advisement ruling denying the owner’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion because the complaint stated an A.R.S. § 33-1256 assessment-foreclosure claim.

Download source file
2014-09-16_006_under-advisement-ruling.pdf
Source 7 2015-02-18

Oral Argument Set

Type: Court/source PDF

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file
2015-02-18_007_oral-argument-set.pdf
Source 8 2015-05-08

Oral Argument

Type: Court/source PDF

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file
2015-05-08_008_oral-argument.pdf
Source 9 2015-05-15

Under Advisement Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

Under-advisement ruling granting Camelback House summary judgment, entering $3,237.00 against the owner, and awarding fees and costs.

Download source file
2015-05-15_009_under-advisement-ruling.pdf
Source 10 2015-05-20

Default Judgment

Type: Decision or judgment

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

Download source file
2015-05-20_010_default-judgment.pdf
Source 11 2015-06-29

Judgment Entered

Type: Decision or judgment

Judgment-entry minute granting Camelback House’s fee application and entering final judgment for the association.

Download source file
2015-06-29_011_judgment-entered.pdf
Source 12 2015-08-20

Oral Argument

Type: Court/source PDF

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file
2015-08-20_012_oral-argument.pdf
Source 13 2015-11-30

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2015-11-30_013_minute-entry.pdf
Source 14 2015-12-11

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2015-12-11_014_minute-entry.pdf
Source 15 2015-12-14

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2015-12-14_015_minute-entry.pdf

FAQ

What did the superior court decide?

It granted summary judgment for the association and entered final judgment after finding the statutory foreclosure threshold was met.

Is this superior-court ruling precedent?

No. It binds the parties in this case but is useful only as a public record of how this dispute was handled.

Does the page summarize addresses or unit numbers?

No. Residential addresses and unit identifiers from the minute entries are intentionally omitted.

Who was the association party?

The association party identified in the collected court records was Camelback House Homeowners Association INC.

Does this replace legal advice?

No. This is an educational case guide based on public minute entries, not legal advice.

Case Dossier

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

Case Summary

Case ID / citationCV2013-095878 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateMay 15, 2015
Judge / panelHon. David, Hon. John Rea
PartiesCamelback House Homeowners Association, Inc. (Plaintiff) v. Marc Secter (Defendant)
Governing law
Topics
AssessmentsForeclosureLiensCC&RsAttorney Fees
Outcome / holding

The superior court held that Camelback House stated and proved a foreclosure claim: the owner was delinquent for more than twelve months and more than $1,200, triggering A.R.S. § 33-1256(A), and the association could foreclose on the entirety of its lien and recover fees and costs.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package15 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap4 roadmap entries
Video overviewCamelback House Homeowners Association INC v. Marc Secter
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

The court denied the owner’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion, then granted Camelback House summary judgment on unpaid condominium assessments. The court found the CC&Rs required the owner to pay assessments and charges, found arrears above the A.R.S. § 33-1256(A) foreclosure threshold, entered judgment for $3,237.00, and later awarded fees and final judgment for the association.

Key Issues & Findings

The September 2014 ruling treated the owner’s motion as a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge and accepted the pleaded delinquency allegations. The court noted that A.R.S. § 33-1256(A) allows a condominium association to exercise foreclosure rights when the owner has been delinquent in payment obligations, found the owner had been delinquent for more than one year and more than $1,200, and denied dismissal.

At summary judgment, the court found the recorded Camelback House CC&Rs applied to the owner and required him to pay assessments and charges. It found an undisputed arrearage of $3,237.00 after a payment toward past assessments, held that the statutory delinquency threshold was a triggering mechanism for foreclosure, and concluded there were no genuine issues of material fact. The court entered judgment for the amount owed and awarded attorney fees and costs.

The June 2015 judgment-entry minute then granted the association’s fee application and stated that no further matters remained, making the judgment final under Rule 54(c).

Why It Matters

This is a useful superior-court example of A.R.S. § 33-1256(A) being applied to condominium assessment-lien foreclosure. It is must-read because the court expressly connected the statutory one-year-or-$1,200 delinquency threshold to the association’s foreclosure right and applied the CC&Rs to the owner’s assessment obligations.

← Back to Superior Court cases