Tag Archives: board-governance

The takeaway

Case Participants

What happened

The underlying conflict involved CopperWynd Resort, The Villas at Copperwynd Association, noise issues, resort access, and threatened litigation. Association-side counsel sent communications to association members before a town-hall meeting, enclosing correspondence between the resort side and association side.

Goldman sued over those communications, including claims tied to statements about ethical conduct and a bar complaint. The attorney defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, summary judgment, and sanctions.

On May 30, 2018, the court dismissed the abuse-of-process claim based on Rule 48(l), then held the remaining claims barred by the absolute litigation privilege. The court reasoned that litigation had been threatened, association members had a direct financial stake because association fees, costs, or judgments could affect them, and candid attorney-member communications helped members evaluate the dispute.

The same ruling awarded fees and costs for defending the abuse-of-process count under A.R.S. § 12-349, but denied broader Rule 11 sanctions. The court later granted summary judgment to Brown Community Management, the association, and related defendants on the same privilege theory, denied reconsideration, and limited the final fee award to $10,862.60.

Video overview of the case record

An AI-generated video overview of Goldman v. Sahl / Villas at Copperwynd Association (CV2017-011347 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). HOA counsel’s letters to members about threatened litigation were privileged; sanctions were limited. 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 Goldman v. Sahl / Villas at Copperwynd Association. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked case records below.

Procedural timeline

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

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Key Issues & Findings

The takeaway

Case Participants

What happened

Dynamite Mountain Ranch HOA brought an enforcement case involving alleged home-business activity and related homeowner counterclaims. The court denied the HOA’s early summary-judgment motion because fact issues remained on all claims.

As the evidentiary hearing progressed, the HOA moved to strike based on alleged false statements. The court found false statements in pleadings, an affidavit, deposition testimony, trial testimony, and pre-suit communications with the HOA. It found violations of Rules 11 and 26.1, but declined to strike the counterclaim because it preferred resolving cases on the merits when possible.

The court still awarded the HOA fees and costs tied to investigating and discovering the inaccurate information and litigating the motion to strike. It later clarified that fees would be assessed against Larson too.

The parties then stipulated to a permanent injunction, resolving the non-fee issues. In the final fee ruling, the court found the HOA entitled to fees under the CC&Rs and the sanctions ruling. It noted the HOA requested no less than $141,735.50, but awarded $35,000 after considering the history of the case, possible merit to some homeowner arguments, hardship, burden on HOA members, and deterrence.

Procedural timeline

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

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Key Issues & Findings

The takeaway

Case Participants

What happened

Plaintiffs sought permanent access to their property from Scottsdale Road or Lone Mountain Road and claimed an easement through Bellasera’s gated subdivision and private roads. Their theories included express easement, implied easement, easement by necessity, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and damages for interference with the claimed easements.

On January 7, 2013, the court granted plaintiffs partial summary judgment, finding an easement by necessity. Bellasera moved for reconsideration.

The April 8, 2013 entry set up further briefing and amended pleading on the easement theories. The court directed briefing on whether an additional access way would defeat easement by necessity and whether a recorded plat could grant an express easement when the easement was not reflected in the deed.

On July 10, 2013, the court granted Bellasera’s reconsideration motion. It found that the 1979 deed, preliminary plat, and ambiguous plat language could support plaintiffs’ theory, but the parties’ intent and the existence of outside access remained fact questions. The court concluded the earlier summary judgment was improvidently granted.

In January 2014, while the case was heading toward trial, the parties reached a stipulation tied to a possible Verizon contract. Bellasera agreed to give plaintiffs five business days’ notice before entering such a contract and immediate notice of board approval. The case later settled and was dismissed with prejudice.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Labadi v. Bellasera Community Association (CV2012-050858 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). Bellasera won reconsideration because disputed facts remained over claimed access through its gated roads. 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 Labadi v. Bellasera Community Association. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

Procedural timeline

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

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Key Issues & Findings

The takeaway

Case Participants

What happened

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

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

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

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

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

Procedural timeline

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

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Key Issues & Findings

The takeaway

Case Participants

What happened

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

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

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

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

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

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

Video overview of the case record

An AI-generated video overview of Tapestry on Central LLC v. Tapestry on Central Condominium Association (CV2014-090103 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). CC&R assessment duties survived a parking-agreement defense, but the owner won a larger implied-covenant verdict. This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own ruling controls.

Listen: audio deep dive on the case record

An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the court record and procedural posture in Tapestry on Central LLC v. Tapestry on Central Condominium Association. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked case records below.

Procedural timeline

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

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Key Issues & Findings

The takeaway

Case Participants

What happened

The dispute grew out of a Scottsdale zoning interpretation for resort development within the Troon North community. Troon North Association had requested a zoning administrator interpretation. The Board of Adjustment affirmed that interpretation, and both Troon and MBA Development Partners became involved in superior-court special-action proceedings.

MBA moved to dismiss Troon’s appeal. Judge Randall H. Warner granted that motion on February 15, 2018. The court found Troon acknowledged that, as a property owner, it had no special damage that would give it standing to complain about a zoning decision affecting adjacent property. Because Troon was really trying to represent members’ property interests, the court looked to the CC&Rs and found they did not authorize Troon to file this zoning appeal for members’ collective interests.

The court did not bar Troon from all participation. It allowed Troon to file a brief opposing MBA’s opening brief. Later entries show Troon’s counsel withdrew, new counsel appeared, and the case proceeded on MBA’s statutory special action.

On February 11, 2019, Judge Pamela Gates affirmed the Board of Adjustment. The court held that review under A.R.S. § 9-462.06(K) was limited to the Board record, that the Board’s decision was presumed valid unless unsupported, contrary to law, arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion, and that ordinance interpretation was reviewed de novo. The court accepted jurisdiction and affirmed the Board’s decision upholding the zoning administrator’s resort-unit interpretation.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Troon North Association v. City of Scottsdale (CV2017-015460 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). HOA lacked CC&R authority to appeal a zoning decision for members’ collective property interests. 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 Troon North Association v. City of Scottsdale. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

Procedural timeline

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

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Key Issues & Findings

The takeaway

Case Participants

What happened

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

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

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

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

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

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Lisa Marx v. Fiesta Villas Condominium Association (CV2013-095464 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). Special-declarant rights let 26 condo-unit votes proceed despite unpaid transfer and working-capital fees. This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own ruling controls.

Listen: audio deep dive on the ruling

An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the court’s reasoning and disposition in Lisa Marx v. Fiesta Villas Condominium Association. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

Procedural timeline

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

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Key Issues & Findings

The takeaway

Case Participants

What happened

Foothills Club West is a master planned community with a separate Golf Course Declaration. The Master CC&Rs required 75% owner approval for most amendments, including amendments involving addition or annexation of property. The Golf Course Declaration restricted the golf-course property to golf-course and related uses and allowed the original declarant to transfer declarant rights by recorded instrument.

The association accepted an Assignment of Declarant Rights in 2010. In 2018, the association signed a First Amendment to the Golf Course Declaration adding a process for member approval of a future change from golf use to non-golf use. The Conservancy alleged the association and board members lacked authority to accept those declarant rights, lacked authority to amend the Golf Course Declaration, and used executive sessions in a way that violated Arizona’s planned-community open-meeting statute.

Judge Daniel Kiley first denied the association defendants’ motion to dismiss. The July 1, 2020 ruling held the Conservancy had sufficiently pleaded representational standing, that the golf-course owner was not a basis for dismissal under Rule 19, that A.R.S. § 10-3304 did not bar declaratory relief, and that Paragraph 11.8 of the CC&Rs was broad enough to let owners enforce the governing documents through the Conservancy.

After an evidentiary hearing, Judge Kiley entered a preliminary injunction. The October 30, 2020 ruling found serious questions about whether the board could accept declarant rights and amend the Golf Course Declaration in executive session, and about whether a tract declaration could use a lower amendment threshold than the 75% threshold in the Master Declaration. The injunction barred votes to amend the governing documents to authorize non-golf use or development while the merits were pending.

Judge Andrew Russell later resolved the merits on summary judgment. The March 23, 2021 ruling held that accepting declarant rights effectively brought the golf-course property under association control and therefore required compliance with the Master CC&Rs’ annexation/amendment process. The court also held the association violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 because accepting the assignment and executing amendments occurred in executive session, and executive sessions may not be used for final votes or action.

Final Rule 54(c) judgment was entered November 10, 2021. The judgment declared the Assignment of Declarant Rights, the First Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment null and void ab initio; held Shea Homes did not validly transfer declarant rights to the association; held the association did not become declarant under the Golf Course Declaration; awarded the Conservancy $5,108.83 plus interest; released the injunction bond; and stated no matters remained pending.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Club West Conservancy v. Foothills Club West Community Association (CV2020-003577 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). HOA lacked authority to accept golf-course declarant rights without a 75% CC&R amendment vote. 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 Club West Conservancy v. Foothills Club West Community Association. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

Procedural timeline

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

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Key Issues & Findings

The takeaway

Case Participants

What happened

Joyce Jasper-Burnett sued the Chateau De Vie Four Townhouse Association (the “Association”) and AAM, LLC in Maricopa County Superior Court under 2017 case number CV2017-015815. As reflected in the court’s July 2018 ruling, her complaint included counts for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and equitable estoppel against the Association, and counts for aiding and abetting and negligence against AAM. The collected minute entries do not recite the underlying factual allegations behind those counts.

On April 23, 2018 the defendants jointly moved to dismiss certain counts of the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Judge Randall H. Warner set oral argument for June 27, 2018, noting that the June judicial rotation would move the civil calendar to Judge Pamela Gates. At the June 27 argument, Joseph C. Dolan appeared for the plaintiff and Lydia A. Peirce Linsmeier appeared for the defendants in place of Nicholas C.S. Nogami; Judge Gates took the motion under advisement.

Judge Gates issued the under-advisement ruling on July 18, 2018. Quoting Coleman v. City of Mesa, the court framed the question as whether the facts alleged were sufficient “to warrant allowing the [Plaintiff] to attempt to prove [her] case,” accepting all material facts alleged by the plaintiff as true and permitting dismissal only when a plaintiff “would not be entitled to relief under any interpretation of the facts susceptible of proof.” Applying that standard, the court denied dismissal of Count Three (negligence) and Count Four (equitable estoppel) against the Association and Count One (aiding and abetting) against AAM, but granted dismissal of Count Two — breach of fiduciary duty against the Association and negligence against AAM.

The case then moved toward resolution. In October 2018 the parties jointly asked for a referral to a settlement conference, and at a November 7, 2018 status conference the court granted the request, referring the case to the Superior Court’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Department for appointment of a judge pro tempore to conduct a mandatory settlement conference no later than February 11, 2019. Plaintiff’s counsel confirmed the case was on the arbitration track, and the matter was continued on the dismissal calendar to February 28, 2019.

In February 2019 the parties jointly requested an emergency status conference. At that conference on February 27, 2019, the court found the parties had not knowingly or intentionally waived their right to arbitration and ordered arbitration to proceed. The court-appointed arbitrator, Nicholas C. Abdo, had filed a Notice of Potential Conflict; after the plaintiff’s counsel objected to his continuing, the court excused Mr. Abdo and sent the case to the arbitration desk for appointment of a new arbitrator. The dismissal deadline was extended to August 27, 2019.

Arbitration never ran its course. The parties filed a Notice of Settlement on March 5, 2019, and the next day the court vacated the August dismissal deadline, set the case for dismissal on May 6, 2019 unless a stipulated judgment or stipulation for dismissal was submitted, and deemed all pending motions moot. The collected minute entries end there.

Video overview of the case record

An AI-generated video overview of Joyce Jasper-Burnett v. Chateau De Vie Four Townhouse Association, et al. (CV2017-015815 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). The superior court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss: it dismissed… 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 Joyce Jasper-Burnett v. Chateau De Vie Four Townhouse Association, et al.. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked case records below.

Procedural timeline

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

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Key Issues & Findings

The takeaway

Case Participants

What happened

The dispute grew out of an earlier lawsuit against the association itself. A homeowner in the Sycamore Hills community sued the association in Pima County Superior Court (Zablotny v. Sycamore Hills Estates Homeowner’s Association, No. C20154533), alleging the wrongful and/or unauthorized expenditure of association funds on a property improvement project. The association retained the Phoenix law firm Jones Skelton & Hochuli — through one of its attorneys, Diana Elston — to represent it, including in negotiating a settlement of that dispute. Before the settlement was final, the association brought in a Tucson firm, Goldschmidt Shupe, which took over the final stages of negotiations and completed the settlement on or about March 13, 2017.

Dissatisfied with the settlement, the association sued Jones Skelton & Hochuli in Pima County Superior Court on November 27, 2018 (No. C20185762); venue was changed to Maricopa County Superior Court on or about July 12, 2019, where the case became CV2019-094307. The complaint pleaded three counts: negligence/legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and — against the firm only — breach of contract. The association alleged the firm entered into a settlement agreement without appropriate approval from the association’s board of directors and failed to abide by “oral directions” given by board members, arguing that those oral directions formed a series of “mini-contracts” separate from the written retainer agreement.

The firm moved for summary judgment on the contract count on July 24, 2019. After briefing and a December 10, 2019 oral argument, Judge David J. Palmer issued an under-advisement ruling on December 11, 2019 granting the motion. Relying on Keonjian v. Olcott and Collins v. Miller & Miller, Ltd., the court explained that claims for professional malpractice are generally tort claims, and that the distinction is between nonfeasance and malfeasance: carrying out a task negligently does not change the gravamen of the action from tort to contract. The court was unpersuaded that oral directions from the settlement committee of the association’s board created a new contract separate from the signed retainer agreement, found no genuine issues of material fact, and ordered the firm to submit a proposed form of judgment with Rule 54(b) language.

Two follow-on fights were argued together on March 3, 2020 and decided in an April 9, 2020 under-advisement ruling. The first was discovery: the firm — which had filed a notice naming Goldschmidt Shupe as a non-party at fault — subpoenaed the association’s communications with that successor firm, and the association objected on attorney-client privilege grounds, arguing the parties had agreed to limit discovery to November 29, 2016 through March 15, 2017. Applying the three-part waiver test from Elia v. Pifer, the court found that by filing the lawsuit the association put its Goldschmidt Shupe communications at issue, that those discussions were “clearly relevant and vital” to the malpractice claims, and that privilege was therefore waived as to any communications with Goldschmidt Shupe related to the underlying litigation, the settlement negotiations, or the settlement agreement. It ordered the association and Goldschmidt Shupe to comply with the firm’s second subpoena.

The second issue was attorneys’ fees. Both parties agreed the court had discretion under A.R.S. § 12-341.01 to award fees based on its resolution of the contract question. Citing Lacer v. Navajo County — “[a] party is entitled to an award of its attorney’s fees under A.R.S. §12-341.01 if judgment in its favor is based upon the absence of the contract sued upon by the adverse party” — the court found that an award of attorneys’ fees to be paid by Sycamore Hills to Jones Skelton was appropriate, and set a schedule for the firm’s fee application and the association’s response.

The case never reached trial on the remaining tort counts. The court had ordered a mandatory settlement conference in January 2020 (with the completion deadline later extended to October 30, 2020), and on June 10, 2020 the defendants filed a Notice of Settlement. The court vacated the pretrial conference, placed the matter on the dismissal calendar, and — after the parties filed a stipulation to dismiss on June 28, 2020 — dismissed the case with prejudice as to all parties and claims on June 30, 2020. The settlement terms and any final fee amount do not appear in the minute entries.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Sycamore Hills Estates Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Jones Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C., et al. (CV2019-094307 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). An attorney’s alleged failure to follow a client’s oral directions — including directions from the settlement… 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 Sycamore Hills Estates Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Jones Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C., et al.. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

Procedural timeline

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

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Key Issues & Findings