Tag Archives: board-governance

Daniel Mason, et al. v. La Glorieta Homeowners Association, et al.: Arizona HOA Appellate Case Guide

Posted on by

CC&R Enforcement | A.R.S. §§ 12-1832, 12-341.01 | 1 CA-CV 23-0437

Division One reaffirms that an Arizona HOA’s enforcement of its CC&Rs is discretionary unless the governing documents expressly create a duty to enforce.

Last updated June 30, 2026. Case: Daniel Mason, et al. v. La Glorieta Homeowners Association, et al., 1 CA-CV 23-0437.

Download memorandum decision

Scope note: This page covers Daniel Mason, et al. v. La Glorieta Homeowners Association, et al. (1 CA-CV 23-0437) as a public Arizona Court of Appeals HOA case guide. The source decision came from Division One. The downloadable source-document index below is generated from local raw source files when a PDF opinion is available. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

An HOA has no duty to enforce its CC&Rs against a violating owner unless the governing documents expressly obligate it to do so; La Glorieta’s CC&Rs granted enforcement powers but imposed no such duty, so summary judgment for the HOA was affirmed.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Daniel Mason (Appellant)
    Homeowner in La Glorieta subdivision; plaintiff who sued the HOA over a drainage obstruction.
  • Toni Mason (Appellant)
    Homeowner and co-plaintiff/appellant with Daniel Mason.
  • Keith L. Hendricks (Counsel)
    Moyes Sellers & Hendricks
    Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants the Masons.
  • Natalya Ter-Grigoryan (Counsel)
    Moyes Sellers & Hendricks
    Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants the Masons.

Respondent Side

  • La Glorieta Homeowners Association (Appellee)
    The defendant HOA; obtained summary judgment and a fee award, affirmed on appeal.
  • Yinong Chen (Appellee)
    Neighbor two lots from the Masons whose lot allegedly obstructed drainage; denied summary judgment below (not part of this appeal).
  • Hongyan Shi (Appellee)
    Co-owner of the neighboring lot with Yinong Chen; defendant/appellee.
  • Mark E. Lines (Counsel)
    Shaw & Lines, LLC
    Counsel for Defendant/Appellee La Glorieta Homeowners Association.
  • Patrick Whelan (Counsel)
    Shaw & Lines, LLC
    Counsel for Defendant/Appellee La Glorieta Homeowners Association.
  • Hyung Choi (Counsel)
    Choi & Fabian, PLC
    Counsel for Defendants/Appellees Yinong Chen and Hongyan Shi.
  • Veronika Fabian (Counsel)
    Choi & Fabian, PLC
    Counsel for Defendants/Appellees Yinong Chen and Hongyan Shi.

Neutral Parties

  • Anni Hill Foster (Judge)
    Presiding Judge, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One; authored the memorandum decision.
  • Brian Y. Furuya (Judge)
    Judge, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One; joined the decision.
  • Randall M. Howe (Judge)
    Vice Chief Judge, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One; joined the decision.
  • Joan M. Sinclair (Judge)
    Honorable Judge of the Maricopa County Superior Court who granted the HOA summary judgment and the fee award below.

What happened

Daniel and Toni Mason own a home in the La Glorieta residential subdivision in Chandler, two lots away from a home owned by Yinong Chen and Hongyan Shi. A drainage swale runs in front of both properties, designed to route runoff from the Masons’ lot to an outlet grate on the Chen and Shi lot. In September 2014, a severe thunderstorm flooded the Masons’ basement, causing roughly $2,000 in damage. The day after, Mr. Mason found water still pooling and concluded an obstruction on the neighbors’ lot was blocking the flow.

Over the next several years the Masons tried to resolve the issue by talking to the neighbors, raising it at two HOA meetings, and filing a written complaint with the HOA. In mid-2019 the HOA’s counsel sent the neighbors a letter noting that work on their lot may have contributed to water backups up the street. City of Chandler officials told the Masons the HOA, not the city, was responsible for subdivision drainage, and a civil engineer the Masons hired reported obstructions in the swale on the neighbors’ lot. The home has not flooded since 2014.

In September 2020 the Masons sued the HOA, Chen, and Shi for breach of contract and declaratory judgment, claiming the neighbors’ pathway blocked drainage in violation of CC&Rs § 12.17 and that the HOA was required to enforce the covenants. The HOA moved for summary judgment; the superior court granted it and dismissed all claims against the HOA (the neighbors were denied summary judgment, and that ruling was not appealed).

After a procedural detour — the Court of Appeals initially stayed the appeal because the superior court had not yet ruled on the HOA’s fee request, defeating Rule 54(b) certification — the superior court denied reconsideration, awarded the HOA its attorneys’ fees, and entered final judgment. The Masons appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the CC&Rs gave the HOA enforcement power but no duty to enforce.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Daniel Mason, et al. v. La Glorieta Homeowners Association, et al. (1 CA-CV 23-0437). An HOA has no duty to enforce its CC&Rs against a violating owner unless the governing documents expressly obligate… 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 Daniel Mason, et al. v. La Glorieta Homeowners Association, et al.. 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 A severe thunderstorm flooded the Masons' basement, causing about $2,000 in damage; Mr. Mason concluded an obstruction on the neighbors' lot was blocking drainage.
Step 2019 The HOA's counsel sent Chen and Shi a letter stating work done to their lot may have contributed to water backups on lots up the street (mid-2019).
Step 2020 The Masons hired a civil engineer whose report found obstructions in the drainage swale on Chen and Shi's lot (late 2019 or early 2020).
Step 2020-09 The Masons sued the HOA, Chen, and Shi for breach of contract and declaratory judgment, alleging a violation of CC&Rs § 12.17.
Step 2022-03 The superior court entered judgment for the HOA and certified it under Rule 54(b); the Masons appealed.
Step 2022-12 The Court of Appeals stayed the appeal and reinstated superior court jurisdiction because the HOA's fee request was unresolved, defeating Rule 54(b) certification.
Step 2023-05 The superior court denied the Masons' motion for reconsideration and awarded the HOA its attorneys' fees.
Step 2023-06 The superior court entered final judgment; the Masons timely appealed.
Step 2024-04-02 The Court of Appeals, Division One, affirmed the judgment in favor of the HOA.

Complete source-document index

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

Source 1 2024-04-02

Memorandum Decision

Type: Decision or judgment

Memorandum decision holding that an HOA has no duty to enforce its CC&Rs against a violating owner unless the governing documents expressly obligate it to do so; La Glorieta's CC&Rs granted enforcement powers but imposed no such duty, so summary judgment for the HOA was affirmed.

Download source file
2024-04-02_001_memorandum-decision.pdf

FAQ

What was Mason v. La Glorieta Homeowners Association about?

Two La Glorieta homeowners, the Masons, sued their HOA and two neighbors after a 2014 storm flooded their basement. They alleged an obstruction on the neighbors’ lot violated the CC&Rs’ drainage provision (§ 12.17) and claimed the HOA was contractually required to enforce the CC&Rs against the neighbors. They sought damages for breach of contract and a declaratory judgment.

What did the Arizona Court of Appeals decide?

The court affirmed summary judgment in favor of the HOA. It held that while the CC&Rs gave the HOA the power to enforce its covenants, none of the provisions required the HOA to exercise that power. With no duty to enforce, the breach-of-contract and declaratory-judgment claims both failed as a matter of law.

Does an Arizona HOA have to enforce its CC&Rs?

Not automatically. The court reaffirmed that under Arizona law — citing Tierra Ranchos v. Kitchukov and the Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes § 6.13 — enforcement is a discretionary power. An HOA must act reasonably in exercising that discretion, but it has no duty to enforce a particular violation unless the governing documents expressly obligate it to do so.

Why did the homeowners' reliance on the CC&R language fail?

The court read every enforcement-related provision (the recitals and §§ 4.7, 12.21, 15.1, and 15.3) and found each one used permissive, power-granting language such as ‘may enter’ or ‘shall have the power to file an action.’ None imposed a mandatory duty. Because the language was unambiguous, there was no room to interpret an implied enforcement obligation into the CC&Rs.

The trial court misread one CC&R section — why didn't that change the result?

The superior court had treated § 4.5 as disclaiming HOA liability for drainage, but the appellate court found § 4.5 created two separate easements and its disclaimer reached only landscaping, not drainage. The error was harmless because the Masons were not asking the HOA to maintain landscaping; they were asking it to enforce a violation, which remained discretionary either way.

Who paid attorneys' fees in the case?

The Masons. As the prevailing party in a contract dispute, the HOA was awarded its attorneys’ fees and costs under A.R.S. §§ 12-341 and 12-341.01, and the Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion. The appellate court also granted the HOA its fees on appeal and denied the Masons’ fee request as the non-prevailing party.

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 / citation1 CA-CV 23-0437
Court / tribunalCourt of Appeals
Decision / key dateApril 2, 2024
Judge / panelAnni Hill Foster, Brian Y. Furuya, Randall M. Howe
PartiesDaniel and Toni Mason (Plaintiffs/Appellants) v. La Glorieta Homeowners Association (Defendant/Appellee)
Governing law
  • A.R.S. § 12-1832
  • A.R.S. § 12-1842
  • A.R.S. § 12-341
  • A.R.S. § 12-341.01
Topics
CC&RsBoard GovernanceAttorney Fees
Outcome / holding

An HOA has no duty to enforce its CC&Rs against a violating owner unless the governing documents expressly obligate it to do so; La Glorieta's CC&Rs granted enforcement powers but imposed no such duty, so summary judgment for the HOA was affirmed.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package1 PDF
Step-by-step docket roadmap9 roadmap entries
Video overviewDaniel Mason, et al. v. La Glorieta Homeowners Association, et al.
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions6 questions
Featured download links1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Two homeowners in the La Glorieta subdivision sued their HOA (and two neighbors) after a 2014 storm flooded their basement, alleging an obstruction on the neighbors' lot violated the CC&Rs' drainage provision (§ 12.17). The homeowners claimed the HOA was contractually required to enforce the CC&Rs against the neighbors and sought both breach-of-contract damages and a declaratory judgment. The superior court granted summary judgment to the HOA and awarded it attorneys' fees. The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, affirmed. Reviewing the CC&Rs de novo, the court held that although several provisions gave the HOA the power to enforce its covenants, none obligated it to do so. Under Arizona law, an HOA's enforcement of its CC&Rs is discretionary unless the governing documents expressly create a duty to enforce. Because no such duty existed, both the contract and declaratory-judgment claims failed as a matter of law, and the fee award stood.

Key Issues & Findings

The court reviewed the summary-judgment ruling and the interpretation of the CC&Rs de novo, treating the recorded covenants as a contract. It examined every CC&R provision addressing enforcement — the recitals, the § 4.7 easement for investigating and correcting violations, § 12.21 (the HOA "may" enter a lot and correct a violation at the owner's expense), § 15.1, and § 15.3 (the HOA "shall have the power to file an action"). Each provision granted the association authority to act, but none required it to exercise that authority. That absence of a mandatory duty was fatal to the homeowners' claims.

The court corrected one point in the HOA's favor's analysis: the superior court had read § 4.5 as disclaiming HOA liability for drainage, but the appellate court found § 4.5 created two distinct easements (landscape and drainage) and its disclaimer language reached only the landscape easement. That interpretive error was harmless, however, because the homeowners were not asking the HOA to install or maintain landscaping — they were asking it to enforce an alleged violation, which remained discretionary. The court also distinguished Gfeller v. Scottsdale Vista N. Townhomes Ass'n (which involved CC&Rs with an express enforcement duty) and reaffirmed, citing Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov and the Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes § 6.13, that discretionary enforcement is the default rule in Arizona.

Because the CC&Rs' language was unambiguous and imposed no duty to enforce, the breach-of-contract claim failed for lack of any breach, and the declaratory-judgment claim failed because the homeowners had no corresponding right to compel enforcement. Finally, the court held the superior court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the prevailing HOA its fees and costs under A.R.S. §§ 12-341 and 12-341.01, and it granted the HOA its appellate fees while denying the homeowners' request.

Why It Matters

This decision reinforces a recurring principle in Arizona community-association law: language that gives an HOA the power to enforce its CC&Rs ("may enter," "shall have the power to file an action") is not the same as language requiring it to enforce. Absent an express, mandatory duty in the governing documents, enforcement is discretionary, and a homeowner generally cannot force the HOA to pursue a neighbor over an alleged violation.

It complements Johnson v. The Pointe and Tierra Ranchos v. Kitchukov, which likewise frame HOA enforcement as a discretionary power the board must exercise reasonably rather than a duty owed to any individual owner. Homeowners frequently sue on the theory that the HOA "must" act against a neighbor; Mason illustrates that such claims typically fail unless the CC&Rs create a specific enforcement obligation — and that a losing homeowner in a CC&R contract dispute can be ordered to pay the association's attorneys' fees.

← Back to Court of Appeals cases

Colin Preston, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Las Sendas Community Association, Inc., Defendant/Appellee: Arizona HOA Appellate Case Guide

Posted on by

CC&Rs & Short-Term Rentals | A.R.S. §§ 33-1806.01, 33-1817 | 1 CA-CV 22-0761

An unpublished Division One decision holding that a planned community’s short-term rental amendment was a foreseeable extension of its original CC&Rs, and thus valid and enforceable.

Last updated June 30, 2026. Case: Colin Preston, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Las Sendas Community Association, Inc., Defendant/Appellee, 1 CA-CV 22-0761.

Download memorandum decision

Scope note: This page covers Colin Preston, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Las Sendas Community Association, Inc., Defendant/Appellee (1 CA-CV 22-0761) as a public Arizona Court of Appeals HOA case guide. The source decision came from Division One. The downloadable source-document index below is generated from local raw source files when a PDF opinion is available. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The 1995 CC&Rs, read in their entirety, provided sufficient notice that a durational limit on leases could be imposed by amendment; the 2022 short-term rental amendment is therefore valid and enforceable, and the superior court properly denied the homeowners’ requests for injunctive relief. Affirmed.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Colin Preston (Appellant)
    Named homeowner-plaintiff who, with several other single-family owners ("et al."), challenged the amendment and sought injunctive relief.
  • Brian Locker (Counsel)
    Fowler St. Clair, PLLC (Scottsdale)
    Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants (the homeowners).

Respondent Side

  • Las Sendas Community Association, Inc. (Appellee)
    Planned-community HOA (Defendant below) that adopted and recorded the short-term rental amendment; prevailing party.
  • Curtis S. Ekmark (Counsel)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP (Tempe)
    Counsel for Defendant/Appellee (the HOA).

Neutral Parties

  • D. Steven Williams (Judge)
    Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
    Presiding Judge; authored the memorandum decision.
  • Samuel A. Thumma (Judge)
    Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
    Panel member who joined the decision.
  • Paul J. McMurdie (Judge)
    Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
    Panel member who joined the decision.
  • John R. Hannah (Judge)
    Maricopa County Superior Court
    Trial judge who granted summary judgment for the HOA and denied injunctive relief.

What happened

Las Sendas is a planned community in Maricopa County governed by CC&Rs, recorded in 1995, that restrict all residential units to residential use by a single family and impose broad restrictions on business and trade within residential units, while exempting an owner’s leasing of a unit from the definition of “trade or business.” Each plaintiff owns a single-family home subject to those CC&Rs.

In 2009 the HOA Board adopted a rule barring leases of fewer than six months. After the legislature enacted A.R.S. § 33-1806.01(A) in 2014 (allowing owners to use property as rental property unless prohibited in the CC&Rs, subject to CC&R rental-time-period restrictions), the Board grew concerned the statute might invalidate the six-months rule and, in July 2021, proposed an amendment prohibiting leases of 31 days or fewer and advertising units as vacation rentals.

Voting opened in November 2021, and in June 2022 the HOA declared the amendment approved with 2,604 of 3,090 votes (84.3%), exceeding the 75% threshold in CC&Rs Section 9.3.1. The HOA recorded the short-term rental amendment in June 2022.

The homeowners sued the HOA, alleging the amendment lessened the value and marketability of their properties, and sought both a preliminary injunction and a permanent injunction barring enforcement. The HOA moved for summary judgment, arguing the amendment was valid; the plaintiffs cross-moved for partial summary judgment on their permanent-injunction claim.

The superior court (Judge John R. Hannah) denied the preliminary injunction, denied the plaintiffs’ partial summary judgment motion, and granted summary judgment for the HOA on the permanent-injunction claim. The plaintiffs appealed.

The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, affirmed. It held that, viewed in their entirety, the original CC&Rs gave sufficient notice under Kalway that a durational limit on leases could be imposed, so the amendment was valid and enforceable and injunctive relief was properly denied. As the prevailing party, the HOA was awarded its reasonable appellate attorneys’ fees and costs.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Colin Preston, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Las Sendas Community Association, Inc., Defendant/Appellee (1 CA-CV 22-0761). The 1995 CC&Rs, read in their entirety, provided sufficient notice that a durational limit on leases could be… 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 Colin Preston, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Las Sendas Community Association, Inc., Defendant/Appellee. 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 1995 Original Las Sendas CC&Rs recorded, restricting residential units to single-family residential use and limiting business/trade while exempting owner leasing.
Step Date not specified CC&Rs amended in 1998, 2004, and 2005 (amendments did not alter the provisions relevant to this appeal).
Step 2009 HOA Board adopts a rule barring leases of fewer than six months ("the six-months rule").
Step 2014 Arizona legislature enacts A.R.S. § 33-1806.01(A), allowing owners to use property as rental property unless prohibited in the CC&Rs, subject to rental time-period restrictions.
Step 2021-07 Board announces a proposed amendment prohibiting leases of 31 days or fewer and advertising units as vacation rentals ("the short-term rental amendment").
Step 2021-11 HOA opens owner voting on the short-term rental amendment.
Step 2022-06 HOA declares the amendment approved (2,604 of 3,090 votes, 84.3%, exceeding the 75% threshold) and records the short-term rental amendment.
Step Date not specified Homeowners file suit (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2022-010280) seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions against enforcement of the amendment.
Step Date not specified Superior court denies the preliminary injunction, denies plaintiffs' partial summary judgment, and grants summary judgment for the HOA; plaintiffs appeal.
Step 2023-10-31 Court of Appeals, Division One, affirms and awards the HOA its appellate attorneys' fees and costs.

Complete source-document index

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

Source 1 2023-10-31

Memorandum Decision

Type: Decision or judgment

Memorandum decision holding that the 1995 CC&Rs, read in their entirety, provided sufficient notice that a durational limit on leases could be imposed by amendment; the 2022 short-term rental amendment is therefore valid and enforceable, and the superior court properly denied the homeowners' requests for injunctive relief.

Download source file
2023-10-31_001_memorandum-decision.pdf

FAQ

Who won Preston v. Las Sendas?

The HOA. Division One affirmed summary judgment for Las Sendas Community Association, upheld the 2022 short-term rental amendment, and affirmed the denial of the homeowners’ injunctions. As the prevailing party, the HOA was awarded its reasonable appellate attorneys’ fees and costs.

What was the dispute about?

Homeowners challenged a 2022 amendment to the Las Sendas CC&Rs that prohibited leasing units for 31 days or fewer and advertising them as vacation rentals. They argued the original CC&Rs did not give them sufficient notice that such a durational rental restriction could be imposed.

What legal test did the court apply?

The court applied the reasonable-expectations / sufficient-notice framework from Kalway v. Calabria Ranch HOA, LLC. Even an amendment properly adopted under A.R.S. § 33-1817(A) and the CC&Rs’ amendment procedure is unenforceable unless the original CC&Rs, objectively viewed at the time of purchase, foreshadowed the possibility of the amendment.

Why did the homeowners lose?

The court read the CC&Rs as a whole rather than the lease exemption in isolation. The original CC&Rs limited units to single-family residential use, broadly restricted business and trade subject to Board discretion, and already barred apartment units from hotel or transient use, language that tracked the amendment. Together these gave sufficient notice that a durational lease limit could be added.

Does A.R.S. § 33-1806.01 let HOAs restrict rentals?

The statute allows owners to use their property as rental property unless prohibited in the governing CC&Rs, and requires owners to abide by the CC&Rs’ rental time-period restrictions. Here, the court held the amendment validly imposed such a durational restriction under the CC&Rs.

Is this decision precedential?

No. It is an unpublished memorandum decision under Arizona Supreme Court Rule 111(c). It is not precedential and may be cited only as authorized by rule.

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 / citation1 CA-CV 22-0761
Court / tribunalCourt of Appeals
Decision / key dateOctober 31, 2023
Judge / panelD. Steven Williams, Samuel A. Thumma, Paul J. McMurdie
PartiesColin Preston, et al. (homeowners / Plaintiffs-Appellants) v. Las Sendas Community Association, Inc. (HOA / Defendant-Appellee)
Governing law
Topics
CC&RsBoard GovernanceElectionsAttorney Fees
Outcome / holding

The 1995 CC&Rs, read in their entirety, provided sufficient notice that a durational limit on leases could be imposed by amendment; the 2022 short-term rental amendment is therefore valid and enforceable, and the superior court properly denied the homeowners' requests for injunctive relief. Affirmed.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package1 PDF
Step-by-step docket roadmap10 roadmap entries
Video overviewColin Preston, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Las Sendas Community Association, Inc., Defendant/A
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions6 questions
Featured download links1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Las Sendas is a Maricopa County planned community whose CC&Rs, recorded in 1995, restrict residential units to single-family residential use and limit business or trade activity while exempting owner leasing. In 2009 the Board adopted a rule barring leases of fewer than six months. After Arizona enacted A.R.S. § 33-1806.01(A) in 2014, the Board proposed a 2021 amendment prohibiting rentals of 31 days or fewer and vacation-rental advertising; owners approved it by 84.3% (well above the 75% threshold), and the HOA recorded it in June 2022. Several homeowners sued, seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions to block enforcement and arguing the original CC&Rs gave insufficient notice under Kalway v. Calabria Ranch that such a restriction could be added. The superior court granted summary judgment to the HOA and denied injunctive relief. Division One affirmed, holding the original CC&Rs, read as a whole, gave sufficient notice that a durational lease limit could be imposed.

Key Issues & Findings

The court reviewed the denial of injunctive relief for abuse of discretion but interpreted the CC&Rs and reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo. Under Kalway v. Calabria Ranch HOA, LLC, even an amendment adopted in compliance with A.R.S. § 33-1817(A) and the CC&Rs' own amendment procedure will not be enforced unless the original CC&Rs "provided sufficient notice" of the possibility of the amendment; courts strike down "unforeseen" amendments that would alter the nature of the covenants homeowners originally agreed to. The test is objective and measured against a purchaser's reasonable expectations at the time of purchase: the original CC&Rs need not state the precise details of a later amendment, but must make clear that a restriction exists and could be refined or extended, and neither a general-purpose statement nor a general-amendment provision alone suffices.

Applying that standard, the court held the lease exemption in Section 3.12 could not be read in isolation. It is only an exception to Section 3.12's broad prohibition on commercial activity in residential units and has meaning only in the context of the CC&Rs as a whole. The CC&Rs limit units to residential use by a single family who "maintain" a common household, language the court read to imply continuing rather than transient occupancy, and impose extensive restrictions on business and trade subject to the Board's "sole discretion," reasonably placing purchasers on notice that their use could be substantially regulated and even curtailed by future amendment.

The court also relied on the original CC&Rs' treatment of apartment units, which barred the Las Sendas "Rental Apartments" from being used as a hotel or on a transient basis, language that largely tracks the short-term rental amendment. A prospective purchaser could reasonably have anticipated the HOA extending a comparable durational restriction to residential units. Viewed in their entirety, the CC&Rs foreshadowed the amendment, so upholding it did not alter the covenants in a substantial or unforeseen way. The court declined the homeowners' footnote arguments drawn from A.R.S. § 9-500.39 and later online-lodging statutes, did not reach whether the 2009 six-months rule supplied additional notice, and treated the HOA's first-on-appeal standing argument as waived.

Why It Matters

This is a board-favorable short-term-rental outcome: the homeowners' Kalway challenge failed because the original CC&Rs, read as a whole, foreshadowed a durational lease restriction. It illustrates that Kalway's notice-and-foreseeability test cuts both ways, and that not every Kalway or short-term-rental challenge succeeds. Where the original governing documents already contain robust single-family use and commercial-activity restrictions and an analogous transient-use limit (here, on apartment units), a later amendment adding a rental durational cap can be deemed a foreseeable extension rather than an "entirely new and different" restriction, and thus enforceable even against owners who purchased before it was recorded.

As a counterweight to owner-favorable amendment decisions, the case shows the fact-specific nature of the analysis: the enforceability of a short-term-rental amendment turns on the text and structure of the specific CC&Rs, not on a categorical rule. Because it is an unpublished memorandum decision, it is not precedential and may be cited only as authorized by rule.

← Back to Court of Appeals cases

Gene D. Watson, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v. Leisure World Community Association, Defendant/Appellant/Cross-Appellee: Arizona HOA Appellate Case Guide

Posted on by

CC&Rs & Voting | A.R.S. §§ 33-420, 33-1817 | 1 CA-CV 20-0592

How an HOA’s recorded “consolidation” and amendment of CC&Rs were struck down for lacking owner consent, and when recording an invalid document triggers A.R.S. § 33-420 damages.

Last updated June 30, 2026. Case: Gene D. Watson, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v. Leisure World Community Association, Defendant/Appellant/Cross-Appellee, 1 CA-CV 20-0592.

Download memorandum decision

Current-status note: This page is published as a litigation record based on the source files available through 2021-12-02. Later filings, appeals, mandates, settlements, or dismissal orders may change the posture; the linked court records control.

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

Scope note: This page covers Gene D. Watson, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v. Leisure World Community Association, Defendant/Appellant/Cross-Appellee (1 CA-CV 20-0592) as a public Arizona Court of Appeals HOA case guide. The source decision came from Division One. The downloadable source-document index below is generated from local raw source files when a PDF opinion is available. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

Both the 2013 Consolidated Declaration and the 2014 Amendment were invalid amendments adopted without the owner approval the CC&Rs required; the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-420(A) and (C) as to the Consolidated Declaration, which it knew or should have known was invalid, but not as to the 2014 Amendment, where the record negated the required scienter. The Trust was the successful party, and fees and costs were remanded for recalculation.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Gene D. Watson (Plaintiff)
    Named plaintiff/appellee/cross-appellant associated with the Watson-McKinley Residence Revocable Trust, which owns a unit in Plat 24.
  • Watson-McKinley Residence Revocable Trust (Plaintiff)
    Owner of a Plat 24 unit; brought quiet title and A.R.S. § 33-420 claims seeking release of the recorded documents.
  • Eileen Dennis GilBride (Counsel)
    Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C.
    Co-counsel for the Trust/plaintiffs on appeal.
  • Frederick E. Davidson (Counsel)
    Davidson & Funkhouser, PLLC
    Co-counsel for the Trust/plaintiffs; argued the appeal.
  • Josh G. Funkhouser (Counsel)
    Davidson & Funkhouser, PLLC
    Co-counsel for the Trust/plaintiffs.

Respondent Side

  • Leisure World Community Association (Defendant)
    Property owners' association for nearly two dozen platted communities, including Plat 24; recorded the challenged Consolidated Declaration and 2014 Amendment.
  • Chad P. Miesen (Counsel)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
    Counsel for the Association (Defendant/Appellant/Cross-Appellee).
  • Kate J. Merolo (Counsel)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
    Counsel for the Association (Defendant/Appellant/Cross-Appellee).

Neutral Parties

  • Paul J. McMurdie (Judge)
    Court of Appeals judge; authored the memorandum decision.
  • Peter B. Swann (Judge)
    Presiding Judge on the Court of Appeals panel.
  • David D. Weinzweig (Judge)
    Judge on the Court of Appeals panel.
  • Andrew J. Russell (Judge)
    Maricopa County Superior Court judge in the underlying case.
  • Cynthia J. Bailey (Judge)
    Maricopa County Superior Court judge (retired) in the underlying case.

What happened

Leisure World Community Association is the property owners’ association for nearly two dozen single-family platted communities, including Plat 24. Each community is governed by its own Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), and Plat 24’s original CC&Rs required at least three-quarters of Plat 24’s record owners to approve any amendment. The Watson-McKinley Residence Revocable Trust owns a unit in Plat 24.

In 2013, without obtaining owner approval, the Association recorded a “Consolidated Declaration” purporting to consolidate and restate the declarations of the communities it served. In 2014, it recorded an amendment changing the voting rules so amendments could be adopted by three-quarters of record owners across the platted communities rather than within each community; it obtained consent from 47 of Plat 24’s 54 units.

In February 2017, the Trust’s attorney demanded that the Association release both documents, and the Association refused. About nine months later the Trust sued in Maricopa County Superior Court (No. CV2017-055942), seeking release of the documents and asserting quiet title and a violation of A.R.S. § 33-420. After cross-motions and depositions, the court granted summary judgment for the Trust, invalidated both documents, awarded statutory damages under § 33-420, roughly $116,000 in attorney’s fees, and $4,000 in costs.

The Association moved for a new trial. After the original judge retired, a newly assigned judge partly reversed course, ruling the Consolidated Declaration was a mere restatement and striking the order invalidating it, while leaving the 2014 Amendment’s statutory damages in place. Both sides appealed.

The Arizona Court of Appeals held both documents were invalid amendments adopted without required owner consent. It concluded the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-420(A) and (C) as to the Consolidated Declaration (reinstating those damages) but not as to the 2014 Amendment (vacating those damages), found the Trust the successful party, and remanded for recalculation of attorney’s fees and costs.

Procedural timeline

Step 2013 The Association recorded the 2013 Consolidated Declaration without a vote of the record owners.
Step 2014 The Association recorded the 2014 Amendment, changing amendment voting to a three-quarters vote across the platted communities; 47 of Plat 24's 54 units consented.
Step 2017-02 The Trust's attorney demanded release of the Consolidated Declaration and the 2014 Amendment; the Association refused.
Step Date not specified About nine months after the demand, the Trust filed its complaint seeking release of the documents and asserting quiet title and a violation of A.R.S. § 33-420 (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2017-055942).
Step Date not specified The parties cross-moved for summary judgment; the court found disputes of material fact and denied both motions.
Step Date not specified After depositions, the parties again cross-moved for summary judgment and the court granted summary judgment for the Trust.
Step 2020-02 The superior court entered an order awarding statutory damages under A.R.S. § 33-420(A) and (C).
Step 2020-04 The superior court entered judgment for the Trust, awarding $5,000 per document under § 33-420(A), $1,000 per document under § 33-420(C), about $116,000 in attorney's fees, and $4,000 in costs; the Association moved for a new trial.
Step 2020-09 After the original trial judge retired, the newly assigned judge partly granted the new-trial motion, striking the ruling that invalidated the Consolidated Declaration (deeming it a mere restatement) while leaving the 2014 Amendment's statutory damages in place; both sides appealed.
Step 2021-12-02 The Court of Appeals issued its memorandum decision, affirming in part, vacating in part, and remanding.

Complete source-document index

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

Source 1 2021-12-02

Memorandum Decision

Type: Decision or judgment

Memorandum decision holding that both the 2013 Consolidated Declaration and the 2014 Amendment were invalid amendments adopted without the owner approval the CC&Rs required; the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-420(A) and (C) as to the Consolidated Declaration, which it knew or should have known was invalid, but not as to the 2014 Amendment, where the record negated the required scienter.

Download source file
2021-12-02_001_memorandum-decision.pdf

FAQ

What was the dispute in Watson v. Leisure World Community Association?

A revocable trust that owned a Plat 24 unit challenged two documents the Association recorded without the owner approval its CC&Rs required: a 2013 Consolidated Declaration that restated the communities’ declarations and a 2014 Amendment that let CC&R changes pass by a three-quarters vote across all platted communities instead of within each community. The Trust sought their release and asserted quiet title and a violation of A.R.S. § 33-420.

Why did the court hold both documents were invalid?

A recorded CC&R declaration is a contract interpreted from its plain language. The court found the Consolidated Declaration was an amendment (not a mere restatement) because its operative text expanded the Association’s veto power and diluted Plat 24’s autonomous voting rights, so it needed owner approval that was never obtained. The 2014 Amendment failed because 21 of the consent forms did not describe the action taken as required by A.R.S. § 10-3704(A), leaving fewer than the three-quarters of Plat 24 owners needed.

What is A.R.S. § 33-420 and how did it apply here?

A.R.S. § 33-420 penalizes recording a document asserting an invalid interest, lien, or encumbrance against real property when the recorder knew or should have known it was invalid, and it also penalizes willful refusal to release such a document. The court held the dilution of the Trust’s voting power and the expansion of the Association’s veto power each created an “encumbrance,” and that the Association had reason to know the Consolidated Declaration was invalid but not the 2014 Amendment.

What damages and fees were involved?

The trial court had awarded $5,000 per document under § 33-420(A), $1,000 per document under § 33-420(C), about $116,000 in attorney’s fees, and $4,000 in costs. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reinstated the statutory damages tied to the Consolidated Declaration, vacated those tied to the 2014 Amendment, found the Trust the successful party, and remanded for recalculation of fees and costs.

What was the final disposition?

The Arizona Court of Appeals issued a memorandum decision that affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. It affirmed that both documents were invalid, reinstated § 33-420 damages for the Consolidated Declaration, vacated § 33-420 damages for the 2014 Amendment, and remanded for recalculation of attorney’s fees and costs.

Who represented the parties?

The Leisure World Community Association was represented by Chad P. Miesen and Kate J. Merolo of Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP, an HOA-side firm. The Trust was represented by Eileen Dennis GilBride of Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C., and by Frederick E. Davidson (who argued) and Josh G. Funkhouser of Davidson & Funkhouser, PLLC.

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 / citation1 CA-CV 20-0592
Court / tribunalCourt of Appeals
Decision / key dateDecember 2, 2021
Judge / panelPaul J. McMurdie, Peter B. Swann, David D. Weinzweig
PartiesGene D. Watson, et al. (Plaintiffs/Appellees/Cross-Appellants) v. Leisure World Community Association (Defendant/Appellant/Cross-Appellee)
Governing law
Topics
CC&RsElectionsBoard GovernanceAttorney Fees
Outcome / holding

Both the 2013 Consolidated Declaration and the 2014 Amendment were invalid amendments adopted without the owner approval the CC&Rs required; the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-420(A) and (C) as to the Consolidated Declaration, which it knew or should have known was invalid, but not as to the 2014 Amendment, where the record negated the required scienter. The Trust was the successful party, and fees and costs were remanded for recalculation.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package1 PDF
Step-by-step docket roadmap10 roadmap entries
Video overviewTemporarily unavailable while the expanded case record is reviewed
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions6 questions
Featured download links1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

A homeowner's revocable trust that owned a unit in Leisure World's Plat 24 challenged two documents the Association recorded without the owner approval its CC&Rs required: a 2013 "Consolidated Declaration" that restated the various communities' declarations and a 2014 Amendment that let CC&R changes pass by a three-quarters vote across all platted communities rather than within each one. The trial court initially found both documents invalid, groundless recordings under A.R.S. § 33-420, and awarded statutory damages and about $116,000 in fees; a newly assigned judge then partly reversed course on a new-trial motion. On cross-appeals, the Arizona Court of Appeals held both documents were invalid amendments adopted without required owner consent, that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-420 by recording and refusing to release the Consolidated Declaration, but not the 2014 Amendment because it lacked the required knowledge of that document's invalidity. The court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.

Key Issues & Findings

A recorded declaration of CC&Rs is a contract interpreted as a matter of law from its plain language. The court held the 2013 Consolidated Declaration was an amendment, not a mere restatement, because its operative text made two substantive changes to Plat 24's governance: it dropped the phrase "with respect to the Community Facilities," broadening the Association's veto over amendments, and it redefined "Project" to include additional platted communities, replacing Plat 24's autonomous three-quarters vote with a three-quarters vote spread across communities. Because it changed the CC&Rs it required owner approval, and none was obtained, so it was invalid. The document's recitals, board-member testimony, and a claimed clerical omission could not override the clear operative language.

The 2014 Amendment was also invalid. An amendment to the Plat 24 declaration required consent from three-quarters of Plat 24's 54 record owners (at least 41), and the consent forms themselves had to describe the action taken under A.R.S. § 10-3704(A). Although 47 owners signed, 21 forms did not refer to amending the Plat 24 declaration or summarize the change to voting rights, and representations made only in the Leisure World News did not satisfy the statute. The valid consents therefore fell short.

On A.R.S. § 33-420, the court held that both the dilution of the Trust's voting power and the expansion of the Association's veto power each created an "encumbrance" (a non-ownership right in real property) because they reduced the Trust's control over its property and could lead buyers to underestimate that control. The Association knew or had reason to know the Consolidated Declaration was invalid because its plain text plainly departed from the CC&Rs, so § 33-420(A) and (C) liability and statutory damages applied. But confusion over which statute governed the 2014 consent forms, plus undisputed evidence that owners were informed through the Association's website, negated the required knowledge of that document's invalidity, so no § 33-420 liability attached to the 2014 Amendment. The court reinstated the statutory damages tied to the Consolidated Declaration, vacated those tied to the 2014 Amendment, deemed the Trust the successful party, and remanded for recalculation of fees and costs.

Why It Matters

The decision illustrates how Arizona courts scrutinize HOA amendment procedures and recorded documents. An association cannot expand its own powers or dilute owners' voting rights by "consolidating and restating" or amending CC&Rs without the owner approval the governing documents require, and the operative recorded language controls over the drafters' stated intent. Consent forms must themselves describe the action being approved; publicizing an amendment elsewhere does not cure defective forms.

The case also shows the reach of A.R.S. § 33-420 (false or invalid recorded documents): recording an instrument that clouds title can expose an association to statutory damages ($5,000 per document under subsection (A) and $1,000 per document under subsection (C)) and substantial attorney's-fee liability (about $116,000 here, plus appellate fees), but only where the recorder knew or had reason to know of the document's invalidity. In this matter the Association was represented by Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP, an HOA-side firm, underscoring the accountability stakes for associations and their counsel when documents of questionable validity are recorded against owners' property.

← Back to Court of Appeals cases

Baoan Andy Gia Le, et al. v. North Shore Condominium Association, et al.: Arizona HOA Appellate Case Guide

Posted on by

CC&Rs | A.R.S. §§ 33-1242, 33-1260.01 | 1 CA-CV 25-0476

Why a board-adopted short-term-rental rule survived a Kalway challenge where the Declaration already prohibited leasing units for hotel or transient purposes.

Last updated June 30, 2026. Case: Baoan Andy Gia Le, et al. v. North Shore Condominium Association, et al., 1 CA-CV 25-0476.

Download memorandum decision

Current-status note: This page is published as a litigation record based on the source files available through 2026-06-09. Later filings, appeals, mandates, settlements, or dismissal orders may change the posture; the linked court records control.

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

Scope note: This page covers Baoan Andy Gia Le, et al. v. North Shore Condominium Association, et al. (1 CA-CV 25-0476) as a public Arizona Court of Appeals HOA case guide. The source decision came from Division One. The downloadable source-document index below is generated from local raw source files when a PDF opinion is available. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

A board-adopted rule setting a 30-day minimum lease term is valid under Kalway because it reasonably and foreseeably clarifies the Declaration’s existing prohibition on leasing units for “hotel or transient purposes” and does not conflict with the Declaration; the grant of summary judgment to the owners is reversed and judgment is directed for the association.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Baoan Andy Gia Le (Appellee)
    Plaintiff below; co-owner of two North Shore units purchased as investment/short-term rental properties.
  • Linda Sinat Som (Appellee)
    Plaintiff below; co-owner of the two North Shore units (with Le, collectively the "Owners").
  • Melanie C. McKeddie (Counsel)
    McKeddie Cooley, G.P. (Scottsdale)
    Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellees (the Owners).
  • Justin R. Cooley (Counsel)
    McKeddie Cooley, G.P. (Scottsdale)
    Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellees (the Owners).

Respondent Side

  • North Shore Condominium Association (Appellant)
    Defendant below; condominium association whose board adopted the challenged 30-day minimum-lease rule.
  • Associated Property Management, Inc. (Appellant)
    Defendant below; the association's property manager (collectively with the association, the "Association").
  • Lauren Elliott Stine (Counsel)
    Quarles & Brady LLP (Phoenix)
    Counsel for Defendants/Appellants (the Association).
  • Kristin N. Leaptrott (Counsel)
    Quarles & Brady LLP (Phoenix)
    Counsel for Defendants/Appellants (the Association).

Neutral Parties

  • Daniel J. Kiley (Judge)
    Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
    Presiding Judge; authored the memorandum decision of the court.
  • D. Steven Williams (Judge)
    Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
    Panel member who joined the decision.
  • Cynthia J. Bailey (Judge)
    Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
    Panel member who joined the decision.
  • Timothy J. Ryan (Judge)
    Maricopa County Superior Court (Judge, Ret.)
    Trial judge who granted summary judgment and fees to the Owners; decision reversed on appeal.

What happened

North Shore is a planned condominium community in Tempe subject to Arizona’s Condominium Act and to a recorded Declaration. The Declaration limits units to residential use, generally bars trade or business uses (while allowing leasing), and prohibits leasing units “for hotel or transient purposes” without defining “transient.” An earlier version of the Declaration had also barred leases for an initial term of less than one year, but that language was removed by a 2008 amendment.

In 2020 and 2021, Baoan Andy Gia Le and Linda Sinat Som purchased two North Shore units as investment properties, intending to use them as short-term rentals. In February 2022, the association’s board voted to replace an existing one-year minimum-lease rule with a rule prohibiting leases of less than 30 days.

The owners sued the association and its property manager, Associated Property Management, Inc., seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. They argued the 30-day rule was invalid because the Declaration contained no durational rental limits and short-term leases were neither hotel nor transient uses. On cross-motions for summary judgment supported by stipulated facts, the superior court agreed with the owners, held the rule invalid under Kalway, awarded the owners attorney fees and costs, and entered final judgment.

The association appealed. Division One reversed, holding the 30-day rule valid under Kalway as a reasonable and foreseeable clarification of the Declaration’s transient-use prohibition and consistent with the board’s rulemaking authority. It remanded with instructions to enter judgment for the association and held the association, as prevailing party, may recover reasonable attorney fees and costs.

Video overview of the case record

An AI-generated video overview of Baoan Andy Gia Le, et al. v. North Shore Condominium Association, et al. (1 CA-CV 25-0476). A board-adopted rule setting a 30-day minimum lease term is valid under Kalway because it reasonably and foreseeably… 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 Baoan Andy Gia Le, et al. v. North Shore Condominium Association, et al.. 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 A prior version of the Declaration is recorded, barring leases for hotel or transient purposes or for an initial term of less than one year.
Step 2008 The Declaration is amended to remove the "less than one (1) year" lease language, leaving only the prohibition on leasing for "hotel or transient purposes."
Step 2009 The operative Declaration governing North Shore Condominiums is recorded.
Step 2014 The Arizona legislature enacts A.R.S. § 33-1260.01, addressing owners' use of units as rental property subject to declaration rental time-period restrictions.
Step 2020 The owners begin purchasing North Shore units (2020-2021) as investment properties intended for short-term rentals.
Step 2022-02 The board votes to replace the existing one-year minimum-lease rule with the 30-day rule.
Step 2022 The owners file suit for declaratory and injunctive relief in Maricopa County Superior Court (No. CV2022-009708).
Step Date not specified After oral argument on cross-motions for summary judgment, the superior court grants the owners' motion, holds the 30-day rule invalid under Kalway, and awards the owners attorney fees and costs.
Step 2026-06-09 Division One files its memorandum decision reversing and remanding with instructions to enter judgment for the association.

Complete source-document index

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

Source 1 2026-06-09

Memorandum Decision

Type: Decision or judgment

Memorandum decision holding that a board-adopted rule setting a 30-day minimum lease term is valid under Kalway because it reasonably and foreseeably clarifies the Declaration's existing prohibition on leasing units for "hotel or transient purposes" and does not conflict with the Declaration; the grant of summary judgment to the owners is reversed and judgment is directed for the association.

Download source file
2026-06-09_001_memorandum-decision.pdf

FAQ

What did the Court of Appeals decide in Le v. North Shore Condominium Association?

Division One reversed the superior court and held the association’s 30-day minimum-lease rule valid. It remanded with instructions to enter judgment for the association, ruling the rule was a reasonable and foreseeable clarification of the Declaration’s existing prohibition on leasing units for “hotel or transient purposes” and did not conflict with the Declaration.

What was the 30-day rule and who challenged it?

In February 2022, the association’s board replaced an earlier one-year minimum-lease rule with a rule barring leases of less than 30 days. Two owners, Baoan Andy Gia Le and Linda Sinat Som, who had bought units to operate short-term rentals, sued for declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing the rule was invalid because the Declaration set no durational rental limits.

How did Kalway v. Calabria Ranch apply to a board-adopted rule?

The court held that Kalway’s reasonable-expectations standard applies to board-adopted rules, not just majority-vote amendments to CC&Rs. It reasoned that if unforeseeable use restrictions are unenforceable even when approved by a majority, the same limit should apply to a rule adopted by a board, which represents only a minority of owners.

Why was a rule defining "transient" as under 30 days considered foreseeable?

The Declaration prohibited leasing for “transient” purposes but did not define the term. The court found that clarifying an undefined term already in the governing document “fills a gap” and is tethered to existing restrictions. A 30-day threshold matched the ordinary meaning of “transient” and Arizona and Tempe definitions treating stays of less than 30 days as transient.

How does this case compare to Gross and Preston?

The court distinguished Gross v. Shores at Rainbow Lake, where a similar 30-day rule was invalidated because those CC&Rs contained no transient-purpose prohibition. It aligned instead with Preston v. Las Sendas, which upheld a comparable short-term-rental restriction where the original CC&Rs limited units to residential, non-transient use.

Who pays attorney fees after the decision?

The trial court had awarded fees and costs to the owners. On reversal, the association became the prevailing party and may recover reasonable attorney fees and costs under Section 13.1 of the Declaration and A.R.S. §§ 12-341 and 12-341.01, upon compliance with the appellate rules.

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 / citation1 CA-CV 25-0476
Court / tribunalCourt of Appeals
Decision / key dateJune 9, 2026
Judge / panelDaniel J. Kiley, D. Steven Williams, Cynthia J. Bailey
PartiesBaoan Andy Gia Le & Linda Sinat Som (unit owners/appellees) v. North Shore Condominium Association (condominium association/appellant)
Governing law
Topics
CC&RsBoard GovernanceAttorney Fees
Outcome / holding

A board-adopted rule setting a 30-day minimum lease term is valid under Kalway because it reasonably and foreseeably clarifies the Declaration's existing prohibition on leasing units for "hotel or transient purposes" and does not conflict with the Declaration; the grant of summary judgment to the owners is reversed and judgment is directed for the association.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package1 PDF
Step-by-step docket roadmap9 roadmap entries
Video overviewBaoan Andy Gia Le, et al. v. North Shore Condominium Association, et al.
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions6 questions
Featured download links1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Two owners bought units in the North Shore condominium community in Tempe intending to operate short-term rentals. In February 2022 the association's board replaced an existing one-year minimum-lease rule with a rule barring leases of less than 30 days. The owners sued for declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing the 30-day rule was invalid under Kalway v. Calabria Ranch HOA because the Declaration set no durational rental limits. The superior court agreed and granted the owners summary judgment plus attorney fees. On appeal, Division One reversed. It held the board had statutory and declaratory authority to adopt rules that do not conflict with the Declaration, that Kalway's reasonable-expectations test applies to board rules, and that a rule defining the Declaration's undefined term "transient" as under 30 days was a reasonable, foreseeable clarification tethered to existing restrictions. The court remanded with instructions to enter judgment for the association.

Key Issues & Findings

Reviewing the cross-motions for summary judgment de novo on stipulated facts, the court first rejected the owners' argument that the board could impose durational lease limits only by amending the Declaration through unanimous owner consent. The Condominium Act permits an association to adopt and amend rules subject to the declaration (A.R.S. § 33-1242(A)(1)), and the Declaration expressly authorized the board to adopt rules governing unit use. Because the 30-day rule was consistent with, rather than in conflict with, the Declaration's provisions limiting units to residential, non-transient use, the board did not violate the Act or the Declaration. The court also found nothing in the 2008 amendment (which removed earlier "less than one (1) year" language) evinced an intent to eliminate restrictions on short-term rentals.

The court then held that Kalway's reasonable-expectations standard governs board-adopted rules, not just majority-vote CC&R amendments. It reasoned it would be illogical to exempt a rule adopted by a board (a minority of owners) from a standard that invalidates even majority-approved restrictions that were not reasonable and foreseeable. Applying that test, the court concluded that a rule defining the Declaration's undefined term "transient" as leases under 30 days was a permissible clarification that "fills a gap" and is tethered to the original restrictions. That reading tracked the ordinary dictionary meaning of "transient" and Arizona and Tempe definitions treating stays of less than 30 days as transient (A.R.S. § 42-5070(F); City of Tempe Zoning & Development Code).

The court distinguished Gross v. Shores at Rainbow Lake, where a similar 30-day rule was struck down because those CC&Rs contained no transient-purpose prohibition, and aligned its result with Preston v. Las Sendas, which upheld a comparable short-term-rental restriction. It rejected the owners' contention that requiring written leases made their use non-transient. Because only a legal question remained on stipulated facts, the court reversed and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for the association, which as the prevailing party may recover fees under the Declaration and A.R.S. §§ 12-341 and 12-341.01.

Why It Matters

This decision marks where an Arizona short-term-rental restriction survives a Kalway-style challenge. Unlike disputes in which durational rental caps were invalidated as unforeseeable, the court found that the North Shore Declaration's existing ban on "hotel or transient purposes" put purchasers on notice that short-term rentals could be restricted, so a board rule defining "transient" as under 30 days merely clarified an existing term rather than imposing an entirely new limitation.

Read alongside decisions such as Gross v. Shores at Rainbow Lake (and, in the broader body of Arizona short-term-rental cases, Bonham) that struck down comparable rental caps, it serves as a counterweight illustrating that the outcome under Kalway turns on the specific language of the governing documents. Where a declaration already limits units to residential, non-transient use, associations may have room to adopt clarifying rules; where it does not, similar restrictions have failed. The opinion is a non-precedential memorandum decision and may be cited only as authorized by rule.

← Back to Court of Appeals cases

Cao v. PFP Dorsey Investments: Arizona Supreme Court Limits on Condominium Termination Forced Sales

Posted on by

cc-and-rs | A.R.S. § 33-1228 | 257 Ariz. 82 (2024)

This Arizona Supreme Court decision sets the constitutional and statutory ground rules for forcing the buyout of minority condominium owners after a supermajority votes to terminate. It upholds the termination statute against a takings challenge but requires that the entire condominium — not individual holdout units — be sold.

Last updated June 30, 2026. Case: Cao, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-22-0228-PR, 257 Ariz. 82 (2024); Court of Appeals decision vacated, superior court affirmed in part and remanded. A later order (No. CV-25-0071-PR, Aug. 20, 2025) sent the unit’s valuation to binding arbitration.

Download the Arizona Supreme Court opinion (2024) Download the Supreme Court order on remand (Aug. 2025) Download the Court of Appeals opinion (now vacated) Download the record index Source-file index FAQ

Current-status note: This page is published as a litigation record based on the source files available through 2025-08-20. Later filings, appeals, mandates, settlements, or dismissal orders may change the posture; the linked court records control.

Scope note: This page covers the Arizona Supreme Court’s resolution of a condominium-termination forced sale — the March 22, 2024 opinion (257 Ariz. 82), which vacated the Court of Appeals decision, and the follow-on August 20, 2025 per curiam order (No. CV-25-0071-PR) sending the unit’s valuation to binding arbitration. The Court of Appeals’ 2022 opinion has been vacated and is no longer controlling. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The Arizona Supreme Court held that a forced sale following a supermajority condominium termination under A.R.S. § 33-1228 does not violate the eminent-domain (private-takings) provision of the Arizona Constitution as applied to owners who agreed to a recorded declaration incorporating the Condominium Act. However, the Court also held that, under these circumstances, § 33-1228 required the sale of the entire condominium upon termination, not the sale of only the minority owners’ individual unit. It vacated the Court of Appeals’ decision, affirmed the superior court except as to that issue, and remanded.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Jie Cao (Plaintiff)
    Minority condominium unit owner of Unit 106 at Dorsey Place Condominiums who challenged the condominium termination and forced sale.
  • Haining "Frazer" Xia (Plaintiff)
    Minority condominium unit owner of Unit 106, husband of Jie Cao, who challenged the termination and forced sale.
  • Stone Xia (Plaintiff)
    Son of Jie Cao and Haining Xia, residing in Fountain Hills, Arizona, named as a plaintiff in the complaints.
  • Dennis I. Wilenchik (Counsel)
    Wilenchik & Bartness, P.C.
    Trial counsel representing Plaintiffs Jie Cao, Haining Xia, and Stone Xia in Maricopa County Superior Court.
  • John "Jack" D. Wilenchik (Counsel)
    Wilenchik & Bartness, P.C.
    Trial counsel representing Plaintiffs Jie Cao, Haining Xia, and Stone Xia in Maricopa County Superior Court.
  • Ross P. Meyer (Counsel)
    Wilenchik & Bartness, P.C.
    Trial and appellate counsel representing Plaintiffs in both Superior Court and Court of Appeals proceedings.
  • Eric M. Fraser (Counsel)
    Osborn Maledon, P.A.
    Appellate counsel representing Plaintiffs/Appellants Jie Cao and Haining Xia before the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court.
  • John S. Bullock (Counsel)
    Osborn Maledon, P.A.
    Appellate counsel representing Plaintiffs/Appellants Jie Cao and Haining Xia before the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court.
  • Thomas L. Hudson (Counsel)
    Osborn Maledon, P.A.
    Appellate attorney with Osborn Maledon, P.A. who assisted on the appellate briefing and oral argument preparation.
  • James M. Manley (Counsel)
    Pacific Legal Foundation
    Amicus curiae counsel representing the Pacific Legal Foundation in support of Plaintiffs/Appellants.

Respondent Side

  • PFP Dorsey Investments, LLC (Defendant)
    Majority investor entity that acquired 90 of the 96 units at Dorsey Place Condominiums and voted to terminate the condominium.
  • Dorsey Place Condominium Association (Defendant)
    The homeowners association for the condominium complex that executed and recorded the termination agreement and warranty deed.
  • Lorne Polger (Board Member)
    Pathfinder Partners / Dorsey Place Condominium Association
    Principal of Pathfinder Partners and self-appointed Secretary of the Dorsey Place HOA; initially named as an individual defendant.
  • Matt Quinn (Association President)
    Pathfinder Partners / Dorsey Place Condominium Association
    Vice President of Pathfinder Partners and self-appointed President of the Dorsey Place HOA; initially named as an individual defendant.
  • Michael A. Schern (Counsel)
    Schern Richardson Finter, PLC
    Trial attorney who represented PFP Dorsey and the individual defendants; initially named as an individual defendant before being dismissed.
  • Shawna M. Woner (Counsel)
    Woner Hoffmaster Peshek & Gintert, PC
    Counsel representing Defendant/Appellee PFP Dorsey Investments, LLC.
  • Stephanie K. Gintert (Counsel)
    Woner Hoffmaster Peshek & Gintert, PC
    Counsel representing Defendant/Appellee PFP Dorsey Investments, LLC.
  • Edith I. Rudder (Counsel)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
    Counsel representing Defendant/Appellee Dorsey Place Condominium Association.
  • Nicholas C.S. Nogami (Counsel)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
    Counsel representing Defendant/Appellee Dorsey Place Condominium Association.
  • Aaron M. Finter (Counsel)
    Schern Richardson Finter, PLC
    Co-counsel representing defendants Lorne Polger, Matt Quinn, and Michael A. Schern in Superior Court.
  • Aaron R. Clouse (Counsel)
    Schern Richardson Finter, PLC
    Co-counsel representing defendants Lorne Polger, Matt Quinn, and Michael A. Schern in Superior Court.
  • Jennifer Barry (Board Member)
    Pathfinder Partners
    General Counsel for Pathfinder Partners who coordinated defense strategy, mediation, and client representation.

Neutral Parties

  • Hon. Theodore Campagnolo (Judge)
    Maricopa County Superior Court
    Trial court judge originally assigned to the civil action in Maricopa County Superior Court.
  • Hon. Gary L. Popham Jr. (Judge)
    Maricopa County Superior Court
    Trial commissioner/judge who heard and ruled on early default and consolidation motions.
  • Hon. Daniel G. Martin (Judge)
    Maricopa County Superior Court
    Commercial Court judge who dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice and awarded taxable costs.
  • Hon. Paul J. McMurdie (Judge)
    Arizona Court of Appeals Division One
    Presiding Appellate Judge who delivered the court's published opinion reversing and remanding the case.
  • Hon. Kent E. Cattani (Judge)
    Arizona Court of Appeals Division One
    Chief Appellate Judge who sat on the Division One panel and joined the opinion.
  • Hon. David B. Gass (Judge)
    Arizona Court of Appeals Division One
    Appellate Judge who sat on the Division One panel and joined the opinion.
  • Justice Clint Bolick (Judge)
    Arizona Supreme Court
    Arizona Supreme Court Justice who authored the unanimous March 22, 2024 opinion (257 Ariz. 82).
  • Amy M. Wood (Other)
    Arizona Court of Appeals Division One
    Clerk of the Court of Appeals Division One who issued appellate clerk notices, record transmittals, and schedules.
  • Jeff Fine (Other)
    Maricopa County Superior Court
    Clerk of the Maricopa County Superior Court who certified and transmitted the electronic record on appeal.
  • Chief Justice Robert M. Brutinel (Judge)
    Arizona Supreme Court
    Joined the unanimous 2024 opinion.
  • Vice Chief Justice Ann A. Scott Timmer (Judge)
    Arizona Supreme Court
    Joined the 2024 opinion; as Chief Justice, signed the August 20, 2025 per curiam Decision Order.
  • Justice John R. Lopez IV (Judge)
    Arizona Supreme Court
    Joined the unanimous 2024 opinion.
  • Justice James P. Beene (Judge)
    Arizona Supreme Court
    Joined the unanimous 2024 opinion.
  • Justice William G. Montgomery (Judge)
    Arizona Supreme Court
    Joined the unanimous 2024 opinion.
  • Justice Kathryn H. King (Judge)
    Arizona Supreme Court
    Joined the unanimous 2024 opinion.

What happened

In January 2018, Jie Cao and Haining Xia purchased Unit 106 of the Dorsey Place Condominiums in Tempe, Arizona, subject to the recorded Condominium Declaration. In November 2018, PFP Dorsey Investments, LLC acquired 90 of the 96 units in the complex, gaining approximately 94% of the voting power.

In March 2019, the Association notified members of a meeting to terminate the condominium, proposing to sell the entire complex to PFP Dorsey. At the April 4, 2019 meeting, the Association presented a modified termination agreement to sell only the minority-owned units to PFP Dorsey. Utilizing its 94% vote, PFP Dorsey ratified the agreement, and the Association recorded a deed transferring the Xias’ unit to PFP Dorsey.

The Xias sued PFP Dorsey and the Association, claiming the forced sale was an unconstitutional private taking and a breach of fiduciary duty. The Maricopa County Superior Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, and the Court of Appeals reversed on the theory that an older version of the termination statute governed. The Arizona Supreme Court granted review.

On March 22, 2024, the Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals’ decision. It rejected the owners’ constitutional argument but held that A.R.S. § 33-1228 required selling the entire condominium, not just the Xias’ unit, and remanded. After the parties disputed the meaning of the mandate on remand, the Court issued a per curiam order on August 20, 2025 (No. CV-25-0071-PR) affirming the superior court, limiting the remaining issue to the unit’s fair market value as the owners’ total compensation, and sending that valuation to final and binding arbitration under § 33-1228.

Video overview of the case record

An AI-generated video overview of Cao v. PFP Dorsey Investments (257 Ariz. 82, 545 P.3d 459 (2024)). Condo termination statute allowed forced sale procedures, subject to constitutional compensation limits. 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 Cao v. PFP Dorsey Investments. 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 2019-11-20 Plaintiffs Jie Cao, Haining Xia, and Stone Xia file their initial Civil Complaint in Maricopa County Superior Court.
Step 2019-12-18 Defendants file a Notice Requesting Assignment to Commercial Court and a Motion for More Definite Statement.
Step 2019-12-20 Defendants file their formal Answer to the initial Complaint.
Step 2020-01-03 Carpenter Hazlewood files a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Lorne Polger and Matt Quinn.
Step 2020-01-17 Minute Entry orders the case referred for reassignment to Commercial Court.
Step 2020-01-22 Plaintiffs file a Motion requesting a sheriff lock up of Unit 106 and an injunction on Defendants.
Step 2020-01-24 Case is officially reassigned to the Commercial Court under Hon. Daniel Martin.
Step 2020-02-25 Minute Entry from status conference orders Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint, denies Defendants' MTD as moot, and Plaintiffs withdraw their injunction motion.
Step 2020-03-27 Plaintiffs file their First Amended Complaint.
Step 2020-07-06 Plaintiffs file their Second Amended Complaint.
Step 2020-07-24 Hon. Daniel Martin signs an order dismissing defendants Lorne Polger, Matt Quinn, and Michael A. Schern without prejudice.
Step 2020-08-13 PFP Dorsey and Dorsey Place Condominium Association file separate Motions to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.
Step 2020-09-16 Plaintiffs file their Response to the Motions to Dismiss.
Step 2020-10-05 Defendants file their Reply briefs in support of the Motions to Dismiss.
Step 2020-12-15 Virtual Oral Argument is held on the Motions to Dismiss before Hon. Daniel Martin.
Step 2020-12-18 Court files a Minute Entry Under Advisement Ruling dated Dec 15, 2020, granting both Motions to Dismiss with prejudice.
Step 2021-01-07 Defendants file separate Applications for Attorneys' Fees and Costs.
Step 2021-03-15 Hon. Daniel Martin issues a Minute Entry Ruling denying the defendants' fee applications but granting taxable costs.
Step 2021-03-18 Court enters signed judgments in favor of both defendants under Rule 54(b).
Step 2021-04-19 Plaintiffs file their first Notice of Appeal from the March 18 judgments.
Step 2021-04-27 Court enters revised final judgment under Rule 54(c).
Step 2021-05-12 Plaintiffs file a stipulated motion to dismiss the first appeal as moot and file a new Notice of Appeal from the April 27 judgment.
Step 2021-05-18 Arizona Court of Appeals Division One assigns case number 1 CA-CV 21-0275 and issues Appellate Clerk Notice.
Step 2021-06-25 Osborn Maledon, P.A. (Eric M. Fraser) files Notice of Substitution of Counsel and Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Opening Brief.
Step 2021-07-07 Appellants file their Case Management Statement and Notice of Filing Transcript of the December 15, 2020 hearing.
Step 2021-08-18 Appellants file their Opening Brief and Appendix.
Step 2021-09-27 Appellees file their Answering Brief.
Step 2021-11-08 Appellants file their Reply Brief.
Step 2021-11-29 Pacific Legal Foundation files a Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief.
Step 2021-12-20 Court of Appeals issues an order accepting the Amicus Curiae brief of Pacific Legal Foundation.
Step 2022-01-10 Appellees file their Response Brief to the Amicus Curiae brief of Pacific Legal Foundation.
Step 2022-02-22 Oral Argument is held before the Court of Appeals Division One.
Step 2022-03-17 Court of Appeals issues an Order for Additional Briefing on the applicability of the 1986 versus the 2018 statutory versions of A.R.S. § 33-1228.
Step 2022-03-23 Court of Appeals issues an Order Re: Supplemental Authority requesting briefing on the impact of the newly issued Supreme Court case Kalway v. Calabria Ranch.
Step 2022-04-15 Parties file simultaneous supplemental briefs.
Step 2022-05-02 Parties file simultaneous responses to the additional briefing.
Step 2022-07-07 Arizona Court of Appeals Division One issues its published Opinion reversing and remanding.
Step 2022-07-22 Appellees file a Motion for Reconsideration and object to Appellants' application for attorneys' fees.
Step 2022-09-14 Court of Appeals denies Appellees' Motion for Reconsideration and awards Appellants $230,000 in attorneys' fees and costs.
Step 2022-09-23 Appellees file a Petition for Review in the Arizona Supreme Court (No. CV-22-0228-PR).
Step 2023-08-22 Arizona Supreme Court grants the Petition and Cross-Petitions for Review in part, rephrasing four statutory and constitutional questions.
Step 2024-03-22 Arizona Supreme Court issues its Opinion (257 Ariz. 82), authored by Justice Bolick for a unanimous Court: vacates the Court of Appeals' decision, affirms the superior court except as to Part II (the single-unit sale), and remands.
Step 2024-05-16 Arizona Supreme Court issues its Mandate and an order awarding the Xias $56,947.00 in fees and $316.32 in costs (denying appellate fees under ARCAP 21(d)).
Step 2024-08-08 On remand, the superior court denies PFP Dorsey's motion to compel arbitration of the unit's valuation (minute entry).
Step 2024-12-03 The superior court grants the Xias' motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint realleging previously dismissed claims (minute entry).
Step 2025-02-25 The Court of Appeals declines special-action jurisdiction over PFP Dorsey's petition challenging the remand rulings (No. 1 CA-SA 25-0015).
Step 2025-03-19 PFP Dorsey files a Petition for Review of the special-action decision, seeking clarification of the Supreme Court's mandate (No. CV-25-0071-PR).
Step 2025-08-20 Arizona Supreme Court issues a per curiam Decision Order: grants review, affirms the superior court, holds the sole remaining issue is the fair market value of the Xias' unit as their total compensation, vacates the August 8 and December 3, 2024 minute entries, remands for final and binding arbitration under A.R.S. § 33-1228, and awards PFP Dorsey reasonable attorney fees.

Complete source-document index

This index contains 193 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 2 2021-05-18

0000 Index Of Record

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
2021-05-18_002_0000-index-of-record.pdf
Source 3 2021-05-18

0001 Civil Complaint

Type: Opening pleading

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

Download source file
2021-05-18_003_0001-civil-complaint.pdf
Source 5 2021-05-18

0003 Civil Cover Sheet

Type: Court/source PDF

Court intake document classifying the case for filing and assignment purposes.

Download source file
2021-05-18_005_0003-civil-cover-sheet.pdf
Source 7 2021-05-18

0005 Declaration Of Service By Certifie

Type: Declaration or affidavit

Witness statement submitted under oath or declaration; its assertions are evidence offered by a party, not court findings.

Download source file
2021-05-18_007_0005-declaration-of-service-by-certifie.pdf
Source 8 2021-05-18

0006 Declaration Of Service By Certifie

Type: Declaration or affidavit

Witness statement submitted under oath or declaration; its assertions are evidence offered by a party, not court findings.

Download source file
2021-05-18_008_0006-declaration-of-service-by-certifie.pdf
Source 9 2021-05-18

0007 Declaration Of Service By Certifie

Type: Declaration or affidavit

Witness statement submitted under oath or declaration; its assertions are evidence offered by a party, not court findings.

Download source file
2021-05-18_009_0007-declaration-of-service-by-certifie.pdf
Source 10 2021-05-18

0008 Notice Of Appearance

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2021-05-18_010_0008-notice-of-appearance.pdf
Source 11 2021-05-18

0009 Application And Affidavit For Defa

Type: Declaration or affidavit

Witness statement submitted under oath or declaration; its assertions are evidence offered by a party, not court findings.

Download source file
2021-05-18_011_0009-application-and-affidavit-for-defa.pdf
Source 14 2021-05-18

0012 Answer

Type: Responsive pleading

Responding party's first substantive response to the complaint or petition.

Download source file
2021-05-18_014_0012-answer.pdf
Source 15 2021-05-18

0013 Credit Memo

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
2021-05-18_015_0013-credit-memo.pdf
Source 16 2021-05-18

0014 Application And Affidavit For Defa

Type: Declaration or affidavit

Witness statement submitted under oath or declaration; its assertions are evidence offered by a party, not court findings.

Download source file
2021-05-18_016_0014-application-and-affidavit-for-defa.pdf
Source 19 2021-05-18

0017 Motion For Treble Damages

Type: Motion/application

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

Download source file
2021-05-18_019_0017-motion-for-treble-damages.pdf
Source 21 2021-05-18

0019 Affidavit Of Service

Type: Declaration or affidavit

Proof-of-service material; check it to understand who was served and when deadlines started.

Download source file
2021-05-18_021_0019-affidavit-of-service.pdf
Source 28 2021-05-18

0026 Minute Entry Ruling 01172020

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2021-05-18_028_0026-me-ruling-01172020.pdf
Source 34 2021-05-18

0032 Minute Entry Case Reassigned 01242020

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
2021-05-18_034_0032-me-case-reassigned-01242020.pdf
Source 36 2021-05-18

0034 Notice Of Appearance

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2021-05-18_036_0034-notice-of-appearance.pdf
Source 39 2021-05-18

0037 Minute Entry Status Conference Set 02132020

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
2021-05-18_039_0037-me-status-conference-set-02132020.pdf
Source 40 2021-05-18

0038 Minute Entry Status Conference 02252020

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
2021-05-18_040_0038-me-status-conference-02252020.pdf
Source 55 2021-05-18

0053 Credit Memo

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
2021-05-18_055_0053-credit-memo.pdf
Source 56 2021-05-18

0054 Credit Memo

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
2021-05-18_056_0054-credit-memo.pdf
Source 62 2021-05-18

0060 Minute Entry Oral Argument Set 10122020

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
2021-05-18_062_0060-me-oral-argument-set-10122020.pdf
Source 85 2021-05-18

0085 Minute Entry Ruling 03152021

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2021-05-18_086_0085-me-ruling-03152021.pdf
Source 86 2021-05-18

0086 Judgment

Type: Decision or judgment

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

Download source file
2021-05-18_087_0086-judgment.pdf
Source 87 2021-05-18

0087 Judgment

Type: Decision or judgment

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

Download source file
2021-05-18_088_0087-judgment.pdf
Source 89 2021-05-18

0089 Notice Of Appeal

Type: Procedural/service filing

Moves the dispute into appellate or judicial-review procedure; use it to track the next forum.

Download source file
2021-05-18_090_0089-notice-of-appeal.pdf
Source 90 2021-05-18

0090 Judgment

Type: Decision or judgment

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

Download source file
2021-05-18_091_0090-judgment.pdf
Source 91 2021-05-18

0091 Notice Of Appeal

Type: Procedural/service filing

Moves the dispute into appellate or judicial-review procedure; use it to track the next forum.

Download source file
2021-05-18_092_0091-notice-of-appeal.pdf
Source 94 2021-05-28

0001 Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2021-05-28_095_0001-certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 96 2021-06-07

0001 Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2021-06-07_097_0001-certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 100 2021-06-21

0001 Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2021-06-21_101_0001-certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 103 2021-06-25

0001 Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2021-06-25_104_0001-certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 105 2021-07-07

0000 Case Management Statement

Type: Court/source PDF

Case-management filing; it tells the court how the parties propose to schedule and manage the case.

Download source file
2021-07-07_106_0000-case-management-statement.pdf
Source 108 2021-07-07

0001 Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2021-07-07_109_0001-certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 112 2021-08-18

0000 Request For Oral Argument

Type: Motion/application

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

Download source file
2021-08-18_113_0000-request-for-oral-argument.pdf
Source 113 2021-08-18

0001 Certificate Of Compliance

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2021-08-18_114_0001-certificate-of-compliance.pdf
Source 114 2021-08-18

0001 Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2021-08-18_115_0001-certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 116 2021-09-27

0001 Certificate Of Compliance

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2021-09-27_118_0001-certificate-of-compliance.pdf
Source 117 2021-09-27

0002 Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2021-09-27_119_0002-certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 119 2021-09-30

0001 Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2021-09-30_121_0001-certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 122 2021-11-08

0001 Certificate Of Compliance

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2021-11-08_124_0001-certificate-of-compliance.pdf
Source 123 2021-11-08

0002 Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2021-11-08_125_0002-certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 127 2021-11-29

0001 Certificate Of Compliance

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2021-11-29_129_0001-certificate-of-compliance.pdf
Source 128 2021-11-29

0001 Declaration Of Service

Type: Declaration or affidavit

Witness statement submitted under oath or declaration; its assertions are evidence offered by a party, not court findings.

Download source file
2021-11-29_130_0001-declaration-of-service.pdf
Source 129 2021-11-29

0002 Declaration Of Service

Type: Declaration or affidavit

Witness statement submitted under oath or declaration; its assertions are evidence offered by a party, not court findings.

Download source file
2021-11-29_131_0002-declaration-of-service.pdf
Source 131 2021-12-09

0093 Court Of Appeals Receipt

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
2021-12-09_133_0093-court-of-appeals-receipt.pdf
Source 132 2021-12-09

0094 Electronic Index Of Record

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
2021-12-09_134_0094-electronic-index-of-record.pdf
Source 139 2021-12-17

0001 Declaration Of Service

Type: Declaration or affidavit

Witness statement submitted under oath or declaration; its assertions are evidence offered by a party, not court findings.

Download source file
2021-12-17_142_0001-declaration-of-service.pdf
Source 144 2022-01-10

0001 Certificate Of Compliance

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2022-01-10_147_0001-certificate-of-compliance.pdf
Source 145 2022-01-10

0002 Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2022-01-10_148_0002-certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 148 2022-02-15

0001 Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2022-02-15_151_0001-certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 155 2022-04-15

0001 Certificate Of Compliance

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2022-04-15_158_0001-certificate-of-compliance.pdf
Source 157 2022-04-15

0002 Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2022-04-15_160_0002-certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 158 2022-04-15

0002 Certificate Of Service 2

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2022-04-15_161_0002-certificate-of-service-2.pdf
Source 161 2022-05-02

0001 Certificate Of Compliance

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2022-05-02_164_0001-certificate-of-compliance.pdf
Source 163 2022-05-02

0002 Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2022-05-02_166_0002-certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 164 2022-05-02

0002 Certificate Of Service 2

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2022-05-02_167_0002-certificate-of-service-2.pdf
Source 165 2022-07-07

0000 Enotification Of Opinion

Type: Decision or judgment

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

Download source file
2022-07-07_168_0000-enotification-of-opinion.pdf
Source 166 2022-07-07

0000 Opinion

Type: Decision or judgment

Opinion holding that the Arizona Supreme Court held that a forced sale following a supermajority condominium termination under A.R.S. § 33-1228 does not violate the eminent-domain (private-takings) provision of the Arizona Constitution as applied to owners who agreed to a recorded declaration incorporating the Condominium Act.

Download source file
2022-07-07_169_0000-opinion.pdf
Source 167 2022-07-07

0000 Opinion Distribution List

Type: Decision or judgment

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

Download source file
2022-07-07_170_0000-opinion-distribution-list.pdf
Source 169 2022-07-21

0000 Statement Of Costs

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
2022-07-21_172_0000-statement-of-costs.pdf
Source 170 2022-07-21

0001 Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2022-07-21_173_0001-certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 171 2022-07-21

0002 Declaration Of Eric M Fraser In Supp

Type: Declaration or affidavit

Witness statement submitted under oath or declaration; its assertions are evidence offered by a party, not court findings.

Download source file
2022-07-21_174_0002-declaration-of-eric-m-fraser-in-supp.pdf
Source 173 2022-07-22

0001 Certificate Of Compliance

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2022-07-22_176_0001-certificate-of-compliance.pdf
Source 174 2022-07-22

0002 Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2022-07-22_177_0002-certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 177 2022-08-04

0001 Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2022-08-04_180_0001-certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 178 2022-08-04

0001 Certificate Of Service 2

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2022-08-04_181_0001-certificate-of-service-2.pdf
Source 179 2022-08-04

0002 Exhibit 1

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
2022-08-04_182_0002-exhibit-1.pdf
Source 181 2022-08-08

0001 Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2022-08-08_184_0001-certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 183 2022-08-25

0001 Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2022-08-25_186_0001-certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 184 2022-08-25

0002 Declaration Of Eric M Fraser In Supp

Type: Declaration or affidavit

Witness statement submitted under oath or declaration; its assertions are evidence offered by a party, not court findings.

Download source file
2022-08-25_187_0002-declaration-of-eric-m-fraser-in-supp.pdf
Source 190 2024-03-22

0000 Supreme Court Opinion

Type: Decision or judgment

Opinion holding that the Arizona Supreme Court held that a forced sale following a supermajority condominium termination under A.R.S. § 33-1228 does not violate the eminent-domain (private-takings) provision of the Arizona Constitution as applied to owners who agreed to a recorded declaration incorporating the Condominium Act.

Download source file
2024-03-22_193_0000-supreme-court-opinion.pdf
Source 193 2025-08-20

0000 Supreme Court Decision Order

Type: Decision or judgment

Decision holding that the Arizona Supreme Court held that a forced sale following a supermajority condominium termination under A.R.S. § 33-1228 does not violate the eminent-domain (private-takings) provision of the Arizona Constitution as applied to owners who agreed to a recorded declaration incorporating the Condominium Act.

Download source file
2025-08-20_196_0000-supreme-court-decision-order.pdf

FAQ

Is Cao v. PFP Dorsey Investments binding precedent in Arizona?

Yes. The controlling decision is now the Arizona Supreme Court’s published opinion, Cao v. PFP Dorsey Investments, LLC, 257 Ariz. 82 (2024), which vacated the earlier Court of Appeals decision. The Supreme Court’s opinion is binding statewide; the 2022 Court of Appeals opinion is no longer good law.

Can a supermajority investor force minority condo owners to sell their units?

Under A.R.S. § 33-1228, a supermajority can vote to terminate a condominium. The Supreme Court held this forced sale does not violate Arizona’s constitutional ban on takings for private use, because the owners agreed to the recorded Declaration, which incorporates the Condominium Act. However, the Court held the statute requires the sale of the entire condominium upon termination — not the sale of only the holdout owners’ individual unit.

Did the unit owners win or lose?

It was a split result. The owners (Jie Cao and Haining ‘Frazer’ Xia) lost their constitutional eminent-domain argument but won on the statutory ground: because only their unit was force-sold while the investor kept the other 90 units, the sale was improper under § 33-1228. The case was remanded, and a later order limited the remaining issue to the fair market value of their unit as their total compensation.

What did the August 2025 Supreme Court order decide?

In a per curiam order (No. CV-25-0071-PR, Aug. 20, 2025), the Court clarified its mandate: the superior court was affirmed, the sole remaining issue is the fair market value of the owners’ unit (paid as their total compensation), and the matter was remanded for final and binding arbitration under A.R.S. § 33-1228 and the Condominium Termination Agreement.

What happened to the Court of Appeals' 'older statute governs' reasoning?

The Supreme Court rejected it. The Court of Appeals had held that the 1986 version of § 33-1228 governed because the owners bought before the 2018 amendments. The Supreme Court disagreed: the Declaration incorporated the Condominium Act ‘as amended from time to time,’ that amendment was anticipated, and Kalway v. Calabria Ranch did not apply because the Declaration itself was never amended — so the 2018 version of the statute applied.

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 / citation257 Ariz. 82, 545 P.3d 459 (2024)
Court / tribunalArizona Supreme Court
Decision / key dateMarch 22, 2024
Judge / panelJustice Clint Bolick (author), Chief Justice Robert M. Brutinel, Vice Chief Justice Ann A. Scott Timmer, Justice John R. Lopez IV, Justice James P. Beene, Justice William G. Montgomery, Justice Kathryn H. King
PartiesJie Cao and Haining 'Frazer' Xia (condominium unit owners) v. PFP Dorsey Investments, LLC (majority investor) and Dorsey Place Condominium Association (homeowners association)
Governing law
Topics
CC&RsBoard GovernanceProcedureAttorney Fees
Outcome / holding

The Arizona Supreme Court held that a forced sale following a supermajority condominium termination under A.R.S. § 33-1228 does not violate the eminent-domain (private-takings) provision of the Arizona Constitution as applied to owners who agreed to a recorded declaration incorporating the Condominium Act. However, the Court also held that, under these circumstances, § 33-1228 required the sale of the entire condominium upon termination, not the sale of only the minority owners' individual unit. It vacated the Court of Appeals' decision, affirmed the superior court except as to that issue, and remanded.

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package193 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap48 roadmap entries
Video overviewCao v. PFP Dorsey Investments
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links4 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Jie Cao and Haining 'Frazer' Xia owned one of 96 units at Dorsey Place Condominiums. After PFP Dorsey Investments acquired 90 units (about 94% of the vote), it invoked A.R.S. § 33-1228 to terminate the condominium and force the sale of the remaining minority units to itself. The Xias sued, arguing the forced sale was an unconstitutional private taking. The superior court dismissed the complaint; the Court of Appeals reversed on a statutory-retroactivity theory. The Arizona Supreme Court vacated that decision. It held the forced sale did not violate Arizona's eminent-domain clause, because the owners agreed to the recorded Declaration incorporating the Condominium Act, but it also held that § 33-1228 required selling the entire condominium, not just the holdout unit. It remanded; a later 2025 order limited the remaining issue to the unit's fair market value as the owners' total compensation, to be fixed by binding arbitration.

Key Issues & Findings

Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Bolick first addressed the constitutional challenge. The Xias argued that A.R.S. § 33-1228 — which lets a supermajority terminate a condominium and force the sale of objecting owners' units — authorized an unconstitutional taking of private property for private use under Article 2, Section 17 of the Arizona Constitution. The Court disagreed. The sale authority derived not from the State's eminent-domain power but from the recorded Declaration, a contract to which the Xias voluntarily agreed when they purchased their unit; the Declaration expressly submitted the property to the Condominium Act and provided for partition upon dissolution. Because the arrangement was contractual, it was not a governmental taking.

The Court then held, however, that the forced sale as carried out was not authorized by the statute. Termination under § 33-1228 required the sale of all of the condominium property, not the sale of individual holdout units while the terminating owner retained the rest. Here PFP Dorsey force-sold only the Xias' unit and kept the other ninety units, which the statute did not permit. The Court therefore vacated the Court of Appeals' decision, affirmed the superior court except as to this issue (Part II of the opinion), and remanded.

Finally, the Court rejected the Court of Appeals' premise that an older (1986) version of the statute governed because the Xias purchased before the 2018 amendments. The Declaration incorporated the Condominium Act 'as amended from time to time,' so the possibility of statutory amendment was anticipated; Kalway v. Calabria Ranch — which barred unforeseen amendments to a declaration itself — did not apply because the Declaration was never amended, only the incorporated statutes were. Accordingly, the 2018 version of § 33-1228 controlled. On remand the parties disputed the scope of the mandate, and in a per curiam order dated August 20, 2025 (No. CV-25-0071-PR), the Supreme Court clarified that the superior court was affirmed, the only remaining issue is the fair market value of the Xias' unit as their total compensation, and the matter must proceed to final and binding arbitration under § 33-1228 and the Condominium Termination Agreement.

Why It Matters

For Arizona condominium owners, associations, and investors, this decision sets the ground rules for 'bulk buyout' terminations. It confirms that a supermajority may use A.R.S. § 33-1228 to terminate a condominium and that the resulting forced sale is not an unconstitutional taking, because owners agree to the Condominium Act through their recorded declaration. Investors cannot defeat a buyout simply by labeling it a private taking.

But the decision also imposes a critical limit: on termination, the statute requires selling the entire condominium, not cherry-picking and force-selling only holdout units while the majority owner keeps the rest. And owners who are bought out are entitled to the fair market value of their unit as total compensation, which — per the Court's 2025 order — may be fixed through binding arbitration under the termination agreement. Boards and counsel structuring a termination must follow the whole-property sale mechanism and a defensible valuation process, or risk having the sale undone.

← Back to Arizona Supreme Court cases

Trilogy at Power Ranch v. John Doe: An HOA’s Anonymous-Critic Suit Dies on Service

Posted on by

Arizona HOA vs. Anonymous Critics | Maricopa County Superior Court CV2025-036877

An HOA sued 50 anonymous ‘John Doe’ email critics, got leave to take discovery to identify them, but never completed service. The court dismissed the case without prejudice.

Last updated June 22, 2026. Case: Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association v. John Doe #1-50, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2025-036877 (Hon. Michael J. Herrod).

Download dismissal order Download complaint

Current-status note: This page is published as a litigation record based on the source files available through 2026-03-04. 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 a Maricopa County Superior Court trial-court matter (CV2025-036877) that was dismissed without prejudice for lack of service — the court never reached the merits. The complaint contained allegations against unidentified defendants; none were proven. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The rule in one sentence

An association cannot keep an injunction case alive against unidentified ‘John Doe’ defendants it never serves; without personal service inside the court’s deadline, the case is dismissed.

Case snapshot

Case name

Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association v. John Doe #1-50.

Superior Court docket

Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2025-036877 (Hon. Michael J. Herrod).

Result

Dismissed without prejudice on March 4, 2026 for failure to serve the defendants within the court-ordered deadline.

Relationship to CV2025-036771

Companion case filed the same day; the association’s identified-defendant claims continued in CV2025-036771 (Berman), which was itself later dismissed and settled.

Case Dossier

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

Case Summary

Case ID / citationCV2025-036877
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateMarch 4, 2026
Judge / panelHon. Michael J. Herrod
PartiesThe companion suit Trilogy at Power Ranch filed the same day, targeting 50 unidentified 'John Doe' senders of the anonymous 'Trilogy News' emails and seeking to declare the emails unlawful and enjoin them.
Governing law
  • 42 U.S.C. § 3601 (Fair Housing Act)
Topics
Board GovernanceFree SpeechProcedure
Outcome / holding

An association cannot keep an injunction case alive against unidentified 'John Doe' defendants it never serves; absent personal service within the court-ordered deadline, the case is dismissed without prejudice.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package3 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap3 roadmap entries
Video overviewTrilogy at Power Ranch Community Association v. John Doe #1-50
Study / briefing material0 sections
FAQ / homeowner questions0 questions
Featured download links3 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Filed the same day as CV2025-036771, this companion case targeted 50 anonymous 'John Doe' defendants behind the 'Trilogy News' email campaign, again pleading tortious interference, injurious falsehood, and (as to one sender) hostile housing harassment. The court granted the association leave to take discovery to identify the senders and set a service deadline, but the association never completed personal service. Judge Michael Herrod vacated the order-to-show-cause hearing on November 14, 2025 and dismissed the case without prejudice on March 4, 2026 for failure to serve. The court never reached the merits.

Key Issues & Findings

Recognizing the defendants were anonymous, the court granted limited discovery to identify them and set a deadline for service. The association did not effect personal service within that window, and email service on anonymous accounts was inadequate. Under the civil rules governing failure to serve, the court dismissed the case without prejudice rather than reaching whether the emails were actually wrongful.

Why It Matters

The case shows how hard it is for an association to weaponize the courts against anonymous online criticism: identification, personal jurisdiction, and service are real procedural hurdles that frequently end a case before any judge evaluates whether the speech crossed a legal line. 'Without prejudice' means the claims were not decided on the merits, but as a practical matter the anonymous-critic suit ended here while the identified-defendant case (CV2025-036771) was itself later dismissed and settled.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association (Plaintiff)
    Association party that sued unidentified John Doe defendants.
  • Scott B. Carpenter (Counsel)
    Carpenter Law Firm
    Counsel for Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association.
  • Keegan Klein (Counsel)
    Carpenter Law Firm
    Counsel for Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association.

Respondent Side

  • John Doe #1-50 (Defendants) (Defendants)
    Unidentified anonymous defendants named in the complaint.

Neutral Parties

  • Michael J. Herrod (Judge)
    Superior Court judge who dismissed the John Doe case without prejudice.

Why this case matters

On the same day in October 2025, Trilogy at Power Ranch filed two suits over the anonymous ‘Trilogy News’ email campaign criticizing its board, staff, and committees. This one, CV2025-036877, targeted 50 unnamed ‘John Doe’ defendants and asked the court to declare the emails unlawful and enjoin them. The association alleged tortious interference, injurious falsehood, and (as to one sender) hostile housing harassment under the Fair Housing Act.

The problem was procedural and basic: you cannot sue people you cannot identify and serve. The court granted the association leave to take discovery to unmask the senders and set a service deadline, but the association never completed personal service. Judge Michael Herrod vacated the show-cause hearing in November 2025 and dismissed the case without prejudice in March 2026.

For homeowners, the case illustrates how hard it is for an association to weaponize the courts against anonymous online criticism. Identification, jurisdiction, and service are real hurdles that often end a case before any judge weighs whether the speech was actually wrongful.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association v. John Doe #1-50 (CV2025-036877). An association cannot keep an injunction case alive against unidentified ‘John Doe’ defendants it never serves… 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 Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association v. John Doe #1-50. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

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

What the court decided

Discovery to identify, granted

The court let the association take limited discovery to try to identify the anonymous senders.

Service never completed

The association did not personally serve the defendants within the court-ordered window, and email service on anonymous accounts was inadequate.

Dismissed without prejudice

Under the civil rules, Judge Herrod dismissed the case for lack of service; ‘without prejudice’ means it could in theory be refiled.

Filing roadmap and PDF downloads

Step 1 Oct 9, 2025

Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against John Doe #1-50.

Filed by: Association

The association sued 50 unidentified email senders.

Download source
2025-10-09_001_complaint.pdf
Step 2 Nov 14, 2025

Order vacating the order-to-show-cause hearing; leave to take discovery to identify defendants.

Filed by: Superior Court

With no one served, the court called off the injunction hearing and allowed discovery to find the senders.

Download source
2025-11-14_002_order-vacating-show-cause-hearing.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 1 2025-10-09

Complaint

Type: Opening pleading

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

Download source file
2025-10-09_001_complaint.pdf

Primary sources

← Back to Superior Court cases

Trilogy at Power Ranch v. Berman: When an Arizona HOA Sues a Critic and Loses

Posted on by

Arizona HOA vs. Critic | Maricopa County Superior Court CV2025-036771

A self-managed 2,035-home HOA sued a vocal resident over critical mass emails. The Superior Court dismissed the claims, and the case settled with each side paying its own fees.

Last updated June 22, 2026. Case: Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association v. Steve Berman, et al., Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2025-036771 (Hon. Greg S. Como).

Download dismissal ruling Download first amended complaint Download stipulation of dismissal

Current-status note: This page is published as a litigation record based on the source files available through 2026-06-18. Later filings, appeals, mandates, settlements, or dismissal orders may change the posture; the linked court records control.

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

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

Video/audio is held until the missing or conflicting source issue is resolved and release QA is rerun.

Scope note: This page covers a Maricopa County Superior Court trial-court matter (CV2025-036771) that was dismissed and then settled. The association’s complaint contained allegations against the defendants; those allegations were never proven, and the case ended without any finding that the defendants did anything unlawful. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The rule in one sentence

An Arizona HOA cannot turn a member’s critical emails about board spending, salaries, and governance into a lawsuit by labeling them ‘tortious interference with business operations’ — a tort Arizona does not recognize — or ‘hostile housing harassment’; criticism of how an association is run is generally protected, not actionable.

Case snapshot

Case name

Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association v. Steve Berman, et al. (originally filed against John Doe defendants).

Superior Court docket

Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2025-036771 (Hon. Greg S. Como).

Result

Motion to dismiss granted on June 1, 2026; the parties then stipulated to dismiss with prejudice, each side bearing its own fees, on June 18, 2026.

What was at stake

The association sought declaratory and injunctive relief to stop a resident’s mass ‘Trilogy News’ emails criticizing the board, staff, and committees.

Case Dossier

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

Case Summary

Case ID / citationCV2025-036771
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateJune 1, 2026
Judge / panelHon. Greg S. Como
PartiesA self-managed 2,035-home Gilbert HOA sued a vocal resident (former Gilbert mayor Steve Berman) and Marc Herbener over a campaign of anonymous, critical 'Trilogy News' mass emails, seeking to declare the emails unlawful and to enjoin them.
Governing law
  • 42 U.S.C. § 3601 (Fair Housing Act)
Topics
Board GovernanceFree SpeechProcedure
Outcome / holding

An Arizona HOA cannot convert member criticism — even repeated, anonymous, and harsh mass emails about board spending, salaries, and governance — into a civil claim by labeling it 'tortious interference with business operations' (a tort Arizona does not recognize) or 'hostile housing harassment'; on the association's pleadings the court found no viable legal theory and dismissed.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package15 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap15 roadmap entries
Video overviewTemporarily unavailable while the expanded case record is reviewed
Study / briefing material0 sections
FAQ / homeowner questions0 questions
Featured download links4 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association — a self-managed, 2,035-home active-adult HOA in Gilbert — sued resident Steve Berman (a former Gilbert mayor) and Marc Herbener over a series of anonymous 'Trilogy News' mass emails criticizing the board's spending, executive and manager salaries, water management, contractor bidding, and committee appointments. The association sought declaratory relief and an injunction, pleading 'tortious interference with business operations,' injurious falsehood, and 'hostile housing harassment' under the Fair Housing Act, and amended its complaint three times. On June 1, 2026, Judge Greg Como granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, and on June 18, 2026 the parties stipulated to dismiss the remaining case with prejudice, each side bearing its own attorney fees and costs. The complaint's allegations were never proven.

Key Issues & Findings

The court concluded the operative complaint failed to identify a viable cause of action. Arizona does not recognize a freestanding tort of 'interference with business operations,' a core theory of the suit; the 'hostile housing harassment' framing under the Fair Housing Act did not fit what was, in substance, members criticizing how a nonprofit board governs and spends; and the gravamen of the case was protected commentary on association governance. The court therefore granted dismissal, after which the parties stipulated to a dismissal with prejudice with no fee award to either side. Because the case was resolved at the pleading stage and by stipulation, no factual findings were made about the truth of the emails.

Why It Matters

For Arizona homeowners and critics, the case is a clear marker that an association's displeasure with a critic is not, by itself, a cause of action: speech about how a board spends money, pays staff, and appoints volunteers is ordinary community participation, not a tort, and boards that sue over it risk a quick dismissal and the 'SLAPP' label that this community's own board raised when it voted to settle. For boards and managers, it is a caution that litigation is a costly and weak response to an unflattering email campaign. It does not immunize defamation — false statements of fact about identifiable people can still carry consequences — but the association here lost on the theories it chose.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association (Plaintiff)
    Association party that sued Steve Berman and other defendants.
  • Adrian Gordon (Association Principal)
    Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association
    Listed as a Trilogy principal present at oral argument.
  • Lisa Gurtler (Association Principal)
    Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association
    Listed as a Trilogy principal present at oral argument.
  • Scott B. Carpenter (Counsel)
    Carpenter Law Firm
    Counsel for Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association.
  • Keegan Klein (Counsel)
    Carpenter Law Firm
    Counsel for Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association.

Respondent Side

  • Geoffrey G. Collins (Counsel)
    Childers, Hanlon & Hudson, PLC
    Counsel of record for Steve Berman in later minute entries and the dismissal stipulation.
  • Steve Berman (Defendant)
    Named defendant accused of sending critical emails.
  • Jane Doe Berman (Defendant)
    Spouse defendant named in the second amended complaint.
  • Marc Herbener (Defendant)
    Named defendant accused of authoring or sending Trilogy News emails.
  • Kevin R. Harper (Counsel)
    Minute entries list him at the show-cause hearing for Steve Berman.

Neutral Parties

  • Greg S. Como (Judge)
    Superior Court judge who granted the motion to dismiss.

Why this case matters

Trilogy at Power Ranch is a self-managed, 2,035-home active-adult community in Gilbert run by a volunteer board and its own staff. Beginning in 2025, residents received a stream of mass emails — branded as ‘Trilogy News’ and sent from a rotating set of anonymous accounts — that sharply criticized the board’s spending, executive and manager salaries, water management, contractor bidding, and committee appointments. The association attributed the campaign to former Gilbert mayor Steve Berman and resident Marc Herbener and took them to court.

Rather than answer the criticism through normal community channels, the association sued, asking a judge to declare the emails unlawful and to enjoin the defendants from sending more. It styled the claims as ‘tortious interference with business operations,’ ‘injurious falsehood,’ and even ‘hostile housing harassment’ under the Fair Housing Act. After three rounds of amended complaints, Judge Greg Como dismissed the case, and the parties settled with each side walking away and paying its own fees.

For homeowners, the case is a clean example of why an association’s displeasure with a critic is not, by itself, a lawsuit. When a board reaches for litigation to silence unflattering emails about governance, it risks a quick dismissal — and the ‘SLAPP’ label that the community itself raised when its board voted to settle.

What Judge Como decided

No 'interference with business operations' tort

The court found Arizona does not recognize a freestanding tort of interference with business operations — a core theory of the association’s complaint.

Harassment theory failed

The ‘hostile housing harassment’ framing did not fit a dispute that was, at bottom, members criticizing how a nonprofit board governs and spends.

Dismissed, then settled

After the dismissal, the parties stipulated to dismiss the remaining case with prejudice, waiving fees and costs on both sides.

For homeowners and critics

Speaking out about how an association spends money, pays staff, and picks committee members is ordinary community participation, not a tort. This case shows that even repeated, anonymous, and harsh email campaigns are difficult for an association to convert into civil liability — and that a board that sues over them may end up dismissed and labeled as bringing a SLAPP-style suit.

It is not a license to defame: false statements of fact about identifiable people can still carry consequences under defamation law. But the association here did not win on that ground; its chosen theories failed at the pleading stage.

For HOA boards and managers

Litigation is a costly and weak answer to an unflattering email campaign. Before suing a critic, a board should ask whether it has a real, recognized cause of action — and weigh the reputational cost of being seen as silencing dissent. Trilogy at Power Ranch’s board ultimately voted to settle and absorb its own fees after the dismissal, a reminder that the path through the courts can be expensive and end where it started.

Filing roadmap and PDF downloads

Step 1 Oct 9, 2025

Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief filed against John Doe defendants.

Filed by: Association

The association opened the case before it had identified who was sending the emails.

Download source
2025-10-09_001_complaint.pdf
Step 2 Oct 13, 2025

Order denying service by alternative means.

Filed by: Superior Court

The court would not let the association serve anonymous defendants by email without first trying to identify them.

Download source
2025-10-13_002_order-denying-alternative-service.pdf
Step 4 Nov 10, 2025

Status conference order; motion for reconsideration denied.

Filed by: Superior Court

The court kept the case on track and addressed the service problems.

Download source
2025-11-10_004_status-conference-order.pdf
Step 5 Jan 26, 2026

First Amended Complaint naming Steve Berman and Marc Herbener.

Filed by: Association

Once the senders were identified, the association named them as defendants.

Download source
2026-01-26_005_first-amended-complaint.pdf
Step 8 Feb 12, 2026

Second Amended Complaint adding a spouse and money damages.

Filed by: Association

The association broadened the case to seek damages, not just an injunction.

Download source
2026-02-12_008_second-amended-complaint.pdf
Step 11 Apr 15, 2026

Order vacating the April 17 hearing on the court's own motion.

Filed by: Superior Court

The court called off the scheduled hearing.

Download source
2026-04-15_011_order-vacating-hearing.pdf
Step 12 Apr 23, 2026

Order setting oral argument on the motion to dismiss for May 13.

Filed by: Superior Court

The focus shifted to the defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Download source
2026-04-23_012_order-setting-oral-argument.pdf

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 2025-10-09

Complaint

Type: Opening pleading

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

Download source file
2025-10-09_001_complaint.pdf
Source 4 2025-11-10

Status Conference Order

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2025-11-10_004_status-conference-order.pdf
Source 7 2026-02-03

Scheduling Hearing Order

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2026-02-03_007_scheduling-hearing-order.pdf
Source 11 2026-04-15

Order Vacating Hearing

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2026-04-15_011_order-vacating-hearing.pdf
Source 12 2026-04-23

Order Setting Oral Argument

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2026-04-23_012_order-setting-oral-argument.pdf
Source 14 2026-06-01

Ruling Granting Motion To Dismiss

Type: Court order/minute entry

Ruling granting Steve Berman’s motion to dismiss and dismissing the association’s third amended complaint without prejudice.

Download source file
2026-06-01_014_ruling-granting-motion-to-dismiss.pdf

Primary sources

← Back to Superior Court cases

Gayer v. Willo Neighborhood Association: Challenging an HOA Bylaw-Amendment Vote for Lack of Quorum

Posted on by

Arizona HOA Bylaws & Quorum | A.R.S. §§ 10-3722, 10-11023 | CV2008-029900

Gayer is a practical, non-precedential illustration of a member challenging an Arizona nonprofit community association’s bylaw-amendment election for lack of statutory quorum and improper meeting notice. The court dismissed the claims against the association president individually but let the quorum claim against the association proceed past the pleading stage; the plaintiff then voluntarily dismissed the case.

Last updated June 19, 2026. Case: Richard Gayer v. Willo Neighborhood Association, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2008-029900 (Hon. A. Craig Blakey II).

Download dismissal ruling Download complaint Source-file index FAQ

Current-status note: 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.

Scope note: This is a trial-level matter that ended on the plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal without prejudice, so it set no binding precedent. This page summarizes the pleadings and the court’s motion-to-dismiss ruling from the uploaded record and is educational, not legal advice.

The takeaway

On a motion to dismiss, a member’s allegation that a bylaw-amendment election lacked the statutory quorum and was held at an improperly noticed meeting (A.R.S. §§ 10-3722 and 10-11023(A)) was legally sufficient to proceed against the association; claims against the association president individually were dismissed because the complaint alleged no personal wrongdoing by him and sought relief that ran against the corporation.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Richard Gayer (Plaintiff)
    Self-represented member who challenged the bylaw vote.

Respondent Side

  • Willo Neighborhood Association (Defendant)
    Association party defending the bylaw-amendment vote.
  • Jon D. Schneider (Counsel)
    Schneider & Onofry, P.C.
    Counsel for Willo Neighborhood Association and Bradley Brauer.
  • Luane Rosen (Counsel)
    Schneider & Onofry, P.C.
    Counsel for Willo Neighborhood Association and Bradley Brauer.
  • Bradley Brauer (Association President)
    Willo Neighborhood Association
    Individual defendant dismissed from the complaint.

Neutral Parties

  • A. Craig Blakey II (Judge)
    Superior Court judge who ruled on the motion to dismiss.

What happened

In June 2008 the Willo Neighborhood Association held an election that amended its bylaws — redrawing the eastern service-area boundary and shifting from automatic membership to an opt-in model with a lower voting quorum. Richard Gayer, a member appearing pro se, alleged the meeting was improperly noticed as a ‘board meeting’ rather than the required membership meeting and that only about 143 votes were cast against a statutory minimum near 270. He sought a declaratory judgment invalidating the election and an injunction restoring the prior bylaws.

The association and its president moved to dismiss. On July 8, 2009, the court dismissed the claims against the president but denied dismissal of the quorum/notice claim against the association, observing it might not survive summary judgment but passed the motion-to-dismiss standard. Because Gayer had already filed a Rule 41(a)(1) voluntary dismissal without prejudice on June 19, 2009, the case ended without a merits decision.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Richard Gayer v. Willo Neighborhood Association (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2008-029900). On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the member’s bylaw-amendment quorum and notice claim against the association stated a… 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 Richard Gayer v. Willo Neighborhood 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 2008-11-24 Gayer files complaint challenging the bylaw-amendment election (CV2008-029900)
Step 2009-03-13 Association and president move to dismiss
Step 2009-06-19 Gayer files notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice (Rule 41(a)(1))
Step 2009-07-08 Court dismisses claims against the president; denies dismissal of the quorum claim against the association

Complete source-document index

This index contains 17 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 2 2008-11-24

Complaint

Type: Opening pleading

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

Download source file
2008-11-24_002_complaint.pdf
Source 4 2009-03-03

Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2009-03-03_004_certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 6 2009-03-05

Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2009-03-05_006_certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 7 2009-03-05

Summons

Type: Procedural/service filing

Service document used to notify a defendant or respondent that the case has been filed.

Download source file
2009-03-05_007_summons.pdf
Source 9 2009-03-13

Credit Memo

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
2009-03-13_009_credit-memo.pdf
Source 11 2009-03-23

Plaintiff Memorandum Opposing Motion To Dismiss

Type: Motion/application

Plaintiff memorandum opposing dismissal of the bylaw-amendment quorum and notice claims and arguing that the association’s fee request should be denied.

Download source file
2009-03-23_011_plaintiff-memorandum-opposing-motion-to-dismiss.pdf
Source 14 2009-07-10

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

Ruling dismissing the claims against Bradley Brauer individually but denying Willo Neighborhood Association’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.

Download source file
2009-07-10_014_ruling.pdf
Source 16 2009-07-16

Letter To Court

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
2009-07-16_016_letter-to-court.pdf
Source 17 Undated

Summons

Type: Procedural/service filing

Service document used to notify a defendant or respondent that the case has been filed.

Download source file
undated_017_summons.pdf

FAQ

Is this case binding precedent?

No. It is an unpublished trial-court matter that ended on the plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal without prejudice. It is useful as an illustration, not as controlling authority.

Can a member challenge a bylaw-amendment vote in Arizona?

Yes. This case shows such a challenge — based on lack of statutory quorum and improper meeting notice under A.R.S. §§ 10-3722 and 10-11023(A) — can survive a motion to dismiss against the association.

Why were the claims against the president dismissed?

The complaint alleged nothing the president personally did wrong and sought relief that ran against the corporation, so he was not a proper individual defendant.

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 / citationMaricopa County Superior Court No. CV2008-029900
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateJuly 8, 2009
Judge / panelHon. A. Craig Blakey II
PartiesA neighborhood-association member, appearing pro se, sued the association and its president to invalidate a bylaw-amendment election he alleged was held without the statutory quorum and proper meeting notice.
Governing law
  • A.R.S. § 10-3722
  • A.R.S. § 10-11023
Topics
AmendmentsQuorumNonprofit CorporationProcedureBoard Governance
Outcome / holding

On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the member's bylaw-amendment quorum and notice claim against the association stated a claim and survived dismissal, while the claims against the association president individually were dismissed for failure to allege any wrongful conduct by him personally; the action ultimately terminated on the plaintiff's voluntary dismissal without prejudice, so no merits ruling was entered.

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package17 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap4 roadmap entries
Video overviewRichard Gayer v. Willo Neighborhood Association
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions3 questions
Featured download links3 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

This Maricopa County Superior Court matter is a useful, if non-precedential, illustration of how an Arizona nonprofit community-association member can challenge a bylaw-amendment vote for lack of quorum and improper meeting procedure. In June 2008 the Willo Neighborhood Association held an election that amended its bylaws — redrawing the eastern service-area boundary and shifting from automatic membership to an opt-in model with a lower voting quorum. Gayer, a member, alleged the meeting was improperly noticed as a 'board meeting' rather than the required membership meeting and that only about 143 votes were cast against a statutory minimum near 270 (ten percent of roughly 2,700 voting-age residents). He sought a declaratory judgment invalidating the election and an injunction restoring the prior bylaws. The association and its president moved to dismiss. The court dismissed the claims against the president individually but allowed the quorum/notice claim against the association to proceed past the pleading stage. Because Gayer had already filed a voluntary dismissal without prejudice, the case ended without a merits judgment.

Key Issues & Findings

Applying the motion-to-dismiss standard and accepting the well-pleaded allegations as true, the court concluded that Gayer's allegations under A.R.S. §§ 10-3722 and 10-11023(A) — that the amendment vote lacked the required quorum and was conducted at an improperly noticed meeting — were legally sufficient to state a claim against the corporation, even while observing that the claim might not survive summary judgment on a fuller record. As to the president, the court held the complaint alleged nothing he personally did wrong and sought relief that ran against the corporation rather than against him, so the individual claims were dismissed. Because a Rule 41(a)(1) voluntary dismissal without prejudice is effective on filing, the case ended without a decision on the merits, leaving the member free to refile.

Why It Matters

For homeowners and members of Arizona nonprofit community associations, the ruling illustrates that a member has standing to challenge a bylaw-amendment election for failure to meet statutory quorum and meeting-notice requirements, and that such a challenge can survive a motion to dismiss. For boards, it is a reminder that volunteer officers generally cannot be held individually liable for governance disputes absent specific personal wrongdoing — the proper defendant is the association. Because the case ended in a voluntary dismissal, it sets no binding precedent, but it remains a practical example of quorum-based bylaw-amendment challenges and officer-immunity pleading in the HOA context.

← Back to Superior Court cases

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

Posted on by

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

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

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

Download appellate opinion Download final judgment Source-file index FAQ

Current-status note: 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.

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

The rule

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

What happened

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

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

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Norman Zwicky v. Premiere Vacation Collection Owners Association (244 Ariz. 309, 418 P.3d 1108 (App. 2018), 1 CA-CV 16-0659). A timeshare owner who follows the statutory request procedure and has a ‘proper purpose’ — a desire to obtain… 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 Norman Zwicky v. Premiere Vacation Collection Owners 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 2015-05-13 Zwicky files verified complaint to compel records inspection (CV2015-051911)
Step 2016-03-11 Superior court grants Zwicky summary judgment; denies association's cross-motion
Step 2016-09-16 Final judgment ordering production; attorneys' fees denied (not an action 'arising out of contract')
Step 2018-01-23 Court of Appeals affirms inspection right; vacates member-notice and protective-order modification; remands (1 CA-CV 16-0659)
Step 2018-08-23 Stipulated final order on remand resolves confidentiality

Complete source-document index

This index contains 77 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 4 2015-05-13

Civil Cover Sheet

Type: Court/source PDF

Court intake document classifying the case for filing and assignment purposes.

Download source file
2015-05-13_004_civil-cover-sheet.pdf
Source 5 2015-05-13

Summons

Type: Procedural/service filing

Service document used to notify a defendant or respondent that the case has been filed.

Download source file
2015-05-13_005_summons.pdf
Source 6 2015-05-13

Verified Complaint

Type: Opening pleading

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

Download source file
2015-05-13_006_verified-complaint.pdf
Source 7 2015-05-28

Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2015-05-28_007_certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 8 2015-08-19

Answer

Type: Responsive pleading

Responding party's first substantive response to the complaint or petition.

Download source file
2015-08-19_008_answer.pdf
Source 10 2015-11-25

Motion For Summary Judgment

Type: Motion/application

Party motion asking the court to decide specified claims before trial; it is not a ruling.

Download source file
2015-11-25_010_motion-for-summary-judgment.pdf
Source 11 2015-12-02

Answer

Type: Responsive pleading

Responding party's first substantive response to the complaint or petition.

Download source file
2015-12-02_011_answer.pdf
Source 14 2016-02-08

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
2016-02-08_014_oral-argument-set.pdf
Source 17 2016-03-11

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
2016-03-11_017_minute-entry.pdf
Source 18 2016-03-14

Objection

Type: Briefing paper

Opposing or responsive paper; compare it to the motion or request filed immediately before it.

Download source file
2016-03-14_018_objection.pdf
Source 19 2016-03-18

Motion For Summary Judgment

Type: Motion/application

Party motion asking the court to decide specified claims before trial; it is not a ruling.

Download source file
2016-03-18_019_motion-for-summary-judgment.pdf
Source 23 2016-04-29

Application For Attorneys Fees

Type: Motion/application

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

Download source file
2016-04-29_023_application-for-attorneys-fees.pdf
Source 24 2016-05-10

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2016-05-10_024_ruling.pdf
Source 26 2016-07-11

Order

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2016-07-11_026_order.pdf
Source 29 2016-08-17

Reply In Support

Type: Briefing paper

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

Download source file
2016-08-17_029_reply-in-support.pdf
Source 30 2016-08-19

Motion

Type: Motion/application

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

Download source file
2016-08-19_030_motion.pdf
Source 31 2016-08-19

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2016-08-19_031_ruling.pdf
Source 32 2016-09-14

Final Judgment

Type: Decision or judgment

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

Download source file
2016-09-14_032_final-judgment.pdf
Source 33 2016-09-14

Judgment Signed

Type: Decision or judgment

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

Download source file
2016-09-14_033_judgment-signed.pdf
Source 34 2016-10-14

Notice Of Appeal

Type: Procedural/service filing

Moves the dispute into appellate or judicial-review procedure; use it to track the next forum.

Download source file
2016-10-14_034_notice-of-appeal.pdf
Source 35 2016-10-14

Notice Of Appeal

Type: Procedural/service filing

Moves the dispute into appellate or judicial-review procedure; use it to track the next forum.

Download source file
2016-10-14_035_notice-of-appeal.pdf
Source 36 2016-10-28

Declaration Of Kathy Wheeler

Type: Declaration or affidavit

Witness statement submitted under oath or declaration; its assertions are evidence offered by a party, not court findings.

Download source file
2016-10-28_036_declaration-of-kathy-wheeler.pdf
Source 37 2016-10-28

Motion For Summary Judgment

Type: Motion/application

Party motion asking the court to decide specified claims before trial; it is not a ruling.

Download source file
2016-10-28_037_motion-for-summary-judgment.pdf
Source 38 2016-11-15

Court Document

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
2016-11-15_038_court-document.pdf
Source 39 2016-11-15

Electronic Index Of Record

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
2016-11-15_039_electronic-index-of-record.pdf
Source 42 2016-11-18

Notice Of Appeal

Type: Procedural/service filing

Moves the dispute into appellate or judicial-review procedure; use it to track the next forum.

Download source file
2016-11-18_042_notice-of-appeal.pdf
Source 44 2016-12-05

Motion

Type: Motion/application

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

Download source file
2016-12-05_044_motion.pdf
Source 45 2016-12-06

Motion

Type: Motion/application

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

Download source file
2016-12-06_045_motion.pdf
Source 46 2016-12-14

Motion

Type: Motion/application

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

Download source file
2016-12-14_046_motion.pdf
Source 47 2016-12-19

Oral Argument Reset

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
2016-12-19_047_oral-argument-reset.pdf
Source 50 2017-01-20

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2017-01-20_050_ruling.pdf
Source 51 2018-01-23

Opinion Of The Court

Type: Decision or judgment

Opinion holding that a timeshare owner who follows the statutory request procedure and has a 'proper purpose' — a desire to obtain information that reasonably relates to protecting his interest as a member — may compel inspection of the association's financial records under A.R.S. § 33-2209, and the business judgment rule is no defense; but an association cannot be ordered under A.R.S. § 33-2210 to circulate member notices whose real purpose is recruiting plaintiffs rather than legitimate association business.

Download source file
2018-01-23_051_opinion-of-the-court.pdf
Source 53 2018-03-02

Status Conference 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
2018-03-02_053_status-conference-set.pdf
Source 57 2018-04-02

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2018-04-02_057_minute-entry.pdf
Source 58 2018-04-12

Joint Statement Re Scheduling

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
2018-04-12_058_joint-statement-re-scheduling.pdf
Source 59 2018-04-19

Order

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2018-04-19_059_order.pdf
Source 60 2018-04-23

Order Signed

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2018-04-23_060_order-signed.pdf
Source 62 2018-06-13

Court Document

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
2018-06-13_062_court-document.pdf
Source 67 2018-06-18

Notice Of Errata

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2018-06-18_067_notice-of-errata.pdf
Source 68 2018-06-19

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2018-06-19_068_minute-entry.pdf
Source 70 2018-06-20

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
2018-06-20_070_minute-entry.pdf
Source 71 2018-06-21

Exhibit Worksheet

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
2018-06-21_071_exhibit-worksheet.pdf
Source 72 2018-07-02

Objection

Type: Briefing paper

Opposing or responsive paper; compare it to the motion or request filed immediately before it.

Download source file
2018-07-02_072_objection.pdf
Source 74 2018-08-02

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2018-08-02_074_minute-entry.pdf
Source 76 2018-08-21

Stipulated Order

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2018-08-21_076_stipulated-order.pdf

Why it matters

  • Statutory records-inspection rights are court-enforceable.
  • No board permission needed.
  • ‘Proper purpose’ is read in the member’s favor.
  • Board discretion and the business judgment rule do not defeat the statutory right.
  • Confidential or proprietary financials can still be protected by a proper protective order.
  • An association cannot be forced to mail member notices that really serve class-action recruitment.
  • Inspection still runs through the statutory request procedure.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Norman Zwicky (Plaintiff/Appellee)
    Timeshare member who sought to inspect association records.
  • Jon L. Phelps (Counsel)
    Law Offices Phelps & Moore PLLC
    Counsel for Zwicky in the verified complaint.
  • Edward L. Barry (Co-Counsel)
    Law Office of Edward L. Barry
    Appeared as co-counsel for Zwicky.

Respondent Side

  • Premiere Vacation Collection Owners Association (Defendant/Appellant)
    Association party defending the records-inspection case.
  • John E. DeWulf (Counsel)
    Coppersmith Brockelman PLC
    Counsel for Premiere Vacation Collection Owners Association.
  • Katherine DeStefano (Counsel)
    Coppersmith Brockelman PLC
    Counsel for PVCOA; later filings use Katherine Hyde.
  • Brandon T. Crossland (Counsel)
    Baker Hostetler LLP
    Associated pro hac vice as counsel for PVCOA.
  • Kathy Wheeler (Director/Declarant)
    Premiere Vacation Collection Owners Association
    PVCOA director who submitted a declaration about confidential records.

Neutral Parties

  • John R. Hannah Jr. (Judge)
    Superior Court judge assigned to the case.
  • Patricia A. Orozco (Judge)
    Authored the Court of Appeals opinion.
  • Kenton D. Jones (Presiding Judge)
    Joined the Court of Appeals opinion.
  • Jon W. Thompson (Judge)
    Joined the Court of Appeals opinion.

FAQ

Is Zwicky still good law?

Yes. It is a published Court of Appeals opinion (244 Ariz. 309) and was not further reviewed; it remains the leading Arizona authority on timeshare records inspection under A.R.S. § 33-2209.

Does it apply to ordinary HOAs and condos?

Zwicky construes the timeshare records statute (§ 33-2209). Its ‘proper purpose’ reasoning is frequently cited in disputes over member access to association financial records, but planned communities and condominiums have their own records statutes (A.R.S. §§ 33-1805 and 33-1258).

Did the owner get his attorneys' fees?

No. The courts held the records-inspection action did not ‘arise out of contract’ under A.R.S. § 12-341.01, so fees were denied at both the trial and appellate levels.

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 / citation244 Ariz. 309, 418 P.3d 1108 (App. 2018), 1 CA-CV 16-0659
Court / tribunalCourt of Appeals
Decision / key dateJanuary 23, 2018
Judge / panelJudge Patricia A. Orozco, Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones, Judge Jon W. Thompson
PartiesA timeshare member sued his owners' association to enforce his statutory right to inspect the association's financial books and records after his annual assessments roughly tripled.
Governing law
  • A.R.S. § 33-2209
  • A.R.S. § 33-2210
  • A.R.S. § 12-341.01
Topics
Records RequestsTimeshareAssessmentsBoard GovernanceAttorney Fees
Outcome / holding

A timeshare owner who follows the statutory request procedure and has a 'proper purpose' — a desire to obtain information that reasonably relates to protecting his interest as a member — may compel inspection of the association's financial records under A.R.S. § 33-2209, and the business judgment rule is no defense; but an association cannot be ordered under A.R.S. § 33-2210 to circulate member notices whose real purpose is recruiting plaintiffs rather than legitimate association business.

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package77 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap5 roadmap entries
Video overviewNorman Zwicky v. Premiere Vacation Collection Owners Association
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions3 questions
Featured download links4 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

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

Key Issues & Findings

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

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

Why It Matters

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

← Back to Court of Appeals cases

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

Posted on by

Arizona Condo Governance | Open Meetings | Direct Claims

This pending-case guide now includes the July 2026 partial-summary-judgment series, Tara’s response to the supplemental complaint, and the court’s order postponing the Colby discovery ruling until after the Rule 12(c) motion.

Last updated July 22, 2026. Case: Lisa Marx v. Tara Condominiums Association, Inc., Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2025-012980; Hon. Randall H. Warner and Hon. Adele Ponce.

Download July 16 order Download complaint July 2026 motions Document roadmap Source index FAQ

Current-status note: This pending litigation record is current through docket events posted July 22, 2026. Later filings or orders may change the posture; the linked court records control.

The July summary-judgment motions and supporting statements present plaintiff's positions. No ruling on those motions appears in the reviewed record.

Allegations, declarations, exhibit descriptions, proposed orders, procedural dismissals, and notices are not findings of liability unless a cited court order expressly makes that finding.

The earlier audio and video overview is temporarily unavailable because it predates the July 2026 filings.

Posture note: This is a pending Superior Court record guide, not a final merits summary. The July 2026 partial-summary-judgment papers state Marx’s allegations and requested relief. No ruling on those motions—and no final judgment resolving the case—appears in the reviewed record.

The posture in one sentence

Marx v. Tara remains pending: Tara’s Rule 12(c) direct-versus-derivative motion and Marx’s nine July 2026 partial-summary-judgment motions await decision, while the Colby discovery dispute has been postponed until after the Rule 12(c) ruling.

Case snapshot

Core dispute

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

Interim rulings

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

Current fight

Tara’s Rule 12(c) motion remains undecided. Marx then filed nine partial-summary-judgment motions addressing grouped governance, records, insurance, budget, spending, and amendment claims.

Source packet

The reviewed public packet now contains 214 deduplicated PDFs plus a filing roadmap. Loose discovery exhibits and unsigned July proposed orders remain outside the public index pending privacy and source-status review.

Case Dossier

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

Case Summary

Case ID / citationCV2025-012980
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateApril 14, 2025
Judge / panelHon. Randall H. Warner, Hon. Adele Ponce
PartiesLisa Marx, a Tara condominium owner, sued Tara Condominiums Association over alleged open-meeting, records, insurance, common-element, voting, and declaration/bylaw violations.
Governing law
Topics
Meetings & RecordsBoard GovernanceCC&RsRecords RequestsProcedureAttorney Fees
Outcome / holding

No final merits ruling appears in the reviewed public court-source set. The June 2025 record denied preliminary injunctive relief and, for the motion then before it, treated Marx's claims against the association as member-right claims rather than derivative claims. The July 2025 record dismissed the individual board-member defendants. A July 16, 2026 minute entry granted Tara's request to postpone the Colby Management discovery ruling until after the court resolves Tara's still-pending Rule 12(c) motion.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package214 PDFs, 1 other source file
Step-by-step docket roadmapNo separate litigation roadmap table on this page
Video overviewTemporarily unavailable while the expanded case record is reviewed
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions7 questions
Featured download links24 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Lisa Marx filed Maricopa County Superior Court case CV2025-012980 against Tara Condominiums Association after disputes over board votes, open meetings, records inspection, landscaping/common-element decisions, insurance changes, amendments, expenditures, and alleged governance defects. The case remains pending. The court denied preliminary injunctive relief in June 2025, denied Tara's first partial derivative-claims dismissal motion as to the association, dismissed the individual board-member defendants, and in July 2026 postponed a Colby Management discovery ruling until after Tara's unresolved Rule 12(c) motion. Marx filed nine partial-summary-judgment motions in July 2026; those motions state her allegations and requested relief, not court findings.

Key Issues & Findings

The June 2025 preliminary-injunction ruling found no irreparable harm warranting emergency relief on that record. The June 26, 2025 derivative-claims ruling treated the claims then framed against the association as attempts to enforce Marx's own membership rights under the declaration, bylaws, and statutes, with damages limited to her own proven harm. The July 31, 2025 dismissal ruling distinguished association obligations from personal-liability claims against individual directors. The July 16, 2026 discovery-stay ruling found that deciding the Rule 12(c) motion first could promote efficiency and might make the disputed discovery unnecessary.

Why It Matters

This pending condominium case collects Arizona open-meeting, records, insurance, common-element, amendment, budget, and direct-versus-derivative arguments in one record. The July 2026 motion series also shows how a self-represented owner divided a sprawling complaint into claim-specific partial-summary-judgment packages. None of those July motions has been granted in the reviewed record, so they are useful as litigation positions and source maps, not precedent or adjudicated fact.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Lisa Marx (Plaintiff)
    Self-represented condominium owner plaintiff.

Respondent Side

  • Tara Condominiums Association, Inc. (Defendant)
    Association party named in Marx’s condominium-governance claims.
  • Mark Gottmann (Defendant)
    Tara Condominiums Association
    Individual defendant named in the amended complaint.
  • Dennis Anderson (Defendant)
    Tara Condominiums Association
    Individual defendant named in the amended complaint.
  • Charles H. Oldham (Counsel)
    CHDB Law LLP
    Counsel served by Marx in the case filings.
  • Ari Bowhay (Counsel)
    CHDB Law LLP
    Counsel served by Marx in the case filings.

Neutral Parties

  • Randall H. Warner (Judge)
    Superior Court judge listed in the amended complaint and orders.
  • Adele Ponce (Judge)
    Later Superior Court judge listed in the case metadata.

What the record shows

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

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

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

Tara’s March 30, 2026 response to the supplemental complaint acknowledges that the association approved declaration amendments, distributed written-consent forms, conducted a vote, and allowed the prior master property policy to expire, while denying Marx’s legal conclusions and asserting defenses. The response is a party pleading, not an admission that the process was unlawful.

Marx’s July 2026 motion series asks for partial summary judgment on grouped claims spanning declaration validity, corporate records, appointments, meeting procedure, insurance, budgets and ballots, roof and lien decisions, legal expenses, landscaping, and other association spending. On July 16, the court separately granted Tara’s request to postpone the Colby Management discovery ruling until after the Rule 12(c) motion. None of the nine summary-judgment motions is resolved in the reviewed record.

What the court has already done

Preliminary injunction denied

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

Association derivative motion denied

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

Individual directors dismissed

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

Discovery ruling postponed; merits motions pending

The July 16, 2026 minute entry grants Tara’s request to postpone the Colby discovery ruling until after the still-pending Rule 12(c) motion. It does not decide Rule 12(c), the merits, or Marx’s July summary-judgment motions.

The Rule 12(c) motion and the Colby discovery stay

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

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

The same June 2 packet opposed Tara’s request to stay the pending Colby Management discovery dispute. Marx argued that the subpoenaed Colby materials go to direct claims already recognized by the June 26, 2025 ruling.

The court later granted Tara’s stay request in a July 16, 2026 minute entry, reasoning that deciding Rule 12(c) first could promote efficiency and might make the discovery request moot. The court said it would address Marx’s pending discovery issues after the Rule 12(c) ruling.

The June packet’s two proposed orders remain only proposed forms of relief. They are not signed rulings.

What the June 2026 response packet adds

Rule 12(c) opposition

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

Colby discovery stay opposition

Marx argued the court should not pause her motion to compel Colby Management records. The court later granted Tara’s stay request, leaving the discovery issues for after the Rule 12(c) ruling.

Claim organization exhibit

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

Proposed orders

The proposed orders asked the court to deny Rule 12(c) and the discovery stay. They are not rulings; the July 16 minute entry instead granted the stay request.

June 2026 filings added to the record guide

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

Nine July 2026 partial-summary-judgment motions

The Maricopa County docket independently lists nine plaintiff partial-summary-judgment motions filed from July 5 through July 21, 2026. The reviewed packet includes each motion with a separate statement, declaration, and exhibit index. Together they divide the complaint into claim groups rather than asking the court to resolve the entire case in one motion.

Every theory in this section is attributed to Marx because the papers are advocacy filings. A motion, separate statement, declaration, exhibit index, or unsigned proposed order does not establish a fact or legal violation. No order granting or denying any of these nine motions appears in the reviewed record.

The exhibit notices and master index are public below. The 71 loose exhibit copies delivered with this update were reviewed for context but are not republished here because many are discovery or Bates-labeled materials containing private identifiers, and their status as public docket attachments was not independently established.

What each July motion asks the court to decide

FiledClaim groupPlaintiff's theoryEvidence map in the packetMotion
July 52025 declaration amendmentMarx argues the recorded amendment improperly shifted property-insurance duties, changed unit or common-element burdens without the required consent, used an invalid written-consent process, and imposed an unforeseeable covenant burden.Original and recorded declarations, amendment materials, written-consent and vote communications, Tara’s March response, and insurance/cancellation records.Amendment motion
July 10Claims 120 and 121Marx argues Tara failed to keep accurate June 2024 minutes and records of actions taken without a meeting, contrary to A.R.S. § 10-11601.Meeting notice, minutes, audio/transcript, later minutes and emails, financial records, discovery responses, and the Marx declaration.Corporate-records motion
July 11Claims 46/91, 42/87/127, 98/126Marx challenges a master-policy deductible increase, adoption of the 2025 budget and assessment by mail-only ballot, and ballot access or timing.Governing documents, insurance renewals and minutes, budget records, ballots, vote results, owner communications, and objections.Insurance, budget, and ballot motion
July 13Claims 30/47/74/103/108, 48/92Marx argues the chair negotiated roof-repair cost allocation before an authorized vote, shifted a common-element cost without owner culpability, and released a repair lien without full payment or proper approval.Governing documents, roof-repair affidavit and communications, notices and minutes, financial records, lien documents, and executive-session materials.Roof and lien motion
July 16Claims 26/70, 27/71, 28/72, 29/73, 43/88Marx challenges a reserve transfer, restrictions on correcting minutes, workers’ compensation coverage, Bermuda-grass spending, and a lighting reimbursement as actions lacking an open board vote.Financials, notices, minutes and audio, policy records, seed invoices, vouchers, and the Marx declaration.Reserve, minutes, policy, and spending motion
July 16Claims 23/67, 24/68, 25/69, 33/34/77/78, 49/93Marx challenges officer and director appointments, dissolution of a landscaping committee, and creation or enforcement of a two-minute owner-comment rule.Bylaws, executive-session and open-meeting records, announcements, emails, admissions, audio/transcripts, and the Marx declaration.Appointments and speaking-rule motion
July 19Claims 32/76, 39/84, 83, 44/89Marx challenges common-area work, a Home Depot purchase, creation and funding of a second bank account, and tree work outside the landscaping contract as actions taken without a majority vote in an open meeting.Executive-session material, meetings, newsletters, affidavits/photos, records requests, vouchers, financials, bank records, and landscaping contracts.Landscaping and spending motion
July 20Claims 31/75, 35/79, 36/80, 37/81, 38/82, 45/90Marx challenges sprinkler-trench work, retention and payment of association counsel, retroactive approval or preauthorization of work, and an association payment to Marx.Work photos and affidavit, counsel engagement and invoices, financials, meeting records, demand/payment materials, and the Marx declaration.Common-area work and legal-expense motion
July 21Claims 40/85, 41/86, 51/95, 53/97Marx challenges off-record budget development, the board chair’s role in budget-committee meetings and membership, and landscaping or maintenance work and spending without a vote.Executive and budget-committee records, audio/transcripts, competing budgets, emails, agreements, vouchers, bank statements, photos, and 2026 budget materials.Budget-committee and maintenance motion

How the July packet was incorporated

Docket-verified motion dates

The court’s current docket confirms the nine motion events, the filed separate statements shown there, the exhibit notices, and Tara’s March 30 response.

Party evidence is attributed

Separate statements and declarations explain what Marx says the evidence proves. The page does not convert those assertions into judicial findings.

Unsigned orders are not rulings

The intake contained nine distinct unsigned proposed orders, including an editable Count VII form. None is presented or indexed as an entered court order.

Loose exhibits remain off-page

The master index and filing notices show the exhibit structure. Loose discovery, financial, insurance, correspondence, affidavit, contract, and image copies remain outside the public download set pending privacy and public-status review.

Timeline highlights

DateEventWhy it matters
April 2025Original complaint packet begins the CV2025-012980 record.The initial claims focused heavily on open meetings, board authority, records, committee action, and association governance.
June 23, 2025The court held an evidentiary hearing on preliminary injunctive relief.The hearing created the record for the June 2025 emergency-relief ruling.
June 25, 2025The court denied the motion for preliminary injunction.The ruling matters because it separates alleged procedural defects from the emergency showing needed for immediate injunctive relief.
June 26, 2025The court denied Tara’s partial motion to dismiss association claims as derivative.This is the key early ruling treating the claims against the association as member-right claims rather than derivative claims, at least for that motion.
July 31, 2025The court dismissed Mark Gottmann and Dennis Anderson.The ruling draws a line between claims against the association and personal liability theories against individual directors.
October 2025The record includes emergency TRO filings over master insurance, amendments, and owner insurance obligations.The case expanded from meeting and records issues into insurance/amendment governance disputes.
March 30, 2026Tara responded to Marx’s Rule 15(d) supplemental complaint.The response acknowledges the amendment vote and expiration of the prior property policy while denying illegality and asserting defenses.
May 27, 2026Tara filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.The motion asks the court to treat many community-wide claims as derivative after newer Arizona appellate authority.
June 2, 2026Marx filed opposition papers and proposed orders addressing the Rule 12(c) motion and the Colby discovery stay.This moves the live briefing posture from Tara’s motion alone to a disputed pending motion, with Marx asking the court to preserve direct claims or narrow relief rather than dismiss.
July 5-21, 2026Marx filed nine partial-summary-judgment motions on grouped claims.The motions cover declaration validity, corporate records, appointments, meetings, insurance, budgets, ballots, roof and lien issues, legal expenses, landscaping, and spending. They remain unresolved in the reviewed record.
July 16, 2026 (filed July 20)The court granted Tara’s request to postpone the Colby discovery ruling.The court will address the discovery issues after deciding Rule 12(c); the order does not resolve Rule 12(c) or the merits.

Curated document roadmap

The complete source index below lists the reviewed public files. This earlier document-by-document roadmap preserves the chronology, document type, and stated case relevance supplied with the original packet so readers can understand how the pre-July materials fit together.

The separate July motion map above covers the new 2026 summary-judgment filings. This earlier roadmap intentionally excludes drafts that were not confirmed as part of the court record.

Reference numbers in the final column come from the supplied roadmap. They are not legal findings, and the linked court filings and orders remain the controlling sources.

Earlier document-by-document roadmap

DateDocumentTypeHow it fits the caseRoadmap refs
February 19, 1970Declaration of Restrictions, Establishment of Board of Management and Lien RightsCC&RsFoundational governing document defining common elements, board authority, maintenance, lien, and insurance duties. Marx uses it as the contract source for alleged breaches involving board authority, maintenance, and building-structure insurance.1-7
March 29, 2022CC&R Amendment Update from the Arizona Supreme Court – CHDB LawArticle / newsKalway-related legal analysis used by Marx to argue that the 2025 insurance amendments were not reasonable or foreseeable enough to bind owners.8
July 31, 2023Homeowner Tara COA July 2023 FinancialsFinancial statementHistorical association financial record used as a comparison point for later disputed budget, insurance, and expense decisions.7
January 11, 2024Organizational Meeting MinutesMeeting minutesBoard organizational minutes. Marx cites them to show board-position decisions, knowledge of meeting requirements, and alleged inaccuracies about leadership and procedure.9, 10
January 20, 2024January 20, 2024 Board Meeting MinutesMeeting minutesDocuments committee-volunteer discussion and the Landscaping Committee, which Marx later uses to challenge the committee’s dissolution and her removal.7, 9
January 30, 2024Trench on Newcastle done by Mark and DennisEvidence / reportMaintenance-work documentation used to support claims that individual board members acted unilaterally or performed unauthorized maintenance work.7
February 1, 2024Email removing Lisa from committees and dissolving themEmailEvidence that Marx was removed from the Landscaping Committee and committees were dissolved, supporting alleged open-meeting violations and selective targeting.7, 10
February 5, 2024Email announcing new board memberEmailAnnouncement of a new board member without a recorded open board vote, supporting the A.R.S. § 33-1248 board-action theory.7, 11
February 5, 2024Gmail – Claim Message from USAAEmailInsurance-claim correspondence used to support allegations about improper insurance handling and board-member maintenance involvement.7
February 17, 2024February 17, 2024 Board Meeting MinutesMeeting minutesMinutes reflecting discussion and speaking limits. Marx alleges those rules were used selectively and that board-membership status was misdocumented.7, 9
March 16, 2024March 16, 2024 Board Meeting MinutesMeeting minutesMinutes referencing a workers-comp policy and Bermuda-grass plan, cited as examples of alleged unilateral chair action without open meeting votes.7, 9
March 17, 2024Spring newsletter 3-17-24NewsletterAssociation communication to residents, used as evidence of public board statements and owner-facing messaging.7
May 27, 2024Dennis working on the shuttersEvidence / reportDocumentation of Dennis Anderson performing maintenance work, supporting allegations that board members acted outside authorized roles.7
June 15, 2024June 15, 2024 Tara Board Meeting MinutesMeeting minutesProcedural record of board actions during summer 2024.7
July 2, 2024DAnderson 07 02 24 Expense VoucherExpense voucherFinancial record used to test whether board-member reimbursement and expenditures were properly authorized.7
July 16, 202407 16 24 Letter to Lisa Marx re Petition ResponseLetterAssociation correspondence to Marx about a petition, part of the pre-litigation governance-dispute history.7
July 23, 2024American Family Master Insurance Policy Invoice Voucher 2024 2025Financial documentShows prior master-insurance cost and coverage before the disputed 2025 insurance amendments and policy changes.7
July 27, 2024July 27 2024 Tara Board Meeting MinutesMeeting minutesProcedural record of board actions and decisions.7
July 31, 2024Travis Law Firm July Inv VoucherInvoice voucherLegal-fee invoice used to support claims about association legal spending and approval procedure.7
August 29, 2024Travis Law Firm August 2024 Invoice VoucherInvoice voucherAdditional legal-fee record used in the unauthorized-expenditure and approval-procedure theory.7
November 1, 20242025 Tara Condominiums Budget LetterBudget letterBoard letter recommending a $50 assessment increase due to insurance, sewer, and legal-fee increases; part of the financial buildup to the insurance dispute.12
November 3, 2024Issues regarding the 2025 Budget VoteEmailMarx email arguing that the budget-vote process violated statute, used to show an earlier voting-procedure objection.13
April 11, 2025Civil Complaint for Breach of ContractComplaintOriginal filing against the association and individual board members, opening the litigation and asserting governance and CC&R breach theories.14-16
April 14, 2025Minute Entry Denying TROCourt orderEarly ruling denying temporary restraining relief because emergency TRO requirements were not met.17
April 16, 2025Amended Emergency Orders: TRO and Temporary Injunctive ReliefMotion for injunctive reliefRequest to preserve declaration and insurance status quo while the case proceeded.18, 19
May 28, 2025Association’s Partial Motion to DismissMotionAssociation argued many claims were derivative and Marx lacked individual standing to pursue community-wide harms.20
June 4, 2025Responsive Memorandum to Association’s Partial Motion to DismissResponsive memorandumMarx opposed dismissal by arguing the claims asserted direct individual harms and member-right violations.14-16
June 6, 2025Reply to Response to Request for TRO and Injunctive ReliefReply memorandumReply supporting emergency relief and addressing alleged service-delay and response-timing issues.18
June 26, 2025Minute Entry – Claim not DerivativeCourt orderKey early ruling treating Marx’s claims against the association as direct member-right claims rather than derivative claims for that motion.21, 22
July 15, 2025Motion to Dismiss Defendants Mark Gottmann and Dennis AndersonMotionIndividual board members sought dismissal based on director protections and lack of personal liability.23
July 20, 2025Response Memorandum to Motion to Dismiss Individual DefendantsResponsive memorandumMarx opposed dismissal by arguing Gottmann and Anderson acted in bad faith and outside their authority.14, 24, 25
July 25, 2025Minute entry order to file amended complaintCourt orderOrder requiring a more definite statement, leading to amended pleadings.26
July 31, 2025Ruling dismissing Mark and DennisCourt orderDismissed individual defendants, creating a major procedural setback for the personal-liability claims.27, 28
August 6, 2025Travis Law Firm Budget Letter / Proposing AmendmentsBudget letter / letterCounsel letter explaining proposed amendments to shift insurance responsibilities to owners, initiating the core insurance-amendment dispute.4-6, 29-31
August 10, 2025Motion for Partial Reconsideration of July 31, 2025 RulingMotionMarx sought reconsideration of the dismissal of the individual board members.32
August 11, 2025Exhibit N Cert of Ins for 25 26Certificate of liability insuranceInsurance certificate showing property coverage effective August 1, 2025 to August 1, 2026, used to contrast later claimed coverage changes.6, 33
August 12, 2025Order Denying Motion for reconsiderationCourt orderMaintained dismissal of Gottmann and Anderson.34
August 15, 2025First Amended Complaint (FAC)Amended complaintUpdated pleading reasserting claims and refining the legal counts against the association and directors.2, 14
September 6, 2025Plaintiff’s Initial Rule 26.1 Disclosure StatementDiscovery disclosureMandatory disclosure identifying factual bases, witnesses, and evidence Marx expected to use.35, 36
September 11, 2025Stipulation for Extension of TimeLegal stipulationAgreement extending Marx’s deadline to respond to fee applications; later relevant to arguments about premature fee rulings.28, 37
September 15, 2025Order Denying Motion to Strike ReplyCourt orderDenied Marx’s request to strike Tara’s reply regarding the amended complaint.38
September 15, 2025Second Amended Complaint (SAC)Amended complaintOperative complaint against the association after dismissal of the individual defendants.28, 39-41
September 15, 2025Order on Stipulation to Extend TimeCourt orderGranted an extension to respond to attorney-fee requests.42
September 20, 2025Minutes for a Board Meeting of the Tara Condominiums AssociationMeeting minutesBoard minutes covering approval of the plan to present CC&R amendments for owner vote.43
September 22, 2025Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Third Amended ComplaintMotionMarx sought to reinstate direct claims against individual board members and add alleged post-filing violations.14, 44, 45
September 24, 2025Urgent Concerns on Proposed CC&R AmendmentsEmail / letterMarx letter to owners identifying claimed risks of the proposed amendments, including costs, title, loan, and insurance issues.4, 46
September 25, 2025Meeting needs to be called to turn in ballotsEmailMarx demanded an open meeting for the amendment vote, preserving her objection to the voting process.6, 47
September 27, 2025Proposed Insurance amendments (Board/Owner Emails)EmailCorrespondence framing the association’s justification for the insurance shift and Marx’s objections under statutory and declaration duties.5, 6, 30, 48
September 30, 2025Minute Entry Denying Motion to VacateCourt orderDenied Marx’s request to vacate a fee-related order before the fee award was entered.49
October 1, 2025Order Granting Application for Attorney’s FeesCourt orderAwarded individual defendants $5,957.70 in fees after dismissal; Marx contends the award was premature.28, 49, 50
October 5, 2025Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary and Permanent InjunctionMotionAttempt to block implementation of proposed amendments based on alleged statutory and declaration violations.6, 51
October 9, 2025Motion for Expedited HearingMotionRequest for a hearing within five days before the amendment-vote deadline.31, 52, 53
October 14, 2025Scheduling OrderCourt orderSet discovery tiers, litigation deadlines, and a September 14, 2026 trial date.54
October 15, 2025Action by Written ConsentVoting formOwner written-consent form used for three proposed declaration amendments.55
October 17, 2025Amendment to Declaration of RestrictionsRecorded amendmentRecorded amendment No. 2025-0605584 shifting insurance responsibility to owners; Marx challenges its validity.31, 56, 57
October 18, 2025Results of Tara CC&R amendment voteEmailAnnouncement that amendments passed and owners had to obtain insurance by November 15, 2025.58, 59
October 22, 2025Stipulation to Continue Case DeadlinesLegal stipulationJoint extension of deadlines due to Marx’s medical hospitalization.60
October 26, 2025Meeting to view ballots (Transcript)TranscriptTranscript in which Gottmann allegedly refused to show owner signatures or vote choices, supporting A.R.S. § 33-1258 inspection-right claims.61, 62
October 29, 2025Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining OrderMotionEmergency request to stop cancellation of master insurance and implementation of recorded amendments.31, 63
October 30, 20252025 BudgetFinancial documentAssociation budget showing a $50 assessment increase for insurance premiums, part of the financial basis for the amendment dispute.64
October 30, 2025Order Granting Leave to File Reply Out of TimeCourt orderProcedural relief allowing Marx to file a late reply related to the third amended complaint.65
November 6, 2025Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Set Evidentiary HearingMotionRequest for an evidentiary hearing on the voting process and alleged harm from insurance lapse.66, 67
November 10, 2025Reminder to obtain homeowner insuranceEmailBoard email setting a December 1, 2025 proof-of-structural-insurance deadline.68
November 12, 2025Notice of AppealLegal noticeNotice concerning dismissal of individual defendants and cost/fee issues.69, 70
November 13, 2025Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant’s Consolidated ResponseMotion / replyReply supporting preliminary-injunction relief based on claimed individualized harm and flawed amendment process.71
November 17, 2025Minute Entry (Dismissing TAC and Injunction)Court orderDenied leave to file the Third Amended Complaint and denied injunction relief, prompting later judge-change efforts.70, 72
November 21, 2025Official Ballot 2026 Budget RatificationBallotBudget ballot showing a proposed $15 assessment decrease after removing association insurance duties.73, 74
November 21, 2025Civil Complaint for Declaratory JudgmentComplaintNew action CV2025-062973 challenging the October 2025 amendments and potential master-policy cancellation.75
November 23, 2025Motion for Change of Judge for CauseMotionMarx sought to remove Judge Warner, leading to reassignment to Judge Adele Ponce.72, 76
November 24, 2025Request for Answers to InterrogatoriesDiscovery requestInterrogatories targeting board decisions and maintenance work to develop the ultra vires theory.11
November 25, 2025Case Reassignment / First Amended Civil ComplaintCourt order / complaintCase reassignment to Judge Ponce and amended pleading in the second insurance-shift action.70, 75, 77-79
December 1, 2025Motion for Reconsideration of Nov 17 Minute EntryMotionMarx asked Judge Ponce to reconsider denial of the third amended complaint and injunction relief.70, 80
December 3, 2025Minute Entry Case ConsolidationCourt orderConsolidated CV2025-062973 with CV2025-012980, folding the insurance-amendment dispute into the main litigation path.81
December 3, 2025Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of ConsolidationMotionMarx opposed consolidation, arguing the actions involved distinct facts and emergency concerns.82
December 4, 2025Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification and Expedited HearingMotionChallenge to characterization of the complaint and request for expedited hearing on insurance risk.75
December 5, 2025Joint Notice of Outstanding Motions and HearingsLegal noticeCatalog of pending matters for Judge Ponce after reassignment.70
January 4, 2026Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Motion to DismissResponse memorandumOpposition to dismissal of the second action, arguing insurance termination was a new occurrence requiring separate attention.19
January 20, 2026Certificate of Liability Insurance (Master Policy 2025-2026)Insurance certificateCertificate showing liability and D&O coverage but no building property insurance, used as key evidence that buildings became uninsured.83, 84
January 20, 2026Notice of Intent to Serve Amended SubpoenaDiscovery noticeNotice for records subpoena to Colby Management, part of the discovery fight over association records.85
January 30, 2026Supplemental Memorandum in Support of ReconsiderationLegal memorandumFiling using the January 20 insurance certificate as new evidence of claimed statutory insurance violations.83
February 26, 2026Notice of Withdrawal of Motion to CompelLegal noticeProcedural withdrawal of a discovery motion.86
March 16, 2026Minute Entry (Oral Argument and Rule 15d conversion)Court orderConverted the second lawsuit into a Rule 15(d) supplemental-pleading path in the main case.41, 87
May 27, 2026Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the PleadingsMotionTara’s attempt to dismiss asserted community-wide claims as derivative after newer appellate authority.88
June 2, 2026Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Motion to Stay Colby Management DiscoveryResponse memorandumMarx opposes Tara’s request to stay a ruling on the Colby Management subpoena dispute, arguing the requested insurance-claim accounting, communications, checks, and board-directive materials remain relevant to direct claims and that discovery deadlines were approaching.166
June 2, 2026Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the PleadingsResponse memorandumMarx argues Iqtunheimr does not convert her open-meeting, notice, voting, records, insurance-accounting, amendment-validity, and individualized statutory-right claims into derivative claims, and asks the court to deny dismissal or narrow relief/allow amendment.167
June 2, 2026Exhibit D – Organization of Claims for PresentationExhibit / organizational aidMarx’s exhibit groups 103 claim paragraphs for presentation, including her assertion that 89 are open-meeting violations and that Tara’s motion targets 60 open-meeting items.168
June 2, 2026Proposed Order Denying Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the PleadingsProposed orderProposed form of order submitted by Marx. It is not a ruling unless and until the court signs or enters an order.169
June 2, 2026Proposed Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Stay Ruling on Colby ProductionProposed orderProposed form of order submitted by Marx to deny Tara’s requested stay of the Colby discovery ruling. It is not a court ruling.170
Not dated in CSVPlaintiff’s First Requests for Production of DocumentsDiscovery requestFormal request for insurance, financial, and related records, aimed at evidence about the 2024 insurance claim and policy-rate increases.90
September 10, 2020Marx Warranty DeedDeedWarranty deed conveying Unit 5 to Lisa Marx, establishing her standing as unit owner and association member.2, 91, 92

How to read this case without overclaiming it

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

Practical lessons for condo disputes

For owners
  • Tie each claim to the specific statute, declaration section, bylaw, vote, notice, record request, or personal harm.
  • Preserve agendas, minutes, emails, insurance notices, amendment materials, ballots, and records-request correspondence.
  • Do not assume that proving a board process defect automatically proves irreparable harm.
  • Keep direct personal injury theories separate from generalized association harm.
For boards and counsel
  • Document board authorization, open-meeting votes, executive-session limits, and ratification steps.
  • Handle records requests with clear statutory deadlines, production logs, and written explanations.
  • Treat insurance and amendment changes as high-risk governance events requiring clean notices, votes, and member communications.
  • Do not rely on derivative-action arguments without addressing member-right statutes and declaration enforcement language.

Complete source set

Download the updated filing roadmap

The reviewed public packet contains 214 deduplicated PDFs and this roadmap CSV. It cross-checks original names against normalized public filenames. Loose July exhibits and unsigned proposed orders are retained off-page pending privacy and public-status review.

FAQ

Is this case finally decided?

No. The reviewed record is current through docket events posted July 22, 2026. It includes important interim rulings and nine July partial-summary-judgment motions, but no final judgment resolving the full case.

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

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

Were the individual board members kept in the case?

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

Why does insurance appear in an open-meeting case?

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

Did Marx win the July 2026 summary-judgment motions?

Not in the reviewed record. The court docket confirms the motion events, but no order granting or denying any of the nine motions appears in the source set. The motions, statements, declarations, and proposed orders are party submissions—not findings or judgments.

Why are the loose July exhibits not all available for download?

The master index and filed notices identify the exhibit sets, and the materials were reviewed for this update. The loose copies include discovery, financial, insurance, correspondence, affidavit, contract, and image records with private identifiers, and their status as independently public docket attachments was not established. They remain outside the public source index pending that review.

What should be added next?

The next high-value update would be the court’s ruling on Tara’s May 27, 2026 motion for judgment on the pleadings, responses and rulings on the July summary-judgment motions, any later Colby discovery order, final judgment, or appeal docket.

Complete source-document index

This index contains 214 PDFs, 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.

Source 1 2025-04-14

1 Minute Entry 4 14 25

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2025-04-14_001_1-minute-entry-4-14-25.pdf
Source 6 2025-07-18

Responsive Memo 7 18 25

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2025-07-18_007_responsive-memo-7-18-25.pdf
Source 8 2025-07-31

6 Ruling 7 31 25 Dismissing Mark And Dennis

Type: Court order/minute entry

Ruling granting the motion to dismiss and dismissing all claims against individual board members Mark Gottmann and Dennis Anderson.

Download source file
2025-07-31_009_6-ruling-7-31-25-dismissing-mark-and-dennis.pdf
Source 12 2025-09-04

Statement Of Costs 9 4 25

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2025-09-04_013_statement-of-costs-9-4-25.pdf
Source 13 2025-09-10

9 Order 9 10 25 To File Amended Complaint

Type: Court order/minute entry

Order granting the motion to require an amended complaint and directing the homeowner to remove dismissed individual parties.

Download source file
2025-09-10_014_9-order-9-10-25-to-file-amended-complaint.pdf
Source 16 2025-09-20

1 Exhibit I 9 20 25 Minutes

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2025-09-20_017_1-exhibit-i-9-20-25-minutes.pdf
Source 17 2025-09-27

1 Exhibit U Ltr To Bd 9 27 25

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2025-09-27_018_1-exhibit-u-ltr-to-bd-9-27-25.pdf
Source 25 2025-10-10

Joint Report 10 10 25 1

Type: Court/source PDF

Case-management filing; it tells the court how the parties propose to schedule and manage the case.

Download source file
2025-10-10_026_joint-report-10-10-25-1.pdf
Source 26 2025-10-14

15 10 14 25 Adr Referral

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2025-10-14_028_15-10-14-25-adr-referral.pdf
Source 28 2025-10-15

19 Scheduling Order 10 15 25

Type: Court order/minute entry

Order granting costs only and entering a modified Rule 54(b) judgment for the dismissed individual defendants.

Download source file
2025-10-15_030_19-scheduling-order-10-15-25.pdf
Source 43 2025-11-18

23 Minute Entry 11 18 25

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2025-11-18_045_23-minute-entry-11-18-25.pdf
Source 45 2025-12-04

25 Minute Entry 12 4 25 Case Consolidation

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2025-12-04_047_25-me-12-4-25-case-consolidation.pdf
Source 49 2026-01-20

Subpoena To Colby 1 20 26

Type: Motion/application

Discovery or evidence request material; read it with the later order to see what was allowed or denied.

Download source file
2026-01-20_051_subpoena-to-colby-1-20-26.pdf
Source 53 2026-02-12

28 Minute Entry Order 2 12 26

Type: Court order/minute entry

Order addressing pending preliminary-injunction and amendment-related filings while the remaining Tara condominium claims continued.

Download source file
2026-02-12_055_28-minute-entry-order-2-12-26.pdf
Source 55 2026-03-16

30 Minute Entry 3 16 2026 Hearing

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
2026-03-16_057_30-me-3-16-2026-hearing.pdf
Source 56 2026-03-16

31 Minute Entry 3 16 26

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
2026-03-16_058_31-me-3-16-26.pdf
Source 57 2026-03-30

32 Minute Entry 3 30 26

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_059_32-me-3-30-26.pdf
Source 68 2026-07-05

Exhibit Index 2025 Declaration Amendment

Type: Declaration or affidavit

Witness statement submitted under oath or declaration; its assertions are evidence offered by a party, not court findings.

Download source file
2026-07-05_071_exhibit-index-2025-declaration-amendment.pdf
Source 69 2026-07-10

Plaintiff Partial Summary Judgment Claims 120 121

Type: Motion/application

Marx's motion on corporate-records claims 120 and 121, alleging incomplete meeting minutes and unrecorded board action. No ruling on the motion appears in the reviewed record.

Download source file
2026-07-10_072_plaintiff-partial-summary-judgment-claims-120-121.pdf
Source 71 2026-07-10

Lisa Marx Declaration Claims 120 121

Type: Declaration or affidavit

Witness statement submitted under oath or declaration; its assertions are evidence offered by a party, not court findings.

Download source file
2026-07-10_074_lisa-marx-declaration-claims-120-121.pdf
Source 72 2026-07-10

Exhibit Index Claims 120 121

Type: Exhibit index

Index identifying the supporting exhibits cited by a party; use it to trace the evidence without treating the descriptions as findings.

Download source file
2026-07-10_075_exhibit-index-claims-120-121.pdf
Source 90 2026-07-16

Master Index Of Exhibits

Type: Exhibit index

Plaintiff's master index grouping proposed supporting evidence into governing-document, meeting, financial, audio, executive-session, and discovery sets. The index descriptions are not court findings.

Download source file
2026-07-16_104_master-index-of-exhibits.pdf
Source 98 2026-07-16

Notice Exhibits Set 6 Continued

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2026-07-16_112_notice-exhibits-set-6-continued.pdf
Source 105 2026-07-19

Exhibit Index Claims 32 76 39 84 83 44 89

Type: Exhibit index

Index identifying the supporting exhibits cited by a party; use it to trace the evidence without treating the descriptions as findings.

Download source file
2026-07-19_095_exhibit-index-claims-32-76-39-84-83-44-89.pdf
Source 114 Undated

1 Exhibit A Marx Warranty Deed

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
undated_061_1-exhibit-a-marx-warranty-deed.pdf
Source 115 Undated

1 Exhibit B Tara Ccrs

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
undated_062_1-exhibit-b-tara-ccrs.pdf
Source 116 Undated

1 Exhibit C Travis Law Firm

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
undated_063_1-exhibit-c-travis-law-firm.pdf
Source 117 Undated

1 Exhibit D Proposed Amendments

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
undated_064_1-exhibit-d-proposed-amendments.pdf
Source 118 Undated

1 Exhibit E Plaintiff Email

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
undated_065_1-exhibit-e-plaintiff-email.pdf
Source 119 Undated

1 Exhibit F Statement Read

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
undated_066_1-exhibit-f-statement-read.pdf
Source 120 Undated

1 Exhibit G Plaintiff Letter

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
undated_067_1-exhibit-g-plaintiff-letter.pdf
Source 121 Undated

1 Exhibit H Email To Homeowners

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
undated_068_1-exhibit-h-email-to-homeowners.pdf
Source 122 Undated

1 Exhibit J Action

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
undated_069_1-exhibit-j-action.pdf
Source 123 Undated

1 Exhibit K Changes To Ccr Ltr

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
undated_070_1-exhibit-k-changes-to-ccr-ltr.pdf
Source 124 Undated

1 Exhibit L Differences

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
undated_071_1-exhibit-l-differences.pdf
Source 125 Undated

1 Exhibit M Board Email

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
undated_072_1-exhibit-m-board-email.pdf
Source 126 Undated

1 Exhibit N Cert Of Ins For 25 26

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
undated_073_1-exhibit-n-cert-of-ins-for-25-26.pdf
Source 127 Undated

1 Exhibit O Cert Of Ins Ltr 25 26

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
undated_074_1-exhibit-o-cert-of-ins-ltr-25-26.pdf
Source 128 Undated

1 Exhibit P Tara 2025 Budgetletter

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
undated_075_1-exhibit-p-tara2025budgetletter.pdf
Source 129 Undated

1 Exhibit Q Budget Vote 24 Email

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
undated_076_1-exhibit-q-budget-vote-24-email.pdf
Source 130 Undated

1 Exhibit R 2025 Budget

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
undated_077_1-exhibit-r-2025-budget.pdf
Source 131 Undated

1 Exhibit S Tara 25 Bud Ballot

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
undated_078_1-exhibit-s-tara-25-bud-ballot.pdf
Source 132 Undated

1 Exhibit T Pl Motion For Leave

Type: Motion/application

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

Download source file
undated_079_1-exhibit-t-pl-motion-for-leave.pdf
Source 135 Undated

3 Plaint 1 PDF 1

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
undated_082_3-plaint-1-pdf-1.pdf
Source 139 Undated

5 Ex V Tara 2026 Budget Ballot

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
undated_086_5-ex-v-tara-2026-budget-ballot.pdf
Source 145 Undated

16 Noti 1

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
undated_092_16noti-1.pdf
Source 151 Undated

Affida 1 1

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
undated_098_affida-1-1.pdf
Source 152 Undated

Affida 1

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
undated_099_affida-1.pdf
Source 155 Undated

Colby Subpoena

Type: Motion/application

Discovery or evidence request material; read it with the later order to see what was allowed or denied.

Download source file
undated_102_colby-subpoena.pdf
Source 156 Undated

Colbyn 1

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
undated_103_colbyn-1.pdf
Source 157 Undated

CV 2025 1

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
undated_104_cv2025-1.pdf
Source 158 Undated

CV 2025 1

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
undated_105_cv2025-1.pdf
Source 162 Undated

Ex A Master Insurance As Of Dec 1 2025

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
undated_109_ex-a-master-insurance-as-of-dec-1-2025.pdf
Source 165 Undated

Ex E 251025 001 Meeting To View Ballots

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
undated_112_ex-e-251025-001-meeting-to-view-ballots.pdf
Source 167 Undated

Ex V Tara 2026 Budget Ballot

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
undated_114_ex-v-tara-2026-budget-ballot.pdf
Source 168 Undated

Exapla 1 1

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
undated_115_exapla-1-1.pdf
Source 169 Undated

Exapla 1 2

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
undated_116_exapla-1-2.pdf
Source 170 Undated

Exapla 1

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
undated_117_exapla-1.pdf
Source 171 Undated

Exbaff 1

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
undated_118_exbaff-1.pdf
Source 175 Undated

Insurance Subpoena

Type: Motion/application

Discovery or evidence request material; read it with the later order to see what was allowed or denied.

Download source file
undated_123_insurance-subpoena.pdf
Source 176 Undated

Insura 2

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
undated_124_insura-2.pdf
Source 177 Undated

Jointn 1

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
undated_125_jointn-1.pdf
Source 178 Undated

Minute 1

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
undated_126_minute-1.pdf
Source 184 Undated

Motion 1 1

Type: Motion/application

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

Download source file
undated_132_motion-1-1.pdf
Source 185 Undated

Motion 1

Type: Motion/application

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

Download source file
undated_133_motion-1.pdf
Source 187 Undated

Objection To Plaintiffs Notice

Type: Briefing paper

Opposing or responsive paper; compare it to the motion or request filed immediately before it.

Download source file
undated_135_objection-to-plaintiffs-notice.pdf
Source 188 Undated

Object 1

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
undated_136_object-1.pdf
Source 192 Undated

Plaint 1 1

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
undated_141_plaint-1-1.pdf
Source 193 Undated

Plaint 1 10

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
undated_142_plaint-1-10.pdf
Source 194 Undated

Plaint 1 11

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
undated_143_plaint-1-11.pdf
Source 195 Undated

Plaint 1 12

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
undated_144_plaint-1-12.pdf
Source 196 Undated

Plaint 1 2

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
undated_145_plaint-1-2.pdf
Source 197 Undated

Plaint 1 3

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
undated_146_plaint-1-3.pdf
Source 198 Undated

Plaint 1 4

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
undated_147_plaint-1-4.pdf
Source 199 Undated

Plaint 1 5

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
undated_148_plaint-1-5.pdf
Source 200 Undated

Plaint 1 6

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
undated_149_plaint-1-6.pdf
Source 201 Undated

Plaint 1 7

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
undated_150_plaint-1-7.pdf
Source 202 Undated

Plaint 1 8

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
undated_151_plaint-1-8.pdf
Source 203 Undated

Plaint 1

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
undated_153_plaint-1.pdf
Source 204 Undated

Plares 1

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
undated_154_plares-1.pdf
Source 205 Undated

Reply To Resp And Obj To Mot For Lea

Type: Briefing paper

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

Download source file
undated_155_reply-to-resp-and-obj-to-mot-for-lea.pdf
Source 206 Undated

Reques 1 1

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
undated_156_reques-1-1.pdf
Source 207 Undated

Reques 1

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
undated_157_reques-1.pdf
Source 208 Undated

Reques 2

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
undated_158_reques-2.pdf
Source 211 Undated

Respon 1

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
undated_162_respon-1.pdf
Source 212 Undated

Second Amended Complaint

Type: Opening pleading

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

Download source file
undated_163_second-amended-complaint.pdf
Source 213 Undated

Stipul 1

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
undated_164_stipul-1.pdf
Source 214 Undated

Supplemental Verified Affidavit Of Lisa Marx

Type: Declaration or affidavit

Witness statement submitted under oath or declaration; its assertions are evidence offered by a party, not court findings.

Download source file
undated_165_supplemental-verified-affidavit-of-lisa-marx.pdf
Source 215 No docket date in filename

Source File Roadmap 2026 07 22

Type: Source roadmap CSV

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

Download source file
source-file-roadmap-2026-07-22.csv

Primary sources

Reviewed against the supplied filings and the Maricopa County docket through events posted July 22, 2026. Party allegations, separate statements, declarations, exhibit descriptions, and proposed orders are not treated as court findings. No July proposed order is signed or entered. This page is educational information for Arizona HOA and condominium governance research, not legal advice for any specific dispute.

← Back to Superior Court cases