Tag Archives: cc-and-rs

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

Multari v. Gress: Developer Private Deed Restrictions Held Invalid

Posted on by

CC&Rs | A.R.S. §§ 12-2101, 12-120.21 | 1 CA-CV 06-0221

This case highlights the strict limits placed on residential developers in Arizona. It illustrates that uniform subdivision covenants cannot be selectively altered by recording non-uniform private deed restrictions on individual lots without a proper vote.

Last updated June 29, 2026. Case: Multari, Court of Appeals No. 1 CA-CV 06-0221; reversed and remanded.

Download the appellate opinion Download the appellate mandate Download the record index Source-file index FAQ

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

Scope note: This page covers the Arizona Court of Appeals decision declaring lot-specific private deed restrictions invalid when they selectively alter uniform subdivision covenants. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The Arizona Court of Appeals held that a developer cannot utilize private deed restrictions on multiple lots in a residential subdivision to alter uniform covenants and restrictions otherwise applicable to those lots without following the uniform declaration’s formal amendment procedures.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Dominick Multari (Plaintiff)
    Husband of Lynn Multari, owner of lot 290 in the Ocotillo Hills subdivision, and successor-in-interest to the 1973 Private Deed Restrictions.
  • Lynn Multari (Plaintiff)
    Wife of Dominick Multari, owner of lot 290 in the Ocotillo Hills subdivision, and successor-in-interest to the 1973 Private Deed Restrictions.
  • John Maston O’Neal (Counsel)
    Quarles & Brady Streich Lang LLP
    Counsel representing Plaintiffs/Appellees/Cross-Appellants Dominick and Lynn Multari.
  • David E. Funkhouser III (Counsel)
    Quarles & Brady Streich Lang LLP
    Counsel representing Plaintiffs/Appellees/Cross-Appellants Dominick and Lynn Multari.

Respondent Side

  • Richard D. Gress (Defendant)
    Husband of Carmen Gress, trustee under agreement dated April 15, 1998, and owner of lot 285 in the Ocotillo Hills subdivision, subject to the contested 1976 Private Deed Restrictions.
  • Carmen Gress (Defendant)
    Wife of Richard D. Gress, trustee under agreement dated April 15, 1998, and owner of lot 285 in the Ocotillo Hills subdivision, subject to the contested 1976 Private Deed Restrictions.
  • Timothy J. Thomason (Counsel)
    Mariscal, Weeks, McIntyre & Friedlander, P.A.
    Counsel representing Defendants/Appellants/Cross-Appellees Richard D. and Carmen Gress.
  • Charles H. Oldham (Counsel)
    Mariscal, Weeks, McIntyre & Friedlander, P.A.
    Counsel representing Defendants/Appellants/Cross-Appellees Richard D. and Carmen Gress.

Neutral Parties

  • Daniel A. Barker (Judge)
    Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
    Authoring Appellate Judge on Department B who delivered the Court's opinion reversing the summary judgment.
  • Patricia K. Norris (Judge)
    Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
    Presiding Appellate Judge for Department B on Department B.
  • Jon W. Thompson (Judge)
    Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
    Appellate Judge for Department B.
  • Janet E. Barton (Judge)
    Maricopa County Superior Court
    Trial Court Judge who presided over the underlying case (Cause No. CV 2005-009405) and granted summary judgment in favor of the Multaris.
  • Philip G. Urry (Other)
    Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
    Clerk of the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One.
  • Rachelle M. Resnick (Other)
    Arizona Supreme Court
    Clerk of the Arizona Supreme Court who received the transmittal of the Petition for Review.
  • Michael K. Jeanes (Other)
    Maricopa County Superior Court
    Clerk of the Maricopa County Superior Court.
  • Patricia Sanderman (Other)
    Maricopa County Superior Court
    Supervisor of the Appeals Section of the Maricopa County Superior Court.
  • Minnesota Title Company (Other)
    Original developer and legal owner of lots 244 through 297, which recorded the uniform 1973 Declaration of Deed Restrictions and subsequent lot-specific private deed restrictions.

What happened

In April 1973, Minnesota Title Company, the original legal owner of lots 244 through 297 in the Ocotillo Hills subdivision, recorded a uniform ‘Declaration of Deed Restrictions’ permitting accessory structures of any size and requiring a two-thirds vote of lot owners to change the covenants. Subsequently, between 1973 and 1978, the developer recorded individual ‘private deed restrictions’ on thirty-two of the fifty-four lots as they were sold.

In 1976, Minnesota Title recorded private deed restrictions on lot 285 (later owned by the Gresses) prohibiting structures under 1,400 square feet or higher than 13 feet, with a clause allowing the owner of lot 290 (later owned by the Multaris) to sue for violations and recover attorneys’ fees. In 2005, the Gresses began building a small accessory building. The Multaris sued to stop construction and enforce the 1976 restrictions. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Multaris, which the Gresses appealed.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Multari v. Gress (1 CA-CV 06-0221). A developer cannot utilize private deed restrictions on multiple lots in a residential subdivision to alter uniform… 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 Multari v. Gress. 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 1973-04-04 Minnesota Title Company records the uniform Declaration of Deed Restrictions (1973 Declaration) for the Ocotillo Hills subdivision.
Step 1973-04-17 Minnesota Title conveys Lot 290 and records the 1973 Private Deed Restrictions.
Step 1975-12-16 Minnesota Title sells Lot 285 to the Gresses' predecessors in interest.
Step 1976-01-06 Minnesota Title records the deed and the 1976 Private Deed Restrictions for Lot 285.
Step 2005-02-15 Richard and Carmen Gress begin construction of a small accessory building behind their home.
Step 2005-04-15 Dominick and Lynn Multari send a letter to the Gresses requesting that they cease construction.
Step 2005-06-08 The Multaris file a complaint in Maricopa County Superior Court to enforce the 1976 Private Deed Restrictions.
Step 2005-09-19 A trial court transcript of proceedings is recorded in the Maricopa County Superior Court.
Step 2006-04-11 Superior Court Clerk files the index of record, and the Court of Appeals, Division One docket assigns Case No. 1 CA-CV 06-0221.
Step 2006-04-14 The Gresses pay their appellant filing fee in the Court of Appeals.
Step 2006-05-02 Court of Appeals issues notice reminding of appellant's opening brief and appellee's fee deadlines.
Step 2006-08-02 Court of Appeals orders the Superior Court Clerk to transmit the trial court record on appeal.
Step 2006-08-09 The record inventory from the Maricopa County Superior Court is filed with the Court of Appeals.
Step 2007-01-16 Court of Appeals issues Notice of Oral Argument setting the hearing for February 27, 2007.
Step 2007-02-27 Oral argument is held before Department B of the Court of Appeals; the court takes the case under advisement.
Step 2007-04-24 Court of Appeals files its published Opinion reversing summary judgment and remanding the case.
Step 2007-05-09 The Multaris file a Motion for Reconsideration with the Court of Appeals.
Step 2007-05-25 Court of Appeals denies the Multaris' Motion for Reconsideration.
Step 2007-08-10 The Multaris file a Petition for Review with the Arizona Supreme Court.
Step 2007-08-13 Clerk of Court of Appeals transmits the Petition for Review and appellate record to the Arizona Supreme Court.
Step 2008-01-08 The Arizona Supreme Court denies the Petition for Review (Supreme Court Case No. CV-07-0295-PR).
Step 2008-01-31 Court of Appeals issues its Mandate to the Maricopa County Superior Court.

Complete source-document index

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

Source 4 2006-08-10

0000 Div 1 Inventory

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
2006-08-10_004_0000-div-1-inventory.pdf
Source 5 2007-01-10

0000 Div 1 Under Advisement

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
2007-01-10_005_0000-div-1-under-advisement.pdf
Source 9 2007-04-24

0000 Div 1 Westmead Package Letters

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
2007-04-24_009_0000-div-1-westmead-package-letters.pdf
Source 10 2007-04-24

0000 Opinion

Type: Decision or judgment

Opinion holding that a developer cannot utilize private deed restrictions on multiple lots in a residential subdivision to alter uniform covenants and restrictions otherwise applicable to those lots without following the uniform declaration's formal amendment procedures.

Download source file
2007-04-24_010_0000-opinion.pdf

FAQ

Is the court's decision in Multari v. Gress precedential?

Yes. This is a published Arizona Court of Appeals opinion, which makes it binding legal precedent in Arizona. It can be cited as authoritative case law in disputes involving subdivision deed restrictions.

Can a developer record separate private restrictions on individual lots that conflict with uniform CC&Rs?

No. The court held that a developer cannot use lot-specific private deed restrictions to alter or restrict rights granted under a previously recorded uniform declaration of covenants without following the formal amendment procedures specified in that uniform declaration.

What happens if a developer tries to bypass formal CC&R amendment procedures?

Any lot-specific private restrictions recorded by a developer that effectively change or restrict the rights guaranteed under the uniform subdivision declaration will be declared invalid and unenforceable if they did not follow the uniform declaration’s formal amendment processes.

Why did the Multaris lose their lawsuit to enforce the 13-foot structure height limit against the Gresses?

Although the Multaris had a private restriction recorded on the Gresses’ lot in 1976 that limited accessory structures to 13 feet in height, the court ruled this restriction invalid because it conflicted with the 1973 subdivision-wide uniform declaration, which allowed accessory buildings of any dimension and required a two-thirds owner vote to amend.

Can a homeowner recover attorneys' fees if they sue based on an invalid private deed restriction?

No. Because the lot-specific private deed restriction was ruled invalid, the Multaris were not the successful party and could not recover attorneys’ fees or costs under either the statutory provision (A.R.S. § 12-341.01) or the invalid restriction itself.

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 06-0221
Court / tribunalCourt of Appeals
Decision / key dateApril 24, 2007
Judge / panelHon. Daniel A. Barker, Hon. Patricia K. Norris, Hon. Jon W. Thompson
PartiesDominick and Lynn Multari (Plaintiffs/Appellees/Cross-Appellants) vs. Richard D. and Carmen Gress, as trustees (Defendants/Appellants/Cross-Appellees)
Governing law
  • A.R.S. § 12-2101
  • A.R.S. § 12-120.21
  • A.R.S. § 12-341.01
  • A.R.S. § 12-341
Topics
CC&RsArchitectural ReviewProcedureAttorney Fees
Outcome / holding

The Arizona Court of Appeals held that a developer cannot utilize private deed restrictions on multiple lots in a residential subdivision to alter uniform covenants and restrictions otherwise applicable to those lots without following the uniform declaration's formal amendment procedures.

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package13 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap22 roadmap entries
Video overviewMultari v. Gress
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links3 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Dominick and Lynn Multari sued their neighbors, Richard and Carmen Gress, seeking to enforce private deed restrictions recorded by the subdivision's developer in 1976. The 1976 restrictions limited the size and height of accessory structures on the Gresses' lot. The Gresses argued that these restrictions were invalid because they conflicted with a 1973 Declaration of Deed Restrictions that applied uniformly to all lots in the subdivision and permitted accessory buildings of any dimension. The 1973 Declaration required a two-thirds vote of lot owners to change the covenants. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Multaris, enforcing the restrictions and awarding attorneys' fees. On appeal, the Arizona Court of Appeals reversed. The court held that the developer could not bypass the 1973 Declaration's amendment procedure by recording non-uniform private deed restrictions on individual lots. The private restrictions were declared invalid, and the case was remanded to enter judgment for the Gresses.

Key Issues & Findings

The Court of Appeals reasoned that the 1973 Declaration established uniform covenants and restrictions for the benefit of 'each and every' lot in the subdivision, which explicitly permitted accessory structures of any size. The subsequent 1976 Private Deed Restrictions placed by the developer on some but not all lots took away this right, which constituted an alteration or 'change in part' of the 1973 Declaration. Permitting developers to use private deed restrictions to bypass the formal amendment process would destroy the right of property owners to rely on restrictive covenants and completely upset the orderly plan of the subdivision.

Since the 1973 Declaration required a two-thirds vote of lot owners to change the covenants, and the developer's private restrictions did not comply with this exclusive procedure, the non-uniform private restrictions limiting structure dimensions were held to be an invalid amendment. The court noted that this decision does not address scenarios in which a subsequent private property owner, rather than the developer acting on multiple lots, records private restrictions different from the uniform ones.

Why It Matters

For Arizona HOAs and homeowners, this case establishes that a developer cannot selectively or unilaterally impose non-uniform private deed restrictions on individual lots that conflict with or alter rights granted under a previously recorded uniform declaration, unless they adhere strictly to the declaration's specified amendment procedures. This enforces the predictability and environmental stability of subdivisions by protecting the rights of lot owners to rely on the original uniform covenants.

For legal counsel and boards, the ruling serves as a warning that restrictive covenants must be uniform and amended only via the formal processes established in the original declarations. Unilateral developer carve-outs or non-uniform lot restrictions are highly vulnerable to being declared invalid. Furthermore, litigation to enforce such invalid restrictions will result in the loss of any contractual right to attorneys' fees and costs.

← Back to Court of Appeals cases

Garden Lakes v. Madigan: HOA Aesthetic Rules vs. Arizona Solar Rights

Posted on by

Architectural Review | A.R.S. §§ 33-439, 44-1761 | 1 CA-CV 00-0570

This landmark Arizona case demonstrates the legal limits of an HOA’s power to enforce aesthetic architectural restrictions against solar installations. It establishes a case-by-case factual standard for evaluating whether association guidelines ‘effectively prohibit’ solar devices. Crucially, the decision confirms that courts can consider compliance costs to determine if a restriction is void under state law.

Last updated June 29, 2026. Case: Garden Lakes Community Association, Inc. v. Madigan, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, No. 1 CA-CV 00-0570 (204 Ariz. 234, 62 P.3d 983); review denied by the Arizona Supreme Court.

Download appellate opinion Download petition for review Download docket & case information Source-file index FAQ

Scope note: This page covers the published Arizona Court of Appeals opinion in Garden Lakes Community Association v. Madigan (1 CA-CV 00-0570), which the Arizona Supreme Court declined to review, together with the uploaded appellate record (briefs, amicus filings, petition for review, and orders). The complete uploaded source-document index below is generated from the local raw source folder; AI-generated review materials were reviewed only as orientation and are not treated as court authority. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The Arizona Court of Appeals held that whether a homeowners association’s architectural guidelines ‘effectively prohibit’ the installation or use of a solar energy device under A.R.S. § 33-439(A) is a question of fact to be decided on a case-by-case basis. The court further held that while the homeowner bears the burden of proof, the trial court may properly consider the increased cost of complying with aesthetic restrictions as a relevant factor in determining whether an effective prohibition exists.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Garden Lakes Community Association, Inc. (Plaintiff)
    Garden Lakes Community Association, Inc.
    The homeowners association (an Arizona non-profit corporation) that brought separate lawsuits (later consolidated) against the homeowners to compel the removal of roof-mounted solar energy devices.
  • Neal B. Thomas (Counsel)
    Thomas & Elardo, P.C.
    Represented Plaintiff-Appellant Garden Lakes Community Association, Inc.
  • Beth Mulcahy (Counsel)
    Mulcahy Law Firm, P.C.
    Represented Plaintiff-Appellant Garden Lakes Community Association, Inc.
  • James Howard Barnes (Witness)
    Garden Lakes Community Association, Inc.
    First chairman of the Garden Lakes Architectural Review Committee (ARC); testified on behalf of the Association.
  • Robert Hammond (Witness)
    Solar expert with 20 years of experience hired by the Association to investigate alternative designs; admitted that several alternative screening designs were not viable.
  • Walter M. Mikitowicz (Witness)
    Construction expert who testified on behalf of the Association regarding the costs of constructing proposed alternative screens and patio covers.

Respondent Side

  • William E. Madigan (Defendant)
    Homeowner in Garden Lakes who installed a solar pool heater without ARC approval; passed away before trial, resulting in his case being dismissed after the solar equipment was removed.
  • Joan M. Madigan (Defendant)
    Wife of William E. Madigan and co-owner of the property; removed the solar panels after her husband's death, leading to dismissal of the case against her.
  • Henry T. Speak (Defendant)
    Homeowner with arthritis who installed terra-cotta colored roof-mounted solar panels to heat his pool for therapeutic exercise; successfully defended under A.R.S. § 33-439.
  • LaVonne M. Speak (Defendant)
    Wife of Henry T. Speak and co-owner of the property; prevailed alongside her husband.
  • Hyung S. Choi (Counsel)
    Choi Rhee & Fabian, PLC
    Attorneys for Defendants-Appellees Madigan and Speak. Also shown as Choi & Rhee, PLLC in Court of Appeals award order.
  • Gerald Pollock (Counsel)
    Law Office of Gerald A. Pollock
    Represented Defendants-Appellees Madigan and Speak.
  • John Gilchrist (Witness)
    Solar expert with 20 years of experience who testified on behalf of the homeowners; testified regarding screening feasibility, setback issues, and efficiency loss.

Neutral Parties

  • Curtis S. Ekmark (Counsel)
    Ekmark & Ekmark, L.L.C.
    Represented Applicant/Amicus Curiae Sun City Grand Community Association, Inc.
  • Hon. David M. Talamante (Judge)
    Maricopa County Superior Court
    Superior court trial judge who presided over the consolidated trials and entered final judgment in favor of the homeowners.
  • Hon. John C. Gemmill (Judge)
    Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
    Appellate judge who authored the published opinion affirming the trial court's judgment.
  • Hon. Ann A. Scott Timmer (Judge)
    Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
    Presiding appellate judge of Department B who concurred in the opinion.
  • Hon. Noel Fidel (Judge)
    Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
    Appellate judge who concurred in the opinion; also appointed pro tempore by the Arizona Supreme Court to participate in and sign decisions on this case.
  • Bruce E. Meyerson (Other)
    Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
    Appellate mediator assigned to conduct the appellate settlement conference on February 8, 2001.
  • Tom Brantner (Other)
    Listed as a deponent in the record on appeal.
  • Donald LaMontague (Other)
    Listed as a deponent in the record on appeal.
  • Bruce Bartley (Other)
    Listed as a deponent in the record on appeal.
  • Kelly Dancer (Other)
    Listed as a deponent in the record on appeal.
  • Michael Neary (Other)
    Listed as a deponent in the record on appeal.

What happened

William and Joan Madigan and Henry and LaVonne Speak owned homes in the Garden Lakes subdivision in Avondale, Arizona. Both families installed solar panels on their roofs to heat their swimming pools without seeking prior approval from the Garden Lakes Community Association’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC). The Association’s guidelines required roof-mounted solar equipment to match the roof material, be integrated into the roof design, and be screened from public view. Believing the homeowners violated these restrictions and breached the community’s Declaration, the Association filed separate lawsuits seeking permanent injunctions to compel the removal of the solar panels, along with over $100,000 in cumulative fines, and attorneys’ fees. The homeowners asserted that the guidelines were void and unenforceable under A.R.S. § 33-439(A) because they effectively prohibited solar energy devices.

The lawsuits were consolidated. Before trial, the Association waived the fines, and William Madigan passed away, prompting Joan Madigan to remove her solar panels and resulting in the dismissal of her case. The remaining case against the Speaks was tried to the court with an advisory jury. The advisory jury found that the Speaks installed the panels without prior approval, that the Association’s guidelines were not reasonable and unambiguous, but also found (under a confusingly worded interrogatory) that the guidelines did not effectively prohibit solar devices. Treating the jury’s findings as merely advisory, the trial court entered final judgment in favor of the Speaks, concluding that the guidelines and the Association’s conduct ‘effectively prohibited’ the solar devices. The Association appealed, and the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment and awarded attorneys’ fees to the homeowners.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Garden Lakes Community Association, Inc. v. Madigan and Speak (204 Ariz. 234, 62 P.3d 983 (Ct. App. 2003), 1 CA-CV 00-0570). Whether a homeowners association’s architectural guidelines ‘effectively prohibit’ the installation or use of 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 Garden Lakes Community Association, Inc. v. Madigan and Speak. 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 1986-01-28 The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements for Garden Lakes is recorded.
Step 1997-01-15 Henry Speak submits an application to the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) for a solar pool heater, which is rejected. Henry Speak proceeds with the roof installation regardless.
Step 1997-05-15 The Garden Lakes Community Association files separate lawsuits in Maricopa County Superior Court against homeowners Henry Speak and William Madigan to compel removal of their solar panels.
Step 2000-01-11 The consolidated trial begins in the Maricopa County Superior Court.
Step 2000-12-29 Garden Lakes Community Association files a Notice of Appeal in the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, after the trial court enters judgment in favor of the homeowners.
Step 2001-02-21 Garden Lakes Community Association files its Opening Brief on appeal.
Step 2001-04-06 Appellees file their Answering Brief on appeal.
Step 2001-05-01 Garden Lakes Community Association files its Reply Brief.
Step 2001-08-10 Sun City Grand Community Association files an Amicus Curiae Brief.
Step 2001-09-06 Division One of the Court of Appeals hears oral arguments and takes the case under advisement.
Step 2003-02-18 Arizona Court of Appeals issues its published opinion affirming the trial court's judgment.
Step 2003-03-21 Garden Lakes Community Association files a Petition for Review with the Arizona Supreme Court.
Step 2003-04-18 Appellees file their Response in Opposition to the Petition for Review with the Supreme Court.
Step 2003-04-24 Court of Appeals enters an order awarding Appellees their attorneys' fees and costs totaling $20,024.05.
Step 2003-07-01 Arizona Supreme Court denies the Petition for Review and grants Appellees' request for Supreme Court attorneys' fees.
Step 2003-07-22 Original Mandate is issued, returning the record to the Maricopa County Superior Court and terminating the appeal.

Complete source-document index

This index contains 11 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 2000-12-19

Docket And Case Information

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
2000-12-19_001_docket-and-case-information.pdf
Source 2 2001-09-04

Response To Amicus Brief

Type: Briefing paper

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

Download source file
2001-09-04_002_response-to-amicus-brief.pdf
Source 3 2003-02-18

Final Appellate Opinion

Type: Decision or judgment

Opinion holding that whether a homeowners association's architectural guidelines 'effectively prohibit' the installation or use of a solar energy device under A.R.S. § 33-439(A) is a question of fact to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

Download source file
2003-02-18_003_final-appellate-opinion.pdf
Source 4 2003-02-18

Opinion Affirmed

Type: Decision or judgment

Opinion holding that whether a homeowners association's architectural guidelines 'effectively prohibit' the installation or use of a solar energy device under A.R.S. § 33-439(A) is a question of fact to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

Download source file
2003-02-18_004_opinion-affirmed.pdf
Source 5 2003-02-18

Opinion Affirmed

Type: Decision or judgment

Opinion holding that whether a homeowners association's architectural guidelines 'effectively prohibit' the installation or use of a solar energy device under A.R.S. § 33-439(A) is a question of fact to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

Download source file
2003-02-18_005_opinion-affirmed.pdf
Source 6 2003-03-21

Petition For Review

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
2003-03-21_006_petition-for-review.pdf
Source 8 2003-07-23

Order Mailingincomplete

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2003-07-23_008_order-mailingincomplete.pdf
Source 9 Undated

Original State Library Packet

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_009_original-state-library-packet.pdf
Source 11 Undated

Undated Case Caption

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_011_undated-case-caption.pdf

FAQ

Is the Garden Lakes v. Madigan decision binding precedent for Arizona HOAs?

Yes. The decision was published as a precedential opinion by Division One of the Arizona Court of Appeals, meaning it is binding on all Arizona homeowners associations and trial courts.

Can an Arizona HOA completely ban roof-mounted solar panels for aesthetic reasons?

No. Under A.R.S. § 33-439(A), any covenant, restriction, or guideline that effectively prohibits the installation or use of a solar energy device is void and unenforceable. While HOAs can regulate solar placement, they cannot use aesthetic rules to force a complete ban or make installation practically impossible.

Can an HOA enforce guidelines that make solar installation significantly more expensive?

It depends, but generally no if the cost is unreasonable. The Court of Appeals held that while cost is not the sole factor, courts must consider the increased financial burden of complying with HOA guidelines. If complying with aesthetic demands (like building massive screens or custom patios) drastically increases the system’s cost, those guidelines may be ruled an invalid ‘effective prohibition’ under A.R.S. § 33-439(A).

What factors do Arizona courts look at to decide if an HOA rule 'effectively prohibits' solar use?

The Court of Appeals established a flexible, ten-factor test. These factors include the language of the guidelines, the association’s conduct, the availability of feasible solar alternatives, the comparative cost and performance of those alternatives, the physical limits of the property, and whether the restrictions impose too great a cost relative to what a typical homeowner in the community is willing to spend.

Who has the burden of proving that an HOA rule effectively prohibits solar devices in court?

The homeowner bears the burden of proving that the HOA’s guidelines or conduct ‘effectively prohibit’ the installation or use of their solar energy device. In this case, the Speaks successfully met their burden by presenting expert testimony showing that the HOA’s proposed screening and patio cover alternatives were technically unfeasible, violated city setback rules, and added thousands of dollars in unnecessary costs.

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 / citation204 Ariz. 234, 62 P.3d 983 (Ct. App. 2003), 1 CA-CV 00-0570
Court / tribunalCourt of Appeals
Decision / key dateFebruary 18, 2003
Judge / panelHon. John C. Gemmill, Hon. Ann A. Scott Timmer, Hon. Noel Fidel
PartiesPlaintiff-Appellant Garden Lakes Community Association, Inc. vs. Defendants-Appellees William E. & Joan M. Madigan and Henry T. & LaVonne M. Speak (homeowners)
Governing law
Topics
CC&RsArchitectural ReviewAttorney Fees
Outcome / holding

The Arizona Court of Appeals held that whether a homeowners association's architectural guidelines 'effectively prohibit' the installation or use of a solar energy device under A.R.S. § 33-439(A) is a question of fact to be decided on a case-by-case basis. The court further held that while the homeowner bears the burden of proof, the trial court may properly consider the increased cost of complying with aesthetic restrictions as a relevant factor in determining whether an effective prohibition exists.

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package11 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap16 roadmap entries
Video overviewGarden Lakes Community Association, Inc. v. Madigan and Speak
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links3 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

The Garden Lakes Community Association (the Association) brought separate lawsuits against homeowners Henry and LaVonne Speak, and William and Joan Madigan (which were later consolidated), seeking a permanent injunction to compel the removal of roof-mounted solar energy devices installed without Architectural Review Committee (ARC) approval. The homeowners defended under A.R.S. § 33-439(A), which voids any deed restriction that 'effectively prohibits' the installation or use of solar energy devices. Before trial, the Association waived $100,000 in alleged fines, and the Madigans were dismissed after removing their system following William Madigan's death. Following a trial with an advisory jury, the court entered judgment in favor of the Speaks, finding that the Association's aesthetic guidelines combined with its conduct effectively prohibited solar device installation. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed, establishing that whether a restriction 'effectively prohibits' solar use is a case-by-case question of fact, and that courts may properly consider the added costs of compliance.

Key Issues & Findings

First, the Court of Appeals interpreted the statutory phrase 'effectively prohibits' under A.R.S. § 33-439(A) by rejecting the Association's argument that it required 'inevitable preclusion' of solar devices. Instead, the court adopted a practical, flexible standard, emphasizing that the Arizona Legislature intended to encourage solar energy use by offering incentives and limiting disincentives. The court identified a non-exhaustive list of ten potentially relevant factors for evaluating these disputes, including the content of the guidelines, the association's conduct, the availability of feasible alternatives, and the increased cost of compliance in relation to what typical homeowners in the community are willing to spend.

Second, the court explained that although the burden of proof remains on the homeowner, cost cannot be ignored in an effective prohibition analysis. It noted that with enough money, any solar system could be custom-engineered to meet strict architectural guidelines, but such exorbitant expenses would dissuade average homeowners from adopting solar energy. Thus, while cost alone is not dispositive, it is a proper factor to analyze, focusing on the motivation of the average homeowner within that specific community.

Finally, applying these factors, the court found that substantial evidence supported the trial court's ruling in favor of the Speaks. The Association's suggested alternatives—building a massive patio cover that would violate city pool setbacks, or constructing an experimental roof screen that matched the home's stucco but reduced solar efficiency—were cost-prohibitive, impractical, and visually unappealing even to the Association's own architectural review committee members.

Why It Matters

For Arizona homeowners and HOA boards, this case serves as a landmark ruling establishing that HOAs cannot use heavy-handed aesthetic guidelines or unreasonable conduct to block solar energy installations. Boards must adopt a cooperative and reasonable approach, as rigid screening or integration requirements that add substantial costs (such as doubling the system price) will be declared void under A.R.S. § 33-439(A). Additionally, the ruling clarifies that HOA decisions are not entitled to administrative-like judicial deference, protecting homeowners from unchecked board power.

For legal counsel, the opinion provides a clear blueprint of ten factors to utilize when evaluating, litigating, or settling solar-related HOA disputes. It highlights the importance of presenting detailed evidence regarding the technical feasibility, city setback restrictions, and comparative costs of alternative designs. It also underscores the risk to HOAs of facing significant attorney's fee awards under A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A) if they unsuccessfully attempt to force homeowners to remove solar devices.

← Back to Court of Appeals cases

Rodriguez v. Gardens-Gilbert Community Association: CC&Rs as Contract, Negligence, and the Limits of HOA Tort Claims

Posted on by

Arizona HOA Litigation | PENDING | A.R.S. § 33-1805 | CV2024-005940

Rodriguez is an active, heavily litigated case on remand from the Court of Appeals. The latest substantive ruling narrowed it to negligence and CC&R-based contract claims, dismissed the retaliation, discrimination, and conspiracy theories, and sanctioned the pro se plaintiff. No final judgment has been entered.

Last updated June 19, 2026. Case: Sandra Rodriguez v. Gardens-Gilbert Community Association, et al., Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2024-005940 (consolidated with CV2024-013806; Hon. Christopher Coury). Status: pending / not final.

Download omnibus ruling Download motion to dismiss Source-file index FAQ

Current-status note: This page is published as a litigation record based on the source files available through 2026-06-11. 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.

Status: PENDING / NOT FINAL (June 2026). This is an active Maricopa County Superior Court case on remand from the Court of Appeals; no final judgment has been entered and rulings may change. This page summarizes the uploaded record and is educational, not legal advice.

The takeaways so far

An HOA’s CC&Rs are the contract between owner and association, so breach-of-contract claims survive only against the association and only as to specific recorded CC&R terms — not against a management company that is not a party to that contract. Arizona recognizes no standalone tort of ‘retaliation,’ and the economic-loss doctrine can bar tort claims that merely restate CC&R breaches. But negligence and gross-negligence claims tied to common-area maintenance and management duties, and records-access claims under A.R.S. § 33-1805, can still proceed.

What the case is about

Sandra Rodriguez, a Gilbert homeowner appearing pro se, sued the Gardens-Gilbert Community Association, its management company (Focus HOA Management, LLC), and three individual agents, alleging they failed to maintain common areas and address health-and-safety hazards, obstructed remediation of water-intrusion damage at her property, denied her access to records and meetings under A.R.S. § 33-1805, and retaliated against her.

After the trial court dismissed several defendants, the Court of Appeals (1 CA-CV 24-0790/25-0040, August 2025 memorandum decision) reinstated her negligence, gross-negligence, and intentional-tort claims and remanded. On remand, Judge Coury’s May 27, 2026 omnibus ruling narrowed the case to surviving negligence and CC&R-based contract claims, dismissed the discrimination, retaliation, and conspiracy theories, sanctioned the plaintiff for a missed deposition, and imposed a filing restriction; a summary-judgment motion remains pending and a third appeal was filed June 1, 2026.

Video overview of the case record

An AI-generated video overview of Sandra Rodriguez v. Gardens-Gilbert Community Association, et al. (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2024-005940 (consolidated with CV2024-013806)). On the operative pleading, the court held that an HOA’s CC&Rs are the contract between owner and association, so… 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 Sandra Rodriguez v. Gardens-Gilbert Community 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 2024-03-21 Complaint filed (CV2024-005940)
Step 2025-08-12 Court of Appeals reinstates negligence/gross-negligence/intentional-tort claims; remands (1 CA-CV 24-0790/25-0040)
Step 2025-09-03 Cases CV2024-005940 and CV2024-013806 consolidated
Step 2026-05-27 Omnibus ruling: claims narrowed; retaliation/discrimination/conspiracy dismissed; plaintiff sanctioned; filing restriction imposed
Step 2026-06-01 Plaintiff files a third notice of appeal; summary-judgment motion pending

Complete source-document index

This index contains 219 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 2024-10-21

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
2024-10-21_001_motion.pdf
Source 2 2024-11-01

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
2024-11-01_002_court-document.pdf
Source 3 2024-11-04

Motion To Dismiss

Type: Motion/application

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

Download source file
2024-11-04_003_motion-to-dismiss.pdf
Source 4 2024-11-05

Order

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2024-11-05_004_order.pdf
Source 5 2024-11-05

Reply

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
2024-11-05_005_reply.pdf
Source 6 2024-11-08

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
2024-11-08_006_court-document.pdf
Source 7 2024-11-08

Notice Of Appearance

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2024-11-08_007_notice-of-appearance.pdf
Source 8 2024-11-12

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
2024-11-12_008_notice-of-appeal.pdf
Source 9 2024-11-13

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
2024-11-13_009_court-document.pdf
Source 10 2024-11-14

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
2024-11-14_010_court-document.pdf
Source 12 2024-11-26

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
2024-11-26_012_court-document.pdf
Source 13 2024-11-26

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
2024-11-26_013_court-document.pdf
Source 14 2024-11-26

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
2024-11-26_014_court-document.pdf
Source 15 2024-11-27

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
2024-11-27_015_court-document.pdf
Source 16 2024-11-27

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
2024-11-27_016_motion.pdf
Source 18 2024-12-12

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2024-12-12_018_minute-entry.pdf
Source 19 2024-12-12

Motion To Dismiss

Type: Motion/application

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

Download source file
2024-12-12_019_motion-to-dismiss.pdf
Source 20 2024-12-13

Nunc Pro Tunc Order

Type: Court order/minute entry

Nunc pro tunc order amending the December 12, 2024 minute entry to correct the appeal deadline.

Download source file
2024-12-13_020_nunc-pro-tunc-order.pdf
Source 21 2024-12-13

Ruling Addressing Flurry Of Motions

Type: Court order/minute entry

Ruling reopening the time to appeal the August 2024 judgment, denying several post-judgment motions, and denying the HOA defendants’ partial motion to dismiss.

Download source file
2024-12-13_021_ruling-addressing-flurry-of-motions.pdf
Source 22 2024-12-17

Affidavit Of Inability To Post Bond

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
2024-12-17_022_affidavit-of-inability-to-post-bond.pdf
Source 23 2024-12-17

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
2024-12-17_023_court-document.pdf
Source 24 2024-12-17

Designation Of Record On Appeal

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2024-12-17_024_designation-of-record-on-appeal.pdf
Source 25 2024-12-17

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
2024-12-17_025_notice-of-appeal.pdf
Source 26 2024-12-17

Verified Answer

Type: Responsive pleading

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

Download source file
2024-12-17_026_verified-answer.pdf
Source 28 2024-12-20

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
2024-12-20_028_court-document.pdf
Source 30 2024-12-23

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
2024-12-23_030_notice-of-appeal.pdf
Source 31 2024-12-31

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
2024-12-31_031_motion.pdf
Source 32 2024-12-31

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
2024-12-31_032_motion.pdf
Source 33 2024-12-31

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
2024-12-31_033_notice-of-appeal.pdf
Source 34 2024-12-31

Order

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2024-12-31_034_order.pdf
Source 35 2025-01-09

Response

Type: Briefing paper

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

Download source file
2025-01-09_035_response.pdf
Source 36 2025-01-10

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
2025-01-10_036_motion.pdf
Source 37 2025-01-10

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
2025-01-10_037_notice-of-appeal.pdf
Source 39 2025-01-13

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
2025-01-13_039_motion.pdf
Source 40 2025-01-13

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
2025-01-13_040_motion.pdf
Source 41 2025-01-15

Notice Of Continuing Fee Waiver

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2025-01-15_041_notice-of-continuing-fee-waiver.pdf
Source 42 2025-01-15

Reply

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
2025-01-15_042_reply.pdf
Source 43 2025-01-16

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
2025-01-16_043_court-document.pdf
Source 44 2025-01-16

Notice Of Appearance

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2025-01-16_044_notice-of-appearance.pdf
Source 45 2025-01-17

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
2025-01-17_045_motion.pdf
Source 46 2025-01-17

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
2025-01-17_046_motion.pdf
Source 47 2025-01-20

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
2025-01-20_047_court-document.pdf
Source 49 2025-02-25

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
2025-02-25_049_court-document.pdf
Source 50 2025-02-25

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
2025-02-25_050_motion.pdf
Source 51 2025-02-25

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
2025-02-25_051_motion.pdf
Source 52 2025-03-07

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2025-03-07_052_minute-entry.pdf
Source 54 2025-05-01

Complaint

Type: Opening pleading

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

Download source file
2025-05-01_054_complaint.pdf
Source 55 2025-05-01

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
2025-05-01_055_court-document.pdf
Source 56 2025-05-01

Notice Of Filing

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2025-05-01_056_notice-of-filing.pdf
Source 57 2025-05-02

Order

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2025-05-02_057_order.pdf
Source 58 2025-05-19

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
2025-05-19_058_court-document.pdf
Source 59 2025-05-20

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2025-05-20_059_minute-entry.pdf
Source 60 2025-05-21

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
2025-05-21_060_court-document.pdf
Source 61 2025-05-29

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
2025-05-29_061_motion.pdf
Source 62 2025-05-30

Notice Of Appearance

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2025-05-30_062_notice-of-appearance.pdf
Source 63 2025-06-03

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
2025-06-03_063_court-document.pdf
Source 64 2025-06-11

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
2025-06-11_064_court-document.pdf
Source 65 2025-06-12

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
2025-06-12_065_court-document.pdf
Source 66 2025-07-21

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
2025-07-21_066_motion.pdf
Source 67 2025-08-12

Memorandum Decision

Type: Decision or judgment

Memorandum decision affirming in part, reversing in part, vacating fee awards, and remanding Rodriguez’s HOA-management and agent-liability claims.

Download source file
2025-08-12_067_memorandum-decision.pdf
Source 68 2025-08-19

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
2025-08-19_068_motion.pdf
Source 69 2025-08-21

Defendant Motion To Consolidate

Type: Motion/application

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

Download source file
2025-08-21_069_defendant-motion-to-consolidate.pdf
Source 70 2025-08-22

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
2025-08-22_070_court-document.pdf
Source 71 2025-08-23

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
2025-08-23_071_court-document.pdf
Source 74 2025-08-29

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
2025-08-29_074_motion.pdf
Source 75 2025-09-02

Complaint

Type: Opening pleading

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

Download source file
2025-09-02_075_complaint.pdf
Source 76 2025-09-02

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
2025-09-02_076_motion.pdf
Source 77 2025-09-02

Order Consolidating Cases

Type: Court order/minute entry

Order consolidating CV2024-013806 and CV2024-005940 under the Gardens/Gilbert case number and transferring the consolidated case to Judge David McDowell.

Download source file
2025-09-02_077_order-consolidating-cases.pdf
Source 78 2025-09-02

Order Consolidating Cases

Type: Court order/minute entry

Order granting consolidation of CV2024-013806 and CV2024-005940 and transferring the consolidated case to Judge David McDowell.

Download source file
2025-09-02_078_order-consolidating-cases.pdf
Source 79 2025-09-05

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
2025-09-05_079_court-document.pdf
Source 80 2025-09-05

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
2025-09-05_080_court-document.pdf
Source 81 2025-09-05

Memorandum Decision

Type: Decision or judgment

Mandate transmitting the Court of Appeals memorandum decision that affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated fee awards, and remanded.

Download source file
2025-09-05_081_memorandum-decision.pdf
Source 82 2025-09-05

Memorandum Decision

Type: Decision or judgment

Memorandum decision affirming in part, reversing in part, vacating fee awards, and remanding Rodriguez’s HOA-management and agent-liability claims.

Download source file
2025-09-05_082_memorandum-decision.pdf
Source 83 2025-09-10

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
2025-09-10_083_court-document.pdf
Source 84 2025-10-23

Complaint

Type: Opening pleading

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

Download source file
2025-10-23_084_complaint.pdf
Source 85 2025-10-23

Order

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2025-10-23_085_order.pdf
Source 86 2025-10-23

Ruling On Several Motions For Relief

Type: Court order/minute entry

Ruling denying contempt sanctions and renewed stay relief, lifting the stay, and requiring a joint report and proposed scheduling order.

Download source file
2025-10-23_086_ruling-on-several-motions-for-relief.pdf
Source 87 2025-10-30

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
2025-10-30_087_court-document.pdf
Source 88 2025-10-30

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
2025-10-30_088_court-document.pdf
Source 90 2025-11-07

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
2025-11-07_090_court-document.pdf
Source 91 2025-11-07

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
2025-11-07_091_court-document.pdf
Source 92 2025-11-12

Ruling Addressing Several Motions And Filings

Type: Court order/minute entry

Ruling setting a new scheduling framework and denying requests to strike the Rule 16 report, join another defendant, or invalidate the defendants’ answer.

Download source file
2025-11-12_092_ruling-addressing-several-motions-and-filings.pdf
Source 93 2025-11-13

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
2025-11-13_093_court-document.pdf
Source 94 2025-11-13

Motion For Protective Order

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2025-11-13_094_motion-for-protective-order.pdf
Source 96 2025-11-13

Verified Answer

Type: Responsive pleading

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

Download source file
2025-11-13_096_verified-answer.pdf
Source 97 2025-11-14

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
2025-11-14_097_motion.pdf
Source 99 2025-11-17

Affidavit Of Sandra Rodriguez

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
2025-11-17_099_affidavit-of-sandra-rodriguez.pdf
Source 101 2025-11-25

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
2025-11-25_101_court-document.pdf
Source 102 2025-11-25

Motion To Stay

Type: Motion/application

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

Download source file
2025-11-25_102_motion-to-stay.pdf
Source 104 2025-11-26

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
2025-11-26_104_court-document.pdf
Source 106 2025-12-02

Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2025-12-02_106_certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 107 2025-12-02

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
2025-12-02_107_court-document.pdf
Source 108 2025-12-02

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
2025-12-02_108_court-document.pdf
Source 109 2025-12-09

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
2025-12-09_109_court-document.pdf
Source 110 2025-12-09

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
2025-12-09_110_court-document.pdf
Source 112 2025-12-11

Motion For Protective Order

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2025-12-11_112_motion-for-protective-order.pdf
Source 113 2025-12-19

Response

Type: Briefing paper

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

Download source file
2025-12-19_113_response.pdf
Source 114 2025-12-22

Ruling On Motions Filed Between Nov 7 And Dec

Type: Court order/minute entry

Ruling denying multiple discovery, amendment, deadline-extension, and protective-order requests while enforcing deposition and discovery procedures.

Download source file
2025-12-22_114_ruling-on-motions-filed-between-nov-7-and-dec.pdf
Source 115 2025-12-31

Filing Rejected

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
2025-12-31_115_filing-rejected.pdf
Source 116 2025-12-31

Order

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2025-12-31_116_order.pdf
Source 117 2026-01-05

Complaint

Type: Opening pleading

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

Download source file
2026-01-05_117_complaint.pdf
Source 118 2026-01-05

Status Conference

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2026-01-05_118_status-conference.pdf
Source 120 2026-01-15

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
2026-01-15_120_court-document.pdf
Source 121 2026-02-03

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2026-02-03_121_minute-entry.pdf
Source 122 2026-02-03

Ruling On Motion To Amend

Type: Court order/minute entry

Ruling permitting a limited amended complaint, lifting the discovery stay, and setting updated case deadlines.

Download source file
2026-02-03_122_ruling-on-motion-to-amend.pdf
Source 123 2026-02-13

Complaint

Type: Opening pleading

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

Download source file
2026-02-13_123_complaint.pdf
Source 124 2026-02-13

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
2026-02-13_124_court-document.pdf
Source 125 2026-02-13

Plaintiff Demand For Jury Trial

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
2026-02-13_125_plaintiff-demand-for-jury-trial.pdf
Source 126 2026-02-23

Motion For Protective Order

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2026-02-23_126_motion-for-protective-order.pdf
Source 128 2026-03-13

Filing Rejected

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
2026-03-13_128_filing-rejected.pdf
Source 129 2026-03-25

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
2026-03-25_129_court-document.pdf
Source 130 2026-03-25

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
2026-03-25_130_court-document.pdf
Source 131 2026-03-25

Motion For Protective Order

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2026-03-25_131_motion-for-protective-order.pdf
Source 132 2026-03-31

Complaint

Type: Opening pleading

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

Download source file
2026-03-31_132_complaint.pdf
Source 133 2026-03-31

Complaint

Type: Opening pleading

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

Download source file
2026-03-31_133_complaint.pdf
Source 135 2026-04-10

Motion To Compel

Type: Motion/application

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

Download source file
2026-04-10_135_motion-to-compel.pdf
Source 136 2026-04-15

Motion To Compel

Type: Motion/application

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

Download source file
2026-04-15_136_motion-to-compel.pdf
Source 137 2026-04-17

Response

Type: Briefing paper

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

Download source file
2026-04-17_137_response.pdf
Source 142 2026-04-30

Certificate Of Adr Unreadiness

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2026-04-30_142_certificate-of-adr-unreadiness.pdf
Source 143 2026-04-30

Certificate Of Adr Unreadiness

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2026-04-30_143_certificate-of-adr-unreadiness.pdf
Source 144 2026-04-30

Order

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2026-04-30_144_order.pdf
Source 145 2026-05-04

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
2026-05-04_145_court-document.pdf
Source 146 2026-05-04

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
2026-05-04_146_court-document.pdf
Source 148 2026-05-05

Motion For Protective Order

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2026-05-05_148_motion-for-protective-order.pdf
Source 149 2026-05-06

Adr Referral Vacated

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
2026-05-06_149_adr-referral-vacated.pdf
Source 150 2026-05-06

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
2026-05-06_150_court-document.pdf
Source 151 2026-05-06

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
2026-05-06_151_motion.pdf
Source 153 2026-05-06

Recusal

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
2026-05-06_153_recusal.pdf
Source 154 2026-05-08

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
2026-05-08_154_court-document.pdf
Source 155 2026-05-08

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
2026-05-08_155_court-document.pdf
Source 157 2026-05-10

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
2026-05-10_157_motion.pdf
Source 159 2026-05-11

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
2026-05-11_159_court-document.pdf
Source 160 2026-05-21

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
2026-05-21_160_court-document.pdf
Source 161 2026-05-21

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
2026-05-21_161_court-document.pdf
Source 162 2026-05-21

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
2026-05-21_162_motion-for-summary-judgment.pdf
Source 163 2026-05-21

Order

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2026-05-21_163_order.pdf
Source 164 2026-05-22

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
2026-05-22_164_court-document.pdf
Source 165 2026-05-22

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
2026-05-22_165_motion.pdf
Source 166 2026-05-26

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
2026-05-26_166_motion.pdf
Source 169 2026-05-27

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
2026-05-27_169_motion.pdf
Source 170 2026-05-27

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
2026-05-27_170_motion.pdf
Source 171 2026-05-27

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
2026-05-27_171_notice-of-appeal.pdf
Source 173 2026-05-29

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
2026-05-29_173_court-document.pdf
Source 174 2026-05-29

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
2026-05-29_174_court-document.pdf
Source 175 2026-05-29

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
2026-05-29_175_court-document.pdf
Source 177 2026-06-01

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
2026-06-01_177_court-document.pdf
Source 178 2026-06-01

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
2026-06-01_178_court-document.pdf
Source 179 2026-06-01

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
2026-06-01_179_notice-of-appeal.pdf
Source 180 2026-06-01

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
2026-06-01_180_notice-of-appeal.pdf
Source 181 2026-06-01

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
2026-06-01_181_notice-of-appeal.pdf
Source 184 2026-06-02

Affidavit

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
2026-06-02_184_affidavit.pdf
Source 185 2026-06-03

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
2026-06-03_185_court-document.pdf
Source 186 2026-06-03

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
2026-06-03_186_notice-of-appeal.pdf
Source 188 2026-06-05

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
2026-06-05_188_motion-for-summary-judgment.pdf
Source 189 2026-06-08

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
2026-06-08_189_court-document.pdf
Source 193 2026-06-11

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
2026-06-11_193_court-document.pdf
Source 194 2026-06-11

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
2026-06-11_194_court-document.pdf
Source 195 Undated

Application For Fee Deferral

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_195_application-for-fee-deferral.pdf
Source 197 Undated

Complaint

Type: Opening pleading

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

Download source file
undated_197_complaint.pdf
Source 198 Undated

Complaint

Type: Opening pleading

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

Download source file
undated_198_complaint.pdf
Source 199 Undated

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
undated_199_court-document.pdf
Source 200 Undated

First Amended Complaint

Type: Opening pleading

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

Download source file
undated_200_first-amended-complaint.pdf
Source 201 Undated

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
undated_201_motion.pdf
Source 202 Undated

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
undated_202_motion.pdf
Source 203 Undated

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
undated_203_motion.pdf
Source 204 Undated

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
undated_204_motion.pdf
Source 205 Undated

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
undated_205_motion.pdf
Source 206 Undated

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
undated_206_motion.pdf
Source 207 Undated

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
undated_207_motion.pdf
Source 208 Undated

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
undated_208_motion.pdf
Source 209 Undated

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
undated_209_motion.pdf
Source 210 Undated

Motion For Protective Order

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
undated_210_motion-for-protective-order.pdf
Source 211 Undated

Motion To Compel

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_211_motion-to-compel.pdf
Source 212 Undated

Motion To Dismiss

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_212_motion-to-dismiss.pdf
Source 213 Undated

Motion To Quash

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_213_motion-to-quash.pdf
Source 214 Undated

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
undated_214_notice-of-appeal.pdf
Source 215 Undated

Opposition

Type: Briefing paper

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

Download source file
undated_215_opposition.pdf
Source 216 Undated

Order

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
undated_216_order.pdf
Source 217 Undated

Reply

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_217_reply.pdf
Source 218 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_218_summons.pdf
Source 219 Undated

Verified Answer

Type: Responsive pleading

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

Download source file
undated_219_verified-answer.pdf

Key holdings (so far)

  • Breach-of-contract claims run against the association, limited to recorded CC&R terms.
  • A management company is not a party to that contract.
  • Arizona recognizes no standalone HOA retaliation tort.
  • The economic-loss doctrine bars tort claims that merely restate CC&R breaches.
  • Negligence and gross negligence tied to common-area maintenance.
  • Records-access theory under A.R.S. § 33-1805.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Sandra Rodriguez (Plaintiff)
    Self-represented homeowner plaintiff.

Respondent Side

  • Gardens-Gilbert Community Association (Defendant/Appellee)
    Association party named in Rodriguez’s complaint and appeal.
  • Focus HOA Management, LLC (Defendant/Appellee)
    Management-company defendant in the case record.
  • Harman Cadis (Defendant)
    Focus HOA Management
    Individual defendant named in the verified partial answer.
  • Brooke Sortor (Defendant)
    Focus HOA Management
    Individual defendant named in the verified partial answer.
  • Anna Schultz (Defendant)
    Focus HOA Management
    Individual defendant named in the verified partial answer.
  • Augustus H. Shaw IV (Counsel)
    Counsel for defendants in the verified partial answer.
  • Dominick D. Detente (Counsel)
    Counsel for defendants in the verified partial answer.

Neutral Parties

  • Rodrick Coffey (Judge)
    Superior Court judge listed in one order.
  • David McDowell (Judge)
    Superior Court judge assigned in later pleadings.
  • Christopher Coury (Judge)
    Superior Court judge addressed in later notices.

FAQ

Is this case final?

No. It is active and pending on remand, with a summary-judgment motion outstanding and a third appeal filed June 1, 2026. Nothing here is a final ruling and the outcome may change.

Can I sue my HOA's management company for breach of contract?

Generally not on the CC&Rs alone. This ruling holds the CC&Rs are the contract between the owner and the association; a management company that is not a party to that contract is not liable for breach of it.

Does Arizona recognize an HOA 'retaliation' claim?

This ruling holds it does not as a standalone tort, and that the economic-loss doctrine can bar tort claims that simply restate CC&R breaches.

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. CV2024-005940 (consolidated with CV2024-013806)
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateMay 27, 2026
Judge / panelHon. Christopher Coury
PartiesA Gilbert homeowner, appearing pro se, sued her HOA, its management company, and three individual agents over common-area maintenance, records access, and alleged retaliation; the case is active on remand from the Court of Appeals.
Governing law
Topics
ProcedureCC&RsNegligenceRecords RequestsEconomic Loss DoctrinePro Se Litigant
Outcome / holding

On the operative pleading, the court held that an HOA's CC&Rs are the contract between owner and association, so breach-of-contract claims survive only against the association and only as to specific recorded CC&R terms (not against the non-contracting management company); the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing requires a contract; Arizona recognizes no standalone tort of 'retaliation' and the economic-loss doctrine bars tort claims that merely restate CC&R breaches; but the plaintiff's negligence and gross-negligence claims tied to common-area maintenance and management duties, and her § 33-1805 records theory, survive for further litigation.

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package219 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap5 roadmap entries
Video overviewSandra Rodriguez v. Gardens-Gilbert Community Association, et al.
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions3 questions
Featured download links3 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

CURRENT STATUS (June 2026): NOT FINAL — this is an active, heavily litigated Maricopa County Superior Court case on remand from the Court of Appeals; no final judgment has been entered. Sandra Rodriguez, a homeowner in the Gardens-Gilbert community, sued the association, its management company (Focus HOA Management, LLC), and three individual agents, alleging the defendants failed to maintain common areas and address health-and-safety hazards, obstructed remediation of water-intrusion damage at her property, denied her access to records and meetings under A.R.S. § 33-1805, and retaliated against her. The trial court initially dismissed several defendants, but in August 2025 the Court of Appeals (1 CA-CV 24-0790/25-0040, memorandum decision) reinstated her negligence, gross-negligence, and intentional-tort claims and remanded. On remand, the latest substantive ruling is Judge Coury's May 27, 2026 omnibus order, which narrowed the case to surviving negligence and CC&R-based contract claims, dismissed the discrimination, retaliation, and conspiracy theories, sanctioned the plaintiff for a missed deposition, and imposed a filing restriction; a summary-judgment motion remains pending and a third appeal was filed June 1, 2026.

Key Issues & Findings

Taking the well-pleaded allegations as admitted, the court held that several counts failed as a matter of law: breach of contract requires a contract, so claims against the management entity and individuals failed and the association claim was limited to the recorded CC&Rs; the implied covenant cannot exist without a contract; Arizona does not recognize a tort of retaliation, and to the extent the retaliation theory rested on CC&R duties the economic-loss doctrine barred it; and the discrimination count failed for lack of any protected-characteristic facts. The court rejected the defendants' argument that the appellate remand was narrow, reviewing each claim de novo because the earlier dismissal had been without prejudice. Applying the four-factor injunction test, it denied the plaintiff's request for a temporary restraining order and harassment injunction, finding no likelihood of success or irreparable harm and noting the request appeared aimed at avoiding a deposition; it also denied her motion to declare defense counsel vexatious, imposed an intermediate sanction for the missed deposition, and restricted further motion practice pending decision on summary judgment.

Why It Matters

For Arizona HOA disputes, the case reinforces that CC&Rs are the contract between owner and association — breach-of-contract claims are confined to specific recorded CC&R terms and generally cannot be brought against a management company that is not a party to that contract. It confirms that Arizona recognizes no standalone tort of HOA 'retaliation' and that the economic-loss doctrine can bar tort claims that simply restate CC&R breaches, while showing that records-access claims under A.R.S. § 33-1805 and common-area maintenance failures can still proceed as negligence theories. It is also a cautionary example of how a sprawling pro se HOA case can draw sanctions, filing restrictions, and repeated appeals. Because the case is ongoing, nothing here is a final ruling.

← Back to Superior Court cases

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

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

The rule in one sentence

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

Case snapshot

Court result

Dismissal for homeowner Bonham was affirmed.

Core doctrine

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

Rental issue

2016 and 2017 amendments banned short-term rentals.

Fee result

Bonham received appellate fees and costs subject to ARCAP 21.

Case Dossier

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

Case Summary

Case ID / citation1 CA-CV 22-0780
Court / tribunalCourt of Appeals
Decision / key dateOctober 3, 2023
Judge / panelDavid D. Weinzweig, Michael S. Catlett, Maria Elena Cruz
PartiesA planned-community association sued a homeowner to stop short-term rentals after majority-approved CC&R amendments banned short-term rentals.
Governing law
  • A.R.S. § 12-120.21
  • A.R.S. § 12-2101
  • A.R.S. § 12-341
  • A.R.S. § 12-341.01
Topics
Rental RestrictionsCC&RsProcedureAttorney Fees
Outcome / holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal for Bonham and held the challenged short-term-rental amendments were not enforceable against him because they were not reasonably foreseeable from the original declaration.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package70 PDFs, 1 other source file
Step-by-step docket roadmap5 roadmap entries
Video overviewVillage of Oakcreek Association v. Lance E. Bonham
Study / briefing material2 sections
FAQ / homeowner questions3 questions
Curated download aliases4 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

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

Key Issues & Findings

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

Why It Matters

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

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Village of Oakcreek Association (Plaintiff/Appellant)
    Association party seeking to enforce short-term-rental restrictions.
  • Alexis G. Firehawk (Counsel)
    Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen, LLP
    Counsel for Village of Oakcreek Association.
  • Tessa Knueppel (Counsel)
    Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen, LLP
    Counsel for Village of Oakcreek Association.

Respondent Side

  • Lance E. Bonham (Defendant/Appellee)
    Homeowner defendant in the short-term-rental dispute.
  • Mark J. Bainbridge (Counsel)
    The Bainbridge Law Firm, LLC
    Counsel for Bonham.

Neutral Parties

  • Linda Wallace (Judge Pro Tempore)
    Superior Court judge listed in the memorandum decision.
  • David D. Weinzweig (Presiding Judge)
    Authored the Court of Appeals memorandum decision.
  • Michael S. Catlett (Judge)
    Joined the Court of Appeals memorandum decision.
  • Maria Elena Cruz (Judge)
    Joined the Court of Appeals memorandum decision.

Why this case matters

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

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

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Village of Oakcreek Association v. Lance E. Bonham (1 CA-CV 22-0780). The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal for Bonham and held the challenged short-term-rental amendments were not… 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 Village of Oakcreek Association v. Lance E. Bonham. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

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

Homeowner study guide: short-term rental enforcement questions

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

Briefing notes from the review packet

Subject property

The enforcement action concerned Lot 75 in the Cathedral View development in Sedona.

Amended restriction

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

Owner status

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

Association allegations

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

Fines alleged

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

Why allegations did not decide it

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

Enforcement history summarized from the briefing

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

Litigation roadmap

Step 1 April 2022

Sued Bonham to stop short-term rentals under amended CC&Rs.

Filed by: Association

Frames the enforcement action as a CC&R amendment validity dispute.

Download source
Trial ruling
Step 2 2022

Moved to dismiss under Kalway, arguing the amendments were not foreseeable from the original declaration.

Filed by: Homeowner

Shows how Kalway can be raised at the pleading stage.

Download source
Trial ruling
Step 3 December 2022

Granted dismissal and entered judgment for Bonham.

Filed by: Superior Court

Created the final judgment appealed by the association.

Download source
Judgment
Step 4 October 3, 2023

Affirmed dismissal and held the declaration did not provide sufficient notice of a future rental restriction.

Filed by: Court of Appeals

This is the key appellate analysis for short-term rental amendments.

Download source
Memorandum decision
Step 5 April 24, 2024

Issued mandate after the appellate process concluded.

Filed by: Court of Appeals

Marks the final procedural close of the appeal.

Download source
Civil mandate

Complete uploaded source-document index

This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/village-of-oakcreek-association-v-bonham/raw/: 70 PDFs, 1 other source file. Files are ordered by the date/sequence embedded in the normalized filename; non-court review materials, when present, are labeled separately from court filings.

Source 1 2022-12-29

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
2022-12-29_000_index-of-record.pdf
Source 3 2022-12-29

Summons

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2022-12-29_002_summons.pdf
Source 11 2022-12-29

Order For Alternative Service

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2022-12-29_010_order-for-alternative-service.pdf
Source 12 2022-12-29

Proof Of Service By Certified

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2022-12-29_011_proof-of-service-by-certified.pdf
Source 13 2022-12-29

Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2022-12-29_012_certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 20 2022-12-29

Stipulation To Vacate June 72022 Or

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
2022-12-29_019_stipulation-to-vacate-june-72022-or.pdf
Source 22 2022-12-29

Stipulation Of Material Facts And E

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
2022-12-29_021_stipulation-of-material-facts-and-e.pdf
Source 26 2022-12-29

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2022-12-29_025_ruling.pdf
Source 29 2022-12-29

Attachment 1 Of 1 Defendants Applic

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
2022-12-29_028_attachment-1-of-1-defendants-applic.pdf
Source 30 2022-12-29

Defendants Statement Of Costs And N

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
2022-12-29_029_defendants-statement-of-costs-and-n.pdf
Source 33 2022-12-29

Order

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2022-12-29_032_order.pdf
Source 37 2022-12-29

Judgment

Type: Decision or judgment

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

Download source file
2022-12-29_036_judgment.pdf
Source 38 2022-12-29

Village Of Oak Creek Associations N

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
2022-12-29_037_village-of-oak-creek-associations-n.pdf
Source 39 2022-12-29

Initial Notice Re Appeal

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2022-12-29_038_initial-notice-re-appeal.pdf
Source 41 2022-12-29

Record Electronically Transmitte

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
2022-12-29_040_record-electronically-transmitte.pdf
Source 43 2023-01-11

Village Of Oakcreek Associations N

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2023-01-11_000_village-of-oakcreek-associations-n.pdf
Source 45 2023-01-23

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
2023-01-23_000_case-management-statement.pdf
Source 47 2023-01-31

Defendantappellee Lance Ebonhams

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2023-01-31_000_defendantappellee-lance-ebonhams.pdf
Source 48 2023-01-31

Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2023-01-31_001_certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 49 2023-03-06

Appellants Opening Brief

Type: Briefing paper

Opening merits brief; this is where the appellant or moving party frames the legal argument.

Download source file
2023-03-06_000_appellants-opening-brief.pdf
Source 55 2023-05-04

Appellants Reply Brief

Type: Briefing paper

Reply paper; usually the final written response before the court takes the issue under advisement.

Download source file
2023-05-04_000_appellants-reply-brief.pdf
Source 59 2023-10-03

Memorandum Decision Distribution

Type: Decision or judgment

Memorandum decision holding that the Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal for Bonham and held the challenged short-term-rental amendments were not enforceable against him because they were not reasonably foreseeable from the original declaration.

Download source file
2023-10-03_000_memorandum-decision-distribution.pdf
Source 60 2023-10-03

Memorandum Decision

Type: Decision or judgment

Memorandum decision holding that the Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal for Bonham and held the challenged short-term-rental amendments were not enforceable against him because they were not reasonably foreseeable from the original declaration.

Download source file
2023-10-03_000_memorandum-decision.pdf
Source 62 2023-10-12

Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2023-10-12_001_certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 67 2023-11-02

Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2023-11-02_001_certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 68 2023-11-06

Div 1 Transmittal Of Partial 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
2023-11-06_000_div-1-transmittal-of-partial-record.pdf
Source 71 2024-04-24

Civil Mandate

Type: Decision or judgment

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

Download source file
2024-04-24_000_civil-mandate.pdf

For homeowners using this case

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

For boards and managers

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

FAQ

Did the HOA win in Bonham?

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

Is Bonham published precedent?

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

What was missing from the original declaration?

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

← Back to Court of Appeals cases

Dreamland Villa Community Club, Inc. v. Raimey: HOA Court Case Guide

Posted on by

Arizona HOA Case Explainer

The Court of Appeals held that a broad majority-amendment clause is not a blank check to impose brand-new membership and assessment burdens on owners who had no notice of them, especially in a community with no common areas.

Arizona Court of Appeals | 224 Ariz. 42, 226 P.3d 411 (App. 2010) | Decided 2010-03-16

Read the source opinion FAQ

Current-status note: This page is published as a litigation record based on the source files available through 2010-06-30. Later filings, appeals, mandates, settlements, or dismissal orders may change the posture; the linked court records control.

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

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

Scope note: This educational page summarizes Dreamland Villa Community Club, Inc. v. Raimey, a Arizona Court of Appeals HOA-related authority. It is not legal advice.

Source note: This page links to the public opinion record and does not provide a local PDF download.

The takeaway

A generic provision allowing recorded deed restrictions to be amended “in whole or in part” by a majority vote of lot owners cannot be used to impose substantial, previously unforeseeable new affirmative obligations – here, mandatory homeowners’-association membership and lienable assessments – on a community that has no common areas and where club membership had always been voluntary, because such owners took title without notice that these servitudes could be imposed non-consensually. The Second Amended Declarations were therefore invalid and unenforceable, and the trial court’s summary judgment for the association was reversed.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Dreamland Villa Community Club, Inc. (Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee)
    Arizona nonprofit corporation; originally a voluntary recreational club that sought to become a mandatory homeowners' association through amended declarations.
  • Charles E. Maxwell (Counsel)
    Maxwell & Morgan, PC (Mesa)
    Counsel for DVCC (association).
  • Brian W. Morgan (Counsel)
    Maxwell & Morgan, PC (Mesa)
    Counsel for DVCC (association).

Respondent Side

  • Daryle G. Raimey (and other Dreamland Villa homeowners in sections 7, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18) (Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant)
    Named lead among the dissenting homeowners who refused to pay the new assessments; prevailed on appeal.
  • Steven W. Cheifetz (Counsel)
    Cheifetz Iannitelli Marcolini, PC (Phoenix)
    Counsel for the homeowners.
  • Stewart F. Gross (Counsel)
    Cheifetz Iannitelli Marcolini, PC (Phoenix)
    Counsel for the homeowners.
  • Matthew A. Klopp (Counsel)
    Cheifetz Iannitelli Marcolini, PC (Phoenix)
    Counsel for the homeowners.

Neutral Parties

  • Jon W. Thompson (Judge)
    Presiding Judge; authored the opinion.
  • Daniel A. Barker (Judge)
    Concurred.
  • Ann A. Scott Timmer (Judge)
    Chief Judge; concurred.

What happened

Dreamland Villa is an age-restricted residential community of eighteen sections near Mesa, Arizona. The first section was platted in 1958 and the last in 1972, and every residence must be occupied by at least one person aged fifty-five or older. Critically, the community had no common areas – no shared park, roads, or amenities owned collectively by the lot owners.

Dreamland Villa Community Club, Inc. (DVCC) was incorporated in 1961 as a nonprofit corporation formed by volunteers to provide recreational facilities – clubhouses, a recreation center with swimming pools, shuffleboard courts, and a ballroom – to those who chose to join. Membership was voluntary, the facilities were open only to members, and the club was funded by voluntary dues. Many homeowners never joined or used the facilities.

Each section was governed by a separate recorded Declaration of Restrictions from the 1960s and 1970s. With the exception of section 18, none mentioned DVCC, membership, or assessments; they addressed appearance and maintenance matters like single-family use, minimum floor area, and signs. Each contained a generic amendment clause allowing the covenants to be ‘changed in whole or in part or revoked in their entirety by a vote of the owners of a majority of the lots.’ Section 18’s declaration did reference an assessment, but it imposed that charge only on non-members and did not grant membership rights.

In 2003 and 2004, DVCC recorded a Second Amended Declaration of Restrictions for each section. Each Second Amended Declaration required lot owners to pay annual and special assessments to DVCC, reciting purposes including the improvement, maintenance, and replacement of ‘Common Areas’ – even though the community had none. Beginning in December 2006, DVCC filed a series of lawsuits against homeowners who refused to pay, and the suits were consolidated.

Homeowners in sections 7, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 answered and counterclaimed, arguing that the Second Amended Declarations were void and that they could not be forced into membership in a nonprofit corporation or made to pay assessments. On cross-motions, the trial court granted summary judgment for DVCC in September 2007, reasoning that under A.R.S. section 10-3601(B) and Shamrock v. Wagon Wheel Park HOA, a homeowner who takes a deed with a majority-amendment clause impliedly consents to a later majority vote making association membership mandatory.

On the collateral money and fee questions, the trial court declined to award DVCC its attorneys’ fees, citing the homeowners’ good-faith defenses, the novel and complex issues presented, and undue hardship. After an evidentiary hearing it capped late fees at $15 per year under A.R.S. section 33-1803(A) and applied eighteen-percent interest to unpaid assessments. The court signed twenty-five separate judgments; DVCC appealed the fee and damages rulings, and the homeowners cross-appealed the validity of the amendments.

The Court of Appeals addressed the cross-appeal first and reversed. It held that Shamrock left open whether a majority could amend to create mandatory membership, that its prior citation to Colorado’s Evergreen Highlands was not an adoption of that permissive rule, and that Evergreen was distinguishable because it involved pre-existing common areas all owners had always used. Following the Lakeland line and Armstrong v. Ledges HOA, the court held that a generic amendment power could not force the dissenting minority into a voluntary club and lien their lots, because they had no notice such servitudes could be imposed non-consensually. Having found the Second Amended Declarations invalid and unenforceable, the court did not reach DVCC’s fee and late-charge claims, and it awarded the homeowners their attorneys’ fees on appeal.

Dreamland Villa v. Raimey is a foundational Arizona authority on the outer limits of an HOA’s power to amend its governing documents. It draws a sharp line between amendments that adjust or extend obligations the community already bargained for and amendments that impose wholly new, substantial, and unforeseeable burdens – such as compulsory membership in a formerly voluntary club and lienable assessments – on owners who never had notice such servitudes could be added. The decision teaches that a broad ‘may be changed in whole or in part’ clause is not a blank check, and that the presence or absence of common areas that all owners have always used can be decisive in whether new assessments are enforceable. The case matters for boards, managers, and homeowners because it frames a recurring dispute: can a bare majority convert a voluntary arrangement into a mandatory, assessment-bearing association over the objection of a dissenting minority? Raimey answers no on these facts and situates Arizona within the Lakeland/Armstrong line rather than the more permissive Evergreen approach. Its reasoning was later reinforced at the highest level by the Arizona Supreme Court in Kalway v. Calabria Ranch HOA (2022), which held that owners must have notice of the kinds of restrictions that may be added by amendment. Practitioners should read Raimey as a caution to build any expansive assessment or membership authority into the recorded declaration from the outset, and homeowners should read it as support for challenging after-the-fact amendments that create obligations they never bargained for.

Video overview of the case record

An AI-generated video overview of Dreamland Villa Community Club, Inc. v. Raimey (224 Ariz. 42, 226 P.3d 411 (App. 2010)). Generic amendment language did not permit adding mandatory recreation-club membership and dues. 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 Dreamland Villa Community Club, Inc. v. Raimey. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked case records below.

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

Litigation record

Step 1 1958

First section of Dreamland Villa is platted near Mesa, Arizona; the community will grow to eighteen sections by 1972, with no common areas.

Filed by: Court record

Part of the record summarized for homeowners, boards, and counsel.

Step 2 1961

Dreamland Villa Community Club, Inc. (DVCC) is incorporated as a nonprofit to provide recreational facilities to voluntary members.

Filed by: Court record

Part of the record summarized for homeowners, boards, and counsel.

Step 3 1963-1978

Separate Declarations of Restrictions are recorded for the sections (section 7 in 1963; sections 14-17 in 1970-1972; section 18 in 1978), each with a generic majority-amendment clause.

Filed by: Court record

Part of the record summarized for homeowners, boards, and counsel.

Step 4 2003-2004

DVCC records a Second Amended Declaration of Restrictions for each section, purporting to require every lot owner to pay annual and special assessments.

Filed by: Court record

Part of the record summarized for homeowners, boards, and counsel.

Step 5 2006-12

DVCC begins filing lawsuits against homeowners who refuse to pay the new assessments; the cases are later consolidated.

Filed by: Court record

Part of the record summarized for homeowners, boards, and counsel.

Step 6 2007-05

Homeowners move for summary judgment, arguing DVCC cannot impose membership or assessments without consent.

Filed by: Court record

Part of the record summarized for homeowners, boards, and counsel.

Step 7 2007-09

Trial court grants DVCC's motions for summary judgment, relying on A.R.S. section 10-3601(B) and Shamrock, and denies the homeowners' Rule 56(f) request.

Filed by: Court record

Part of the record summarized for homeowners, boards, and counsel.

Step 8 2007-10

Trial court declines to award DVCC attorneys' fees, citing good-faith defenses, novel issues, and undue hardship; later caps late fees at $15/year under A.R.S. section 33-1803(A).

Filed by: Court record

Part of the record summarized for homeowners, boards, and counsel.

Step 9 2008

Twenty-five separate judgments are entered; DVCC appeals and the homeowners cross-appeal (No. 1 CA-CV 08-0388).

Filed by: Court record

Part of the record summarized for homeowners, boards, and counsel.

Step 10 2010-03-16

Court of Appeals, Division One, reverses and remands, holding the Second Amended Declarations invalid and unenforceable and awarding the homeowners appellate fees.

Filed by: Court record

Part of the record summarized for homeowners, boards, and counsel.

Step 11 2010-06-07

Reconsideration denied.

Filed by: Court record

Part of the record summarized for homeowners, boards, and counsel.

FAQ

What did Dreamland Villa v. Raimey decide?

The Arizona Court of Appeals held that a generic clause letting deed restrictions be ‘changed in whole or in part’ by a majority vote could not be used to impose brand-new, substantial obligations – mandatory HOA membership and lienable assessments – on owners in a community with no common areas where membership had always been voluntary. The Second Amended Declarations were declared invalid and unenforceable, and the trial court’s summary judgment for the association was reversed.

Why did the fact that Dreamland Villa had no common areas matter so much?

The absence of common areas was decisive. Courts (including Colorado’s Evergreen Highlands) have upheld new assessments where owners had always used shared amenities, reasoning the duty to pay for them was implicit in the original bargain. Dreamland Villa had no shared park, roads, or amenities owned in common, and the club’s facilities were open only to voluntary members. Without common areas that everyone used, there was no implicit obligation to support, so a majority could not manufacture one through amendment.

Doesn't accepting a deed with an amendment clause mean owners consented to whatever the majority later adds?

Not automatically. The court recognized that buyers who accept recorded restrictions are generally bound by them, and that A.R.S. section 10-3601(B) allows implied consent to nonprofit membership. But it held a generic ‘amend in whole or in part’ clause is not notice that a majority could later impose compulsory membership and assessments never mentioned in the original documents. Owners can only be bound by what they had notice of, so this particular new burden was not something they impliedly consented to.

What is the 'Lakeland line' versus the 'Evergreen' approach the court discussed?

The Lakeland line (including Lakeland Property Owners Ass’n v. Larson and Armstrong v. Ledges HOA) refuses to enforce amendments that impose substantial, unforeseeable new burdens on objecting owners without proper notice. Colorado’s Evergreen Highlands took a more permissive view, allowing a modification clause to add mandatory assessments – but there the association maintained pre-existing common areas all owners used. Raimey aligned Arizona with the Lakeland line on these facts, distinguishing Evergreen because Dreamland Villa had no common areas.

Is Dreamland Villa v. Raimey still good law, and how does it relate to Kalway v. Calabria Ranch?

Yes. Raimey is a published, precedential Arizona Court of Appeals decision. Its notice-based reasoning was reinforced in 2022 by the Arizona Supreme Court in Kalway v. Calabria Ranch HOA, which held that owners must have notice of the kinds of restrictions that may be added by amendment and that a general amendment power does not authorize entirely new and unforeseen restrictions. Read together, the cases limit an HOA’s ability to use a broad amendment clause to create obligations owners never bargained for.

What happened with attorneys' fees and late charges in the case?

The trial court had declined to award DVCC its fees, citing the homeowners’ good-faith defenses, novel and complex issues, and undue hardship, and it capped late fees at $15 per year under A.R.S. section 33-1803(A). Because the Court of Appeals found the amended declarations invalid and vacated the judgments for DVCC, it did not need to reach DVCC’s fee and late-charge arguments. Instead, it awarded the prevailing homeowners their reasonable attorneys’ fees on appeal under A.R.S. section 12-341.01, subject to 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 / citation224 Ariz. 42, 226 P.3d 411 (App. 2010)
Court / tribunalCourt of Appeals
Decision / key dateMarch 16, 2010
Judge / panelJon W. Thompson (Presiding Judge, author), Daniel A. Barker (Judge, concurring), Ann A. Scott Timmer (Chief Judge, concurring)
PartiesA voluntary community recreational club turned homeowners' association (DVCC) sued dissenting homeowners in six sections to enforce mandatory membership and assessments imposed by amended deed restrictions.
Governing law
Topics
AmendmentsCC&RsAssessmentsCovenantsMembership
Outcome / holding

A generic provision allowing recorded deed restrictions to be amended "in whole or in part" by a majority vote of lot owners cannot be used to impose substantial, previously unforeseeable new affirmative obligations – here, mandatory homeowners'-association membership and lienable assessments – on a community that has no common areas and where club membership had always been voluntary, because such owners took title without notice that these servitudes could be imposed non-consensually. The Second Amended Declarations were therefore invalid and unenforceable, and the trial court's summary judgment for the association was reversed.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package1 PDF, 19 other source files
Step-by-step docket roadmap11 roadmap entries
Video overviewDreamland Villa Community Club, Inc. v. Raimey
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions6 questions
Featured download links0 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Dreamland Villa is an age-restricted residential community of eighteen sections near Mesa, Arizona, built between 1958 and 1972, with no common areas. Dreamland Villa Community Club, Inc. (DVCC) was incorporated in 1961 as a voluntary nonprofit recreational club, offering clubhouses, pools, shuffleboard courts, and a ballroom funded by voluntary dues. The original recorded Declarations of Restrictions for the sections at issue said nothing about DVCC, membership, or assessments; they did, however, allow amendment "in whole or in part" by a majority vote of lot owners. In 2003 and 2004, DVCC recorded Second Amended Declarations requiring every lot owner to pay annual and special assessments. When homeowners in sections 7, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 refused, DVCC sued and won summary judgment; the trial court reasoned that by accepting deeds with a majority-amendment clause, the owners impliedly consented to mandatory membership under A.R.S. section 10-3601(B) and Shamrock v. Wagon Wheel Park HOA. The Court of Appeals reversed. It concluded Shamrock left open whether a majority could amend to create such new obligations, distinguished Colorado's Evergreen Highlands (which involved pre-existing common areas), and followed the Lakeland/Armstrong line of authority: because Dreamland Villa had no common areas and membership had always been voluntary, a generic amendment power could not force the objecting minority into association membership and lienable assessments they never bargained for and had no notice of. The court also rejected DVCC's claim that section 18's original declaration mandated membership, finding it assessed only non-members. The Second Amended Declarations were declared invalid and unenforceable, and the homeowners were awarded appellate attorneys' fees.

Key Issues & Findings

The court reviewed the summary judgment de novo. It began with A.R.S. section 10-3601(B), which provides that no person may be admitted as a member of a nonprofit corporation without that person's express or implied consent. While a grantee who accepts a deed subject to recorded restrictions ordinarily assents to those restrictions, the court held that a generic clause allowing amendment "in whole or in part" by majority vote does not, standing alone, supply consent to entirely new affirmative burdens. The court read Shamrock v. Wagon Wheel Park HOA as establishing only that mandatory membership must appear in a recorded declaration (not merely in bylaws), and as leaving open whether a majority could amend a declaration to create such membership. It declined to treat its earlier favorable citation to Colorado's Evergreen Highlands as an adoption of that approach, noting Evergreen itself distinguished the Lakeland line based on 'the differing factual scenarios and severity of consequences.' In Evergreen the association maintained pre-existing common areas that all lot owners had always used, so an assessment was implicit in the original bargain; Dreamland Villa, by contrast, had no common areas, membership had always been voluntary, and many owners never joined. Following Lakeland and Armstrong v. Ledges HOA, the court held a majority could not force the dissenting 49% into a club they had chosen against and lien their lots for it, because the circumstances showed no proper notice that such servitudes could be imposed non-consensually under a generic amendment power. Rather than rest on the breadth of the amendment language, the court grounded its holding on the lack of notice and the substantial, unforeseeable nature of the new obligations. It also rejected DVCC's contention that section 18's original declaration required membership, finding that declaration assessed only non-members and conferred no membership rights.

Why It Matters

Dreamland Villa v. Raimey is a foundational Arizona authority on the outer limits of an HOA's power to amend its governing documents. It draws a sharp line between amendments that adjust or extend obligations the community already bargained for and amendments that impose wholly new, substantial, and unforeseeable burdens – such as compulsory membership in a formerly voluntary club and lienable assessments – on owners who never had notice such servitudes could be added. The decision teaches that a broad 'may be changed in whole or in part' clause is not a blank check, and that the presence or absence of common areas that all owners have always used can be decisive in whether new assessments are enforceable.

The case matters for boards, managers, and homeowners because it frames a recurring dispute: can a bare majority convert a voluntary arrangement into a mandatory, assessment-bearing association over the objection of a dissenting minority? Raimey answers no on these facts and situates Arizona within the Lakeland/Armstrong line rather than the more permissive Evergreen approach. Its reasoning was later reinforced at the highest level by the Arizona Supreme Court in Kalway v. Calabria Ranch HOA (2022), which held that owners must have notice of the kinds of restrictions that may be added by amendment. Practitioners should read Raimey as a caution to build any expansive assessment or membership authority into the recorded declaration from the outset, and homeowners should read it as support for challenging after-the-fact amendments that create obligations they never bargained for.

← Back to Court of Appeals cases

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

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

The rule in one sentence

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

Case snapshot

Court result

Summary judgment for Bocchino was affirmed.

Fee source

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

Key statute

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

Practical use

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

Case Dossier

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

Case Summary

Case ID / citation1 CA-CV 16-0710
Court / tribunalCourt of Appeals
Decision / key dateApril 3, 2018
Judge / panelJohn C. Gemmill, Michael J. Brown, Maria Elena Cruz
PartiesA former homeowner challenged an HOA account charge for attorney fees the association incurred in a justice-court harassment-injunction proceeding but never obtained as a court award.
Governing law
  • A.R.S. § 12-1810
  • A.R.S. § 12-341.01
  • A.R.S. § 12-120.21
  • A.R.S. § 12-2101
Topics
Attorney FeesAssessmentsCC&RsProcedure
Outcome / holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed judgment for Bocchino and held the HOA improperly assessed attorney fees against her when no court had awarded those fees in the underlying injunction proceeding.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package86 PDFs, 4 other source files
Step-by-step docket roadmap6 roadmap entries
Video overviewPatricia Bocchino v. Fountain Shadows Homeowners Association
Study / briefing material2 sections
FAQ / homeowner questions3 questions
Curated download aliases4 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

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

Key Issues & Findings

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

Why It Matters

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

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Patricia Bocchino (Plaintiff/Appellee)
    Former homeowner who challenged the fee assessment.

Respondent Side

  • Fountain Shadows Homeowners Association (Defendant/Appellant)
    Association party challenging the fee ruling.
  • Chad P. Miesen (Counsel)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
    Counsel for Fountain Shadows Homeowners Association.
  • Charlene Cruz (Counsel)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
    Counsel for Fountain Shadows Homeowners Association.

Neutral Parties

  • Douglas Gerlach (Judge)
    Superior Court judge listed in the appellate opinion.
  • John C. Gemmill (Judge)
    Authored the Court of Appeals opinion.
  • Michael J. Brown (Presiding Judge)
    Joined the Court of Appeals opinion.
  • Maria Elena Cruz (Judge)
    Joined the Court of Appeals opinion.

Why this case matters

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

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

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Patricia Bocchino v. Fountain Shadows Homeowners Association (1 CA-CV 16-0710). The Court of Appeals affirmed judgment for Bocchino and held the HOA improperly assessed attorney fees against her… 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 Patricia Bocchino v. Fountain Shadows Homeowners Association. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

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

Homeowner study guide: escrow charges and fee recovery

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

Briefing notes from the review packet

Escrow pressure point

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

Principal recovery

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

Trial-court fee request

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

Fee-application theory

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

Supersedeas bond

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

Appellate costs

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

Attorney-fee briefing context

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

Litigation roadmap

Step 1 2014-2015

Obtained a workplace-harassment injunction in justice court but did not obtain a fee award there.

Filed by: Association

Creates the unawarded-fee problem.

Download source
Source index
Step 2 October 2015

Filed superior court action challenging the account charge.

Filed by: Bocchino

Moves the dispute from injunction enforcement to account/contract liability.

Download source
Source index
Step 3 July 27, 2016

Granted summary judgment for Bocchino.

Filed by: Superior Court

Trial court held the association could not charge the unawarded fees.

Download source
Trial ruling
Step 4 October 2016

Entered judgment for Bocchino.

Filed by: Superior Court

Creates the appealable judgment.

Download source
Judgment
Step 5 April 3, 2018

Affirmed judgment for Bocchino.

Filed by: Court of Appeals

This is the key appellate rule.

Download source
Opinion
Step 6 May 8, 2018

Issued civil mandate.

Filed by: Court of Appeals

Marks appellate finality.

Download source
Civil mandate

Complete uploaded source-document index

This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/bocchino-v-fountain-shadows-homeowners-association/raw/: 86 PDFs, 4 other source files. Files are ordered by the date/sequence embedded in the normalized filename; AI-generated review materials are labeled separately and should not be treated as court filings.

Source 1 2016-12-02

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
2016-12-02_000_index-of-record.pdf
Source 2 2016-12-02

Complaint

Type: Opening pleading

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

Download source file
2016-12-02_001_complaint.pdf
Source 4 2016-12-02

Civil Cover Sheet

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2016-12-02_003_civil-coversheet.pdf
Source 5 2016-12-02

Demand For Jury Trial

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
2016-12-02_004_demand-for-jury-trial.pdf
Source 6 2016-12-02

Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2016-12-02_005_certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 7 2016-12-02

Summons

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2016-12-02_006_summons.pdf
Source 8 2016-12-02

Answer

Type: Responsive pleading

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

Download source file
2016-12-02_007_answer.pdf
Source 10 2016-12-02

Notice Of Arbitration Hearing

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2016-12-02_009_notice-of-arbitration-hearing.pdf
Source 11 2016-12-02

Motion For Summary Judgment

Type: Decision or judgment

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

Download source file
2016-12-02_010_motion-for-summary-judgment.pdf
Source 21 2016-12-02

Declaration Of Vern Carrillo

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
2016-12-02_020_declaration-of-vern-carrillo.pdf
Source 22 2016-12-02

Minute Entry 150 Day Minute Entry 03262016

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2016-12-02_021_me-150-day-minute-entry-03262016.pdf
Source 26 2016-12-02

Minute Entry Oral Argument Set 06012016

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
2016-12-02_025_me-oral-argument-set-06012016.pdf
Source 27 2016-12-02

Minute Entry Matter Under Advisement 0607201

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
2016-12-02_026_me-matter-under-advisement-0607201.pdf
Source 28 2016-12-02

Minute Entry Ruling 07272016

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2016-12-02_027_me-ruling-07272016.pdf
Source 29 2016-12-02

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
2016-12-02_028_statement-of-costs.pdf
Source 33 2016-12-02

Notice Of Lodging Judgment

Type: Decision or judgment

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

Download source file
2016-12-02_032_notice-of-lodging-judgment.pdf
Source 38 2016-12-02

Minute Entry Judgment Signed 10052016

Type: Decision or judgment

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

Download source file
2016-12-02_037_me-judgment-signed-10052016.pdf
Source 40 2016-12-02

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
2016-12-02_039_notice-of-appeal.pdf
Source 45 2017-01-03

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
2017-01-03_000_case-management-statement.pdf
Source 46 2017-02-10

Appellants Opening Brief

Type: Briefing paper

Opening merits brief; this is where the appellant or moving party frames the legal argument.

Download source file
2017-02-10_000_appellants-opening-brief.pdf
Source 47 2017-02-10

Certificate Of Compliance

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2017-02-10_001_certificate-of-compliance.pdf
Source 48 2017-02-10

Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2017-02-10_002_certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 49 2017-03-21

Appellee Patricia Bocchinos Answe

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
2017-03-21_000_appellee-patricia-bocchinos-answe.pdf
Source 50 2017-03-21

Appendix In Support Of Appellee Pat

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
2017-03-21_000_appendix-in-support-of-appellee-pat.pdf
Source 51 2017-03-21

Certificate Of Compliance

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2017-03-21_001_certificate-of-compliance.pdf
Source 52 2017-03-21

Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2017-03-21_001_certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 53 2017-03-21

Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2017-03-21_002_certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 54 2017-03-21

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
2017-03-21_003_exhibit-1.pdf
Source 55 2017-03-30

Appellee Patricia Bocchinos Reque

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
2017-03-30_000_appellee-patricia-bocchinos-reque.pdf
Source 56 2017-03-30

Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2017-03-30_001_certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 57 2017-04-17

Appellants Reply Brief

Type: Briefing paper

Reply paper; usually the final written response before the court takes the issue under advisement.

Download source file
2017-04-17_000_appellants-reply-brief.pdf
Source 58 2017-04-17

Certificate Of Compliance

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2017-04-17_001_certificate-of-compliance.pdf
Source 59 2017-04-17

Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2017-04-17_002_certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 62 2017-05-18

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
2017-05-18_042_electronic-index-of-record.pdf
Source 63 2017-05-18

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
2017-05-18_043_court-of-appeals-receipt.pdf
Source 64 2017-05-18

Court Of Appeals Letter Dated 12122

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
2017-05-18_044_court-of-appeals-letter-dated-12122.pdf
Source 65 2017-05-18

Minute Entry Status Conference Set 12132016

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
2017-05-18_045_me-status-conference-set-12132016.pdf
Source 66 2017-05-18

Minute Entry Status Conference 12202016

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
2017-05-18_046_me-status-conference-12202016.pdf
Source 73 2017-05-18

Minute Entry Ruling 04052017

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2017-05-18_053_me-ruling-04052017.pdf
Source 74 2017-05-18

Court Of Appeals Memorandum Dated 0

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
2017-05-18_054_court-of-appeals-memorandum-dated-0.pdf
Source 78 2018-01-09

Sign-in Sheetcase Is Under Adviseme

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
2018-01-09_000_signin-sheetcase-is-under-adviseme.pdf
Source 79 2018-04-03

Enotification Of Opinion

Type: Court notice/document

Court notice or document from the appellate upload; read it with the surrounding docket filings.

Download source file
2018-04-03_000_enotification-of-opinion.doc
Source 80 2018-04-03

Enotification Of Opinion

Type: Court notice/document

Court notice or document from the appellate upload; read it with the surrounding docket filings.

Download source file
2018-04-03_000_enotification-of-opinion.docx
Source 81 2018-04-03

Opinion Distribution List

Type: Decision or judgment

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

Download source file
2018-04-03_000_opinion-distribution-list.pdf
Source 82 2018-04-03

Opinion

Type: Decision or judgment

Opinion holding that the Court of Appeals affirmed judgment for Bocchino and held the HOA improperly assessed attorney fees against her when no court had awarded those fees in the underlying injunction proceeding.

Download source file
2018-04-03_000_opinion.pdf
Source 84 2018-04-06

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
2018-04-06_000_statement-of-costs.pdf
Source 85 2018-04-06

Certificate Of Service 2

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2018-04-06_001_certificate-of-service-2.pdf
Source 86 2018-04-06

Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2018-04-06_001_certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 87 2018-04-06

Proposed Form Of Judgment

Type: Court notice/document

Court notice or document from the appellate upload; read it with the surrounding docket filings.

Download source file
2018-04-06_002_proposed-form-of-judgment.docx
Source 88 2018-04-23

Order Re Costs

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_000_order-re-costs.pdf
Source 89 2018-05-08

Civil Mandate

Type: Decision or judgment

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

Download source file
2018-05-08_000_civil-mandate.pdf

For homeowners

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

For boards and managers

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

FAQ

Did the HOA have an injunction against Bocchino?

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

Could the HOA rely on its declaration instead?

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

Does Bocchino ban all HOA fee recovery?

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

← Back to Court of Appeals cases

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

Gross v. The Shores at Rainbow Lake: Kalway, Rentals, and Occupancy Limits

Posted on by

Arizona HOA Rental Amendments | Kalway | 1 CA-CV 23-0394

Gross is the cleanest Arizona published rental-amendment roadmap after Kalway. The short-term lease ban was invalid, but the unrelated-person occupancy limit survived because it refined existing single-family use restrictions.

Last updated June 3, 2026. Case: Gordon Gross, et al. v. The Shores at Rainbow Lake Community Association, Arizona Court of Appeals No. 1 CA-CV 23-0394; Navajo County Superior Court No. S0900CV202200042.

Download appellate opinion Download trial ruling Watch video overview 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 page covers the published appellate opinion, amended opinion order, mandate, and uploaded trial/appellate record. The complete uploaded source-document index below is generated from the local raw source folder, including court PDFs, court DOC/DOCX notices, and AI/source CSVs where present. AI-generated CSV summaries were reviewed only as orientation and are not treated as court authority.

The rule in one sentence

Under Kalway, an HOA rental amendment can be partly invalid and partly valid: a new short-term rental ban may be unforeseeable while an occupancy limit can survive if it refines an existing single-family-use covenant.

Case snapshot

Court result

Judgment was affirmed.

Invalid part

Thirty-day minimum lease term was stricken.

Valid part

Four-unrelated-person occupancy limit survived.

Fee result

Each side bore its own appellate fees and costs.

Case Dossier

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

Case Summary

Case ID / citation1 CA-CV 23-0394
Court / tribunalCourt of Appeals
Decision / key dateOctober 10, 2024
Judge / panelPresiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma, Judge Jennifer B. Campbell, Judge Michael J. Brown
PartiesOwners challenged a 2021 amendment that banned short-term rentals and limited occupancy by unrelated renters in a planned community.
Governing law
Topics
CC&RsProcedureAmendmentsRental RestrictionsAttorney Fees
Outcome / holding

The court held that the new short-term rental ban was invalid under Arizona amendment-notice principles, but the cap on unrelated renters was valid because it was reasonably foreseeable from the existing CC&Rs.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package121 PDFs, 10 other source files
Step-by-step docket roadmap6 roadmap entries
Video overviewGordon Gross, et al. v. The Shores at Rainbow Lake Community Association
Study / briefing material2 sections
FAQ / homeowner questions3 questions
Curated download aliases5 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Gross applied Kalway in a practical, highly relevant HOA setting: rental restrictions. The community amended its CC&Rs to prohibit rentals shorter than 30 days and to bar more than four unrelated individuals from leasing a property. The Court of Appeals split the amendment. It held the short-term rental ban was invalid because it prohibited conduct the earlier CC&Rs had allowed and was not reasonably foreseeable from the original declaration. But it upheld the unrelated-persons occupancy limit because that restriction was viewed as a clarification and refinement of existing use limits rather than a brand-new burden. The opinion is one of the clearest Arizona appellate examples of how courts separate an impermissible new use restriction from a permissible refinement of an existing one.

Key Issues & Findings

The court framed the dispute as one about owner notice and reasonable expectations. A recorded declaration can be amended, but only within the fair scope of what the original declaration put buyers on notice might later be refined. Under that approach, an amendment cannot simply reverse an existing freedom and call the result a refinement.

Applying that rule, the short-term rental ban was too much because the preexisting documents had not warned owners that leasing could later be cut off in that way. The unrelated-occupants limit came out differently because the original scheme already contained structure about occupancy and residential use, making the later cap a closer fit with the bought-for framework.

Why It Matters

Gross is one of the best Arizona Court of Appeals cases for short-term-rental disputes after Kalway. It gives both sides a usable analytic framework for asking whether an amendment is genuinely foreseeable or instead a new restriction in disguise.

Boards considering rental amendments should read it before drafting. Homeowners challenging new lease limits will cite it often.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Gordon Gross (Plaintiff/Appellee)
    Owner plaintiff named in the appellate caption.
  • Liliana Gross (Plaintiff/Appellee)
    Owner plaintiff named in the appellate caption.
  • Steven A. Kernagis (Plaintiff/Appellee)
    Trustee plaintiff named in the appellate caption.
  • Sandra K. Kernagis (Plaintiff/Appellee)
    Trustee plaintiff named in the appellate caption.
  • Thomas P. Zehring (Plaintiff/Appellee)
    Trustee plaintiff named in the complaint and appellate caption.
  • Jeannette Rose Zehring (Plaintiff/Appellee)
    Trustee plaintiff named in the complaint and appellate caption.
  • Ronald D. Kyer Jr. (Plaintiff/Appellee)
    Owner plaintiff named in the appellate caption.
  • Desiree Kyer (Plaintiff/Appellee)
    Owner plaintiff named in the appellate caption.
  • Matthew A. Klopp (Counsel)
    Dyer Bregman Ferris Wong & Carter PLLC
    Counsel for the owner plaintiffs on appeal.
  • Rick K. Carter (Counsel)
    Dyer Bregman Ferris Wong & Carter PLLC
    Counsel for the owner plaintiffs on appeal.
  • Stockton D. Banfield (Counsel)
    Dyer Bregman Ferris Wong & Carter PLLC
    Counsel for the owner plaintiffs on appeal.
  • Joseph R. Rainey (Counsel)
    Dyer Bregman Ferris Wong & Carter PLLC
    Counsel for the owner plaintiffs on appeal.

Respondent Side

  • The Shores at Rainbow Lake Community Association (Defendant/Appellant)
    Association party challenging the judgment over rental and occupancy restrictions.
  • James L. Csontos (Counsel)
    Jennings Haug Keleher McLeod LLP
    Counsel for The Shores at Rainbow Lake Community Association.
  • Jack R. Cunningham (Counsel)
    Jennings Haug Keleher McLeod LLP
    Counsel for The Shores at Rainbow Lake Community Association.
  • Lauren Elliott Stine (Counsel)
    Quarles & Brady LLP
    Later appearance for The Shores at Rainbow Lake Community Association.
  • Kristin N. Leaptrott (Counsel)
    Quarles & Brady LLP
    Later appearance for The Shores at Rainbow Lake Community Association.

Neutral Parties

  • Michala M. Ruechel (Judge)
    Superior Court judge listed in the appellate opinion.
  • Samuel A. Thumma (Presiding Judge)
    Authored the Court of Appeals opinion.
  • Jennifer B. Campbell (Judge)
    Joined the Court of Appeals opinion.
  • Michael J. Brown (Judge)
    Joined the Court of Appeals opinion.

Why this case matters

Gross gives Arizona homeowners and boards a detailed framework for rental amendments after Kalway. The court treated the short-term rental ban as a new burden because the original CC&Rs expressly allowed leasing and did not set a minimum lease duration.

At the same time, Gross rejected the idea that every rental-related amendment fails. The unrelated-person cap was upheld because the original CC&Rs already limited use to single-family residential use and defined Single Family. That made the cap a refinement rather than an entirely new covenant.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Gordon Gross, et al. v. The Shores at Rainbow Lake Community Association (1 CA-CV 23-0394). The new short-term rental ban was invalid under Arizona amendment-notice principles, but the cap on unrelated… 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 Gordon Gross, et al. v. The Shores at Rainbow Lake Community Association. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

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

Homeowner study guide: Kalway, rentals, and occupancy limits

Homeowner questionStudy-guide answerCase lesson
Can The Shores enforce the 2021 minimum 30-day lease requirement?No. The court held the short-term rental ban invalid and unenforceable.A later amendment cannot add an unforeseeable rental-duration restriction where the original CC&Rs allowed leasing without a minimum term.
Why did the 30-day rule fail under Kalway?The original declaration allowed leasing and did not contain a lease-duration limit.The court treated the new 30-day minimum as an entirely new burden rather than a foreseeable refinement.
Did earlier Shores litigation matter?Yes. Horton v. Hartsook had already treated similar community language as permitting short-term rentals.Prior interpretation of the same or similar covenants can shape what later owners reasonably could foresee.
Can the association limit unrelated occupants?Yes. The court upheld the four-unrelated-person limit.That provision refined an existing Single Family residential-use covenant rather than creating a new rental ban.
Does Single Family residential use address only building type?No. Gross treated the covenant as addressing use and occupancy, not just architecture.Owners should read use restrictions as controlling how the property is occupied as well as how it is built.
Is a 67 percent amendment vote enough by itself?No. Procedural approval does not override the common-law reasonable-and-foreseeable requirement.An amendment can receive enough votes and still be unenforceable if it exceeds the original covenant notice.
What happened to voter-irregularity claims?Those alternative claims were dismissed with prejudice after the homeowners chose not to pursue them to expedite final judgment.Gross is mainly useful for the contract-enforceability analysis, not as a voting-process ruling.
Does the Planned Communities Act displace Kalway common law?No. The court followed Kalway and held A.R.S. 33-1817(A) does not eliminate the reasonable-and-foreseeable amendment limit.Arizona associations must satisfy both procedural amendment rules and substantive foreseeability limits.

Litigation roadmap

Step 1 February 2021

Adopted amendment restricting leases shorter than 30 days and limiting unrelated occupants.

Filed by: Association

Creates the CC&R amendment challenged by rental owners.

Download source
Source index
Step 2 February 2022

Filed suit challenging the amendment under Kalway.

Filed by: Homeowners

Frames the case as a property-rights and contract-notice dispute.

Download source
Source index
Step 3 September 2022

Invalidated the short-term lease ban but upheld the remaining challenged provisions.

Filed by: Superior Court

The split trial ruling became the appellate issue.

Download source
Trial ruling
Step 4 May 2023

Entered amended final judgment.

Filed by: Superior Court

Created final appeal/cross-appeal posture.

Download source
Amended final judgment
Step 5 October 10, 2024

Published opinion affirmed the split result.

Filed by: Court of Appeals

This is the key statewide authority.

Download source
Opinion
Step 6 March 26, 2025

Issued civil mandate after later review proceedings concluded.

Filed by: Court of Appeals

Marks appellate finality.

Download source
Civil mandate

Complete uploaded source-document index

This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/gross-v-the-shores-at-rainbow-lake-community-association/raw/: 121 PDFs, 10 other source files. Files are ordered by the date/sequence embedded in the normalized filename; AI-generated review materials are labeled separately and should not be treated as court filings.

Source 1 2023-06-29

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
2023-06-29_000_index-of-record.pdf
Source 2 2023-06-29

Verified Complaint

Type: Opening pleading

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

Download source file
2023-06-29_001_verified-complaint.pdf
Source 3 2023-06-29

Attachment 1 St To Index Number 001

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2023-06-29_002_attachment-1-st-to-index-number-001.pdf
Source 4 2023-06-29

Attachment 2 Nd To Index Number 001

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2023-06-29_003_attachment-2-nd-to-index-number-001.pdf
Source 6 2023-06-29

Attachment To Index Number 004

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2023-06-29_005_attachment-to-index-number-004.pdf
Source 7 2023-06-29

Summon Issuedre The Shores At Rainb

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2023-06-29_006_summon-issuedre-the-shores-at-rainb.pdf
Source 8 2023-06-29

Acceptance Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2023-06-29_007_acceptance-of-service.pdf
Source 9 2023-06-29

Notice Of Appearance

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2023-06-29_008_notice-of-appearance.pdf
Source 10 2023-06-29

Judicial Noticesetting Hearing

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2023-06-29_009_judicial-noticesetting-hearing.pdf
Source 12 2023-06-29

Answer To Complaint

Type: Opening pleading

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

Download source file
2023-06-29_011_answer-to-complaint.pdf
Source 16 2023-06-29

Stipulation For Entry Of Prelimina

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2023-06-29_014_stipulation-for-entry-of-prelimina.pdf
Source 18 2023-06-29

Attachment To Index Number 015

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2023-06-29_016_attachment-to-index-number-015.pdf
Source 20 2023-06-29

Attachment To Index Number 017

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2023-06-29_018_attachment-to-index-number-017.pdf
Source 24 2023-06-29

Judicial Noticesetting Hearing

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2023-06-29_022_judicial-noticesetting-hearing.pdf
Source 26 2023-06-29

Combined Reply And Response

Type: Briefing paper

Reply paper; usually the final written response before the court takes the issue under advisement.

Download source file
2023-06-29_024_combined-reply-and-response.pdf
Source 30 2023-06-29

Attachment To Index Number 027

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2023-06-29_028_attachment-to-index-number-027.pdf
Source 32 2023-06-29

Attachment To Index Number 029

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2023-06-29_030_attachment-to-index-number-029.pdf
Source 37 2023-06-29

Declaration Of Counsel In Support O

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2023-06-29_034_declaration-of-counsel-in-support-o.pdf
Source 38 2023-06-29

Notice Of Lodging

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2023-06-29_035_notice-of-lodging.pdf
Source 39 2023-06-29

Attachment To Index Number 035

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2023-06-29_036_attachment-to-index-number-035.pdf
Source 40 2023-06-29

Objection To Form Of Judgment

Type: Decision or judgment

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

Download source file
2023-06-29_037_objection-to-form-of-judgment.pdf
Source 41 2023-06-29

Attachment To Index Number 037

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2023-06-29_038_attachment-to-index-number-037.pdf
Source 43 2023-06-29

Attachment To Index Number 039

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2023-06-29_040_attachment-to-index-number-039.pdf
Source 47 2023-06-29

Judicial Orderre Attorney Fees

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2023-06-29_044_judicial-orderre-attorney-fees.pdf
Source 49 2023-06-29

Final Judgmentfiled 12062022

Type: Decision or judgment

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

Download source file
2023-06-29_046_final-judgmentfiled-12062022.pdf
Source 50 2023-06-29

Motion For New Trial

Type: Motion/application

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

Download source file
2023-06-29_047_motion-for-new-trial.pdf
Source 51 2023-06-29

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
2023-06-29_048_notice-of-appeal.pdf
Source 52 2023-06-29

Notice To Court Re Appeal

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2023-06-29_049_notice-to-court-re-appeal.pdf
Source 53 2023-06-29

Response To Motion For New Trial

Type: Motion/application

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

Download source file
2023-06-29_050_response-to-motion-for-new-trial.pdf
Source 54 2023-06-29

Notice Of Crossappeal

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2023-06-29_051_notice-of-crossappeal.pdf
Source 57 2023-06-29

Order Denying Motion For New Trial

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2023-06-29_054_order-denying-motion-for-new-trial.pdf
Source 59 2023-06-29

Appellate Clerk Notice

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2023-06-29_056_appellate-clerk-notice.pdf
Source 66 2023-06-29

Attachment To Index Number 63

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2023-06-29_063_attachment-to-index-number-63.pdf
Source 67 2023-06-29

Hearing

Type: Court notice/document

Court notice or document from the appellate upload; read it with the surrounding docket filings.

Download source file
2023-06-29_064_hearing.doc
Source 68 2023-06-29

Hearing

Type: Court notice/document

Court notice or document from the appellate upload; read it with the surrounding docket filings.

Download source file
2023-06-29_064_hearing.docx
Source 69 2023-06-29

Notice Of Lodging

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2023-06-29_065_notice-of-lodging.pdf
Source 70 2023-06-29

Objection To Form Of Judgment

Type: Decision or judgment

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

Download source file
2023-06-29_066_objection-to-form-of-judgment.pdf
Source 71 2023-06-29

Reply Supporting Entry Of Final Jud

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
2023-06-29_067_reply-supporting-entry-of-final-jud.pdf
Source 74 2023-06-29

Amended Final Judgment

Type: Decision or judgment

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

Download source file
2023-06-29_071_amended-final-judgment.pdf
Source 75 2023-06-29

Hearing On Amended Jugment

Type: Court notice/document

Court notice or document from the appellate upload; read it with the surrounding docket filings.

Download source file
2023-06-29_072_hearing-on-amended-jugment.doc
Source 76 2023-06-29

Hearing On Amended Jugment

Type: Court notice/document

Court notice or document from the appellate upload; read it with the surrounding docket filings.

Download source file
2023-06-29_072_hearing-on-amended-jugment.docx
Source 78 2023-06-29

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
2023-06-29_074_notice-of-appeal.pdf
Source 79 2023-06-29

Transcript 17 May 2023

Type: Court/source PDF

Adds hearing transcript material to the record for later review or appeal.

Download source file
2023-06-29_075_transcript-17-may-2023.pdf
Source 82 2023-07-06

Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2023-07-06_001_certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 83 2023-07-13

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
2023-07-13_000_case-management-statement.pdf
Source 84 2023-07-13

Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2023-07-13_000_certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 86 2023-07-28

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
2023-07-28_000_case-management-statement.pdf
Source 88 2023-08-08

Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2023-08-08_001_certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 90 2023-08-10

Order Supplementing Record

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2023-08-10_000_order-supplementing-record.pdf
Source 92 2023-08-10

Appellate Clerk Notice

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2023-08-10_078_appellate-clerk-notice.pdf
Source 93 2023-08-10

Notice Of Crossappeal

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2023-08-10_079_notice-of-crossappeal.pdf
Source 95 2023-08-17

Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2023-08-17_001_certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 98 2023-08-28

Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2023-08-28_001_certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 99 2023-09-18

Opening Brief

Type: Briefing paper

Opening merits brief; this is where the appellant or moving party frames the legal argument.

Download source file
2023-09-18_000_opening-brief.pdf
Source 100 2023-09-18

Certificate Of Compliance

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2023-09-18_001_certificate-of-compliance.pdf
Source 101 2023-09-18

Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2023-09-18_002_certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 103 2023-10-27

Certificate Of Compliance

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2023-10-27_001_certificate-of-compliance.pdf
Source 104 2023-10-27

Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2023-10-27_002_certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 107 2023-12-06

Certificate Of Compliance

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2023-12-06_001_certificate-of-compliance.pdf
Source 108 2023-12-06

Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2023-12-06_002_certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 109 2023-12-21

Reply Brief On Cross Appeal

Type: Briefing paper

Reply paper; usually the final written response before the court takes the issue under advisement.

Download source file
2023-12-21_000_reply-brief-on-cross-appeal.pdf
Source 110 2023-12-21

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
2023-12-21_000_request-for-oral-argument.pdf
Source 111 2023-12-21

Certificate Of Compliance

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2023-12-21_001_certificate-of-compliance.pdf
Source 112 2023-12-21

Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2023-12-21_001_certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 113 2023-12-21

Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2023-12-21_002_certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 115 2024-01-04

Court Of Appeals Memorandum

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2024-01-04_080_court-of-appeals-memorandum.pdf
Source 120 2024-03-06

Sign-in Sheetcase Is Under Adviseme

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2024-03-06_000_signin-sheetcase-is-under-adviseme.pdf
Source 122 2024-10-10

Opinion

Type: Decision or judgment

Opinion holding that the new short-term rental ban was invalid under Arizona amendment-notice principles, but the cap on unrelated renters was valid because it was reasonably foreseeable from the existing CC&Rs.

Download source file
2024-10-10_000_opinion.pdf
Source 123 2024-10-16

Order Amending Opinion Decision Vi

Type: Decision or judgment

Opinion holding that the new short-term rental ban was invalid under Arizona amendment-notice principles, but the cap on unrelated renters was valid because it was reasonably foreseeable from the existing CC&Rs.

Download source file
2024-10-16_000_order-amending-opinion-decision-vi.pdf
Source 124 2024-11-07

Notice Of Appearance

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2024-11-07_000_notice-of-appearance.pdf
Source 128 2024-12-12

Div 1 Transmittal Of Partial 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
2024-12-12_000_div-1-transmittal-of-partial-record.pdf
Source 129 2025-03-05

Letter From Asc 03052025 Re Petitio

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
2025-03-05_000_letter-from-asc-03052025-re-petitio.pdf
Source 130 2025-03-26

Civil Mandate

Type: Decision or judgment

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

Download source file
2025-03-26_000_civil-mandate.pdf

For homeowners

  • Use Gross when a new amendment restricts rental duration after the original CC&Rs allowed leasing.
  • Do not assume every rental-related restriction fails; compare each clause separately.
  • Preserve the original CC&Rs, the amended language, voting materials, and evidence of historical rental use.

For boards and managers

  • Draft rental amendments around the specific original covenants that already exist.
  • Separate lease-duration limits from occupancy limits; Gross analyzes them differently.
  • Expect courts to blue-pencil severable provisions rather than treat a multi-part amendment as all-or-nothing.

FAQ

Did Gross invalidate all rental restrictions?

No. It invalidated the 30-day minimum lease term but upheld the unrelated-person occupancy limit.

Why did the 30-day rental ban fail?

The original CC&Rs allowed leasing and had no minimum lease duration, so owners were not on notice that a majority could later ban shorter rentals.

Why did the occupancy cap survive?

The CC&Rs already contained a single-family residential use covenant and a Single Family definition, so the cap was treated as a permissible refinement.

← Back to Court of Appeals cases

Gallery Community Association v. K. Hovnanian at Gallery: Planned Community HOA Standing for Construction Defects

Posted on by

Construction Defects | A.R.S. §§ 33-2001, 33-2002 | 1 CA-CV 23-0375

This landmark Arizona appellate case establishes that planned community homeowners’ associations can sue developers for construction defects affecting common areas and individually owned exteriors. It clarifies a long-standing standing dispute and prevents developers from avoiding warranty liability simply based on an HOA’s corporate structure.

Last updated June 30, 2026. Case: Gallery, Court of Appeals No. 1 CA-CV 23-0375; judgment vacated and remanded — under review by the Arizona Supreme Court (No. CV-24-0252-PR).

Download the appellate opinion 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 2025-03-06. 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.

Scope note: This page reviews the Arizona Court of Appeals decision confirming that planned community homeowners’ associations have standing to bring representative construction-defect claims for common areas and properties they are obligated to maintain. The Arizona Supreme Court granted review (No. CV-24-0252-PR), heard oral argument en banc on April 22, 2025, and has the case under advisement; no opinion has issued as of mid-2026, so the Court of Appeals decision is not yet final. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The Arizona Court of Appeals held that under both Arizona common law and A.R.S. §§ 33-2001 and 33-2002, a planned community homeowners’ association has representative standing to bring construction defect actions for breach of the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability regarding common areas and property it does not own but is contractually obligated to maintain.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Gallery Community Association (Plaintiff)
    The homeowners' association representing the townhome community in Scottsdale, Arizona.
  • Bob Vander Waal (Association President)
    Gallery Community Association
    President of the GCA Board of Directors who provided the statutory pre-litigation notice affidavit.
  • Craig S. Nuss (Counsel)
    Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh & Jardine, P.C.
    Represented Plaintiff/Appellant Gallery Community Association.
  • Penny J. Manship (Counsel)
    Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh & Jardine, P.C.
    Represented Plaintiff/Appellant Gallery Community Association.
  • Grace M. Osberg (Counsel)
    Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh & Jardine, P.C.
    Represented Plaintiff/Appellant Gallery Community Association.
  • Robert G. Schaffer (Counsel)
    Holden Willits PLC
    Represented Plaintiff/Appellant Gallery Community Association.
  • Roger E. Brodman (Counsel)
    Holden Willits PLC
    Represented Plaintiff/Appellant Gallery Community Association.
  • Thomas L. Hudson (Counsel)
    Osborn Maledon, P.A.
    Represented Amici Curiae Aire on McDowell Community Association.
  • John S. Bullock (Counsel)
    Osborn Maledon, P.A.
    Represented Amici Curiae Aire on McDowell Community Association.

Respondent Side

  • K. Hovnanian at Gallery, LLC (Defendant)
    The declarant, developer, and vendor of the townhomes.
  • K. Hovnanian Arizona Operations, LLC (Defendant)
    The general contractor responsible for the construction of the project.
  • K. Hovnanian Developments of Arizona, Inc. (Defendant)
    Member of K. Hovnanian at Gallery, LLC; subsequently dismissed without prejudice.
  • K. Hovnanian Companies of Arizona, LLC (Defendant)
    Entity allegedly involved in design/construction; dismissed with prejudice.
  • Desert Vista, Inc. (Defendant)
    Third-party defendant and subcontractor.
  • Renco, LLC dba Renco Roofing (Defendant)
    Third-party defendant and roofing subcontractor.
  • LeBlanc Building Co., Inc. (Defendant)
    Third-party defendant and subcontractor; dismissed following settlement.
  • Liberty Constructors, LLC (Defendant)
    Third-party defendant and concrete subcontractor.
  • Sargon Masonry Construction, LLC (Defendant)
    Third-party defendant and masonry subcontractor; dismissed with prejudice.
  • Gothic Landscaping, Inc. (Defendant)
    Third-party defendant and landscaping subcontractor; dismissed with prejudice.
  • Chas Roberts Air Conditioning, Inc. (Defendant)
    Third-party defendant and HVAC subcontractor; dismissed with prejudice following settlement.
  • Custom Leasing, Inc. dba Home Builders Site Services of Arizona, LLC (Defendant)
    Third-party defendant and subcontractor; dismissed with prejudice.
  • Dennis I. Wilenchik (Counsel)
    Wilenchik & Bartness, P.C.
    Represented Defendants/Appellees K. Hovnanian.
  • Barbara J. Stansil (Counsel)
    Wilenchik & Bartness, P.C.
    Represented Defendants/Appellees K. Hovnanian.
  • Louis W. Horowitz (Counsel)
    Lorber, Greenfield & Polito, LLP
    Represented Defendants/Appellees K. Hovnanian.
  • Amy Wilkens (Counsel)
    Lorber, Greenfield & Polito, LLP
    Represented Defendants/Appellees K. Hovnanian.
  • Holly P. Davies (Counsel)
    Lorber, Greenfield & Polito, LLP
    Represented Defendants/Appellees K. Hovnanian.
  • Leslie K. Harrach (Counsel)
    Lorber, Greenfield & Polito, LLP
    Represented Defendants/Appellees K. Hovnanian.
  • Matthew V. Moosbrugger (Counsel)
    Wilenchik & Bartness, P.C.
    Represented Defendants/Appellees K. Hovnanian.
  • Michael A. Ludwig (Counsel)
    Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C.
    Represented Third-Party Defendant LeBlanc Building Co., Inc.
  • Stephen F. Best (Counsel)
    Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C.
    Represented Third-Party Defendant LeBlanc Building Co., Inc.
  • Thomas J. Shorall Jr. (Counsel)
    Shorall McGoldrick Brinkmann
    Represented Third-Party Defendant Liberty Constructors.
  • Jason J. Boblick (Counsel)
    Shorall McGoldrick Brinkmann
    Represented Third-Party Defendant Liberty Constructors.
  • Rina K. Rai (Counsel)
    Rai Duer, P.C.
    Represented Third-Party Defendants Renco Roofing and Desert Vista, Inc.
  • Mohamad H. Tokko (Counsel)
    Rai Duer, P.C.
    Represented Third-Party Defendants Renco Roofing and Desert Vista, Inc.
  • Shannon Guerrero Huff (Counsel)
    Rai & Barone, P.C.
    Represented Third-Party Defendant Renco Roofing.
  • Leonard T. Fink (Counsel)
    Springel & Fink LLP
    Represented Third-Party Defendant Sargon Masonry Construction, LLC.
  • David S. Schopick (Counsel)
    Springel & Fink LLP
    Represented Third-Party Defendant Sargon Masonry Construction, LLC.
  • C. Cole Crabtree (Counsel)
    Jaburg & Wilk, P.C.
    Represented Third-Party Defendant Gothic Landscaping, Inc.
  • Amanda R. Hough (Counsel)
    Jaburg & Wilk, P.C.
    Represented Third-Party Defendant Gothic Landscaping, Inc.
  • Teresa Hayashi Wales (Counsel)
    Welsh Law Group, PLC
    Represented Third-Party Defendant Chas Roberts Air Conditioning, Inc.
  • James Harvey (Witness)
    K. Hovnanian at Gallery, LLC
    30(b)(6) corporate representative deposed regarding the common areas and construction punch lists.

Neutral Parties

  • Aire on McDowell Community Association (Other)
    Amicus Curiae association in the appellate court proceeding.
  • Hon. Katherine Cooper (Judge)
    Maricopa County Superior Court
    Presiding trial court judge who granted summary judgment and awarded attorneys' fees.
  • Hon. Michael Kemp (Judge)
    Maricopa County Superior Court
    Initial trial court judge assigned to the case.
  • Hon. Andrew M. Jacobs (Judge)
    Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
    Presiding Judge of Department B; authored the appellate opinion.
  • Hon. Jennifer M. Perkins (Judge)
    Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
    Appellate judge on the panel that vacated the trial court's judgment.
  • Hon. David D. Weinzweig (Judge)
    Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
    Appellate judge on the panel that vacated the trial court's judgment.
  • Hon. Melina Brill (Judge)
    Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
    Judge Pro Tempore who issued procedural order dismissing the premature appeal and granting extensions.
  • Hon. David B. Gass (Judge)
    Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
    Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals who issued procedural orders.
  • Hon. Jeff Fine (Other)
    Maricopa County Superior Court
    Clerk of the Maricopa County Superior Court.
  • Amy M. Wood (Other)
    Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
    Clerk of the Court of Appeals.
  • Tracie K. Lindeman (Other)
    Arizona Supreme Court
    Clerk of the Arizona Supreme Court.

What happened

The dispute arose from extensive construction defects at The Gallery, a townhome development built by K. Hovnanian. The community is organized as a planned community rather than a condominium, with the individual lot owners holding title to their townhome units, roofs, and exterior stucco walls, while the Gallery Community Association (the HOA) maintains title to the common areas. Under Section 8 of the community’s CC&Rs, the HOA is contractually obligated to repair and maintain both the common areas and the exteriors of individual residences, funded by equal pro-rata assessments levied upon all member homeowners.

In July 2020, the HOA filed a construction defect lawsuit in Maricopa County Superior Court against K. Hovnanian, alleging negligent construction and breach of the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability regarding defective roofs, stucco exterior walls, and common area elements. K. Hovnanian filed third-party complaints against its subcontractors and moved for summary judgment, asserting that the planned community HOA lacked standing to bring implied warranty claims because it did not own the residential units. The trial court granted summary judgment for K. Hovnanian and awarded over $358,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs against the HOA, which GCA appealed.

Video overview of the case record

An AI-generated video overview of Gallery Community Association v. K. Hovnanian at Gallery (1 CA-CV 23-0375). Planned-community HOA had standing to pursue construction-defect claims for maintained lot components. 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 Gallery Community Association v. K. Hovnanian at Gallery. 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 2020-07-27 Gallery Community Association files its initial Complaint and Jury Demand against K. Hovnanian in Maricopa County Superior Court.
Step 2020-08-20 K. Hovnanian files its initial Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss, raising the economic loss rule and standing issues.
Step 2020-09-22 K. Hovnanian files its Answer to the Complaint.
Step 2020-10-06 K. Hovnanian files a Third-Party Complaint impleading various subcontractors, including Desert Vista, Renco Roofing, Sargon Masonry, and Liberty Constructors.
Step 2021-02-19 K. Hovnanian files its first Motion for Summary Judgment, asserting the HOA lacks contract or warranty privity.
Step 2021-04-27 Superior Court Judge Michael Kemp holds a status conference and defers ruling on K. Hovnanian's summary judgment motion to allow for discovery.
Step 2022-09-20 The trial court enters an order dismissing Third-Party Defendant Home Builders Site Services of Arizona with prejudice following a settlement.
Step 2022-09-30 K. Hovnanian files its second Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Each of Plaintiff's Causes of Action, arguing GCA lacks standing to assert implied warranty claims.
Step 2023-01-13 The trial court (Hon. Katherine Cooper) hears oral argument on all pending summary judgment motions.
Step 2023-02-08 Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Katherine Cooper enters a ruling granting summary judgment in favor of K. Hovnanian, finding the planned community HOA lacks standing.
Step 2023-04-25 The trial court enters a ruling granting K. Hovnanian and third-party defendants' applications for substantial attorneys' fees and costs under A.R.S. § 12-341.01.
Step 2023-04-26 Judge Cooper signs the Final Judgment in favor of K. Hovnanian and against GCA, certified under Rule 54(c).
Step 2023-05-18 GCA files its Notice of Appeal to the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One.
Step 2023-09-26 GCA files its Amended Opening Brief with the Court of Appeals.
Step 2023-12-01 K. Hovnanian files its Answering Brief and accompanying appendix.
Step 2024-01-04 GCA files its Appellate Reply Brief.
Step 2024-02-16 The Court of Appeals grants leave and accepts the Amicus Curiae brief filed by Aire on McDowell Community Association.
Step 2024-04-23 Oral argument is heard before Court of Appeals Department B (Judges Jacobs, Perkins, and Weinzweig).
Step 2024-08-06 The Court of Appeals issues its published opinion vacating the superior court's summary judgment and attorneys' fees awards, and remands the case.
Step 2024-08-21 K. Hovnanian files a Motion for Reconsideration with the Court of Appeals Department B.
Step 2024-10-08 The Court of Appeals enters an order denying K. Hovnanian's Motion for Reconsideration.
Step 2024-10-23 K. Hovnanian files a Petition for Review with the Arizona Supreme Court.
Step 2025-01-31 The Arizona Supreme Court enters an order continuing the Petition for Review.
Step 2025-03-04 The Arizona Supreme Court enters an order granting K. Hovnanian's Petition for Review and sets the case for oral argument.
Step 2025-04-22 The Arizona Supreme Court hears oral argument en banc (No. CV-24-0252-PR) and takes the matter under advisement; Justice Maria Elena Cruz is recused and retired Justice John Pelander sits by designation. As of mid-2026, no opinion has issued.

Complete source-document index

This index contains 426 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 2023-06-23

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
2023-06-23_002_0000-index-of-record.pdf
Source 5 2023-06-23

0003 Civil Cover Sheet

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2023-06-23_005_0003-civil-coversheet.pdf
Source 11 2023-06-23

0009 Summons

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2023-06-23_011_0009-summons.pdf
Source 12 2023-06-23

0010 Summons

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2023-06-23_012_0010-summons.pdf
Source 13 2023-06-23

0011 Summons

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2023-06-23_013_0011-summons.pdf
Source 14 2023-06-23

0012 Summons

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2023-06-23_014_0012-summons.pdf
Source 15 2023-06-23

0013 Motion To Dismiss

Type: Motion/application

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

Download source file
2023-06-23_015_0013-motion-to-dismiss.pdf
Source 16 2023-06-23

0014 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
2023-06-23_016_0014-credit-memo.pdf
Source 17 2023-06-23

0015 Minute Entry Disqualification 08212020

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2023-06-23_017_0015-me-disqualification-08212020.pdf
Source 19 2023-06-23

0017 Minute Entry Case Reassigned 09012020

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2023-06-23_019_0017-me-case-reassigned-09012020.pdf
Source 24 2023-06-23

0022 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
2023-06-23_024_0022-affidavit-of-service.pdf
Source 25 2023-06-23

0023 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
2023-06-23_025_0023-affidavit-of-service.pdf
Source 26 2023-06-23

0024 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
2023-06-23_026_0024-affidavit-of-service.pdf
Source 27 2023-06-23

0025 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
2023-06-23_027_0025-affidavit-of-service.pdf
Source 28 2023-06-23

0026 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
2023-06-23_028_0026-affidavit-of-service.pdf
Source 29 2023-06-23

0027 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
2023-06-23_029_0027-affidavit-of-service.pdf
Source 30 2023-06-23

0028 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
2023-06-23_030_0028-affidavit-of-service.pdf
Source 31 2023-06-23

0029 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
2023-06-23_031_0029-affidavit-of-service.pdf
Source 32 2023-06-23

0030 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
2023-06-23_032_0030-affidavit-of-service.pdf
Source 33 2023-06-23

0031 Summons

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2023-06-23_033_0031-summons.pdf
Source 34 2023-06-23

0032 Summons

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2023-06-23_034_0032-summons.pdf
Source 35 2023-06-23

0033 Summons

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2023-06-23_035_0033-summons.pdf
Source 36 2023-06-23

0034 Summons

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2023-06-23_036_0034-summons.pdf
Source 37 2023-06-23

0035 Summons

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2023-06-23_037_0035-summons.pdf
Source 38 2023-06-23

0036 Summons

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2023-06-23_038_0036-summons.pdf
Source 39 2023-06-23

0037 Summons

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2023-06-23_039_0037-summons.pdf
Source 40 2023-06-23

0038 Summons

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2023-06-23_040_0038-summons.pdf
Source 41 2023-06-23

0039 Summons

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2023-06-23_041_0039-summons.pdf
Source 57 2023-06-23

0055 Defendantsthirdparty Plaintiff

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2023-06-23_057_0055-defendantsthirdparty-plaintiff.pdf
Source 58 2023-06-23

0056 Defendantsthirdparty Plaintiff

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2023-06-23_058_0056-defendantsthirdparty-plaintiff.pdf
Source 80 2023-06-23

0078 Defendantsthirdparty Plaintiff

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2023-06-23_080_0078-defendantsthirdparty-plaintiff.pdf
Source 82 2023-06-23

0080 Minute Entry Status Conference Set 04222021

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2023-06-23_082_0080-me-status-conference-set-04222021.pdf
Source 83 2023-06-23

0081 Minute Entry Status Conference 04272021

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2023-06-23_083_0081-me-status-conference-04272021.pdf
Source 84 2023-06-23

0082 Joint Report

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2023-06-23_084_0082-joint-report.pdf
Source 85 2023-06-23

0083 Scheduling Order

Type: Court order/minute entry

Sets or changes case deadlines, hearing dates, disclosure dates, or other procedural milestones.

Download source file
2023-06-23_085_0083-scheduling-order.pdf
Source 105 2023-06-23

0103 Minute Entry Conference Resetcontinued 1123

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2023-06-23_105_0103-me-conference-resetcontinued-1123.pdf
Source 114 2023-06-23

0112 Minute Entry Case On Dismissal Calendarparti

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2023-06-23_114_0112-me-case-on-dismissal-calendarparti.pdf
Source 122 2023-06-23

0120 Minute Entry Conference Resetcontinued 0314

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2023-06-23_122_0120-me-conference-resetcontinued-0314.pdf
Source 123 2023-06-23

0121 Minute Entry Case On Dismissal Calendarparti

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2023-06-23_123_0121-me-case-on-dismissal-calendarparti.pdf
Source 125 2023-06-23

0123 Notice Of Firm Name Change

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2023-06-23_125_0123-notice-of-firm-name-change.pdf
Source 142 2023-06-23

0140 Notice Of Firm Name Change

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2023-06-23_142_0140-notice-of-firm-name-change.pdf
Source 153 2023-06-23

0151 Minute Entry Oral Argument Set 05162022

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2023-06-23_153_0151-me-oral-argument-set-05162022.pdf
Source 154 2023-06-23

0152 Minute Entry Matter Under Advisement 0610202

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2023-06-23_154_0152-me-matter-under-advisement-0610202.pdf
Source 157 2023-06-23

0155 Notice Of Appearance

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2023-06-23_157_0155-notice-of-appearance.pdf
Source 175 2023-06-23

0173 Minute Entry Conference Resetcontinued 0701

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2023-06-23_175_0173-me-conference-resetcontinued-0701.pdf
Source 179 2023-06-23

0177 Notice Of Firm Name Change

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2023-06-23_179_0177-notice-of-firm-name-change.pdf
Source 232 2023-06-23

0230 Joint Status Report

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2023-06-23_232_0230-joint-status-report.pdf
Source 233 2023-06-23

0231 Minute Entry Trial Setting 10112022

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2023-06-23_233_0231-me-trial-setting-10112022.pdf
Source 234 2023-06-23

0232 Defendantsthirdparty Plaintiff

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2023-06-23_234_0232-defendantsthirdparty-plaintiff.pdf
Source 250 2023-06-23

0248 Defendantsthirdparty Plaintiffs

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2023-06-23_250_0248-defendantsthirdparty-plaintiffs.pdf
Source 265 2023-06-23

0263 Minute Entry Oral Argument Set 12132022

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2023-06-23_265_0263-me-oral-argument-set-12132022.pdf
Source 270 2023-06-23

0268 Minute Entry Matter Under Advisement 0113202

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2023-06-23_270_0268-me-matter-under-advisement-0113202.pdf
Source 291 2023-06-23

0289 Minute Entry Conference Resetcontinued 0202

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2023-06-23_291_0289-me-conference-resetcontinued-0202.pdf
Source 317 2023-06-23

0317 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
2023-06-23_319_0317-notice-of-appeal.pdf
Source 323 2023-06-23

0323 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
2023-06-23_325_0323-court-of-appeals-receipt.pdf
Source 324 2023-06-23

0324 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
2023-06-23_326_0324-electronic-index-of-record.pdf
Source 326 2023-06-23

0326 Minute Entry Judgmentdecree 04262023

Type: Decision or judgment

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

Download source file
2023-06-23_328_0326-me-judgmentdecree-04262023.pdf
Source 328 2023-06-23

0328 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
2023-06-23_330_0328-notice-of-appeal.pdf
Source 340 2023-07-13

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
2023-07-13_342_0000-case-management-statement.pdf
Source 342 2023-07-20

0001 Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2023-07-20_344_0001-certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 350 2023-09-22

0001 Certificate Of Compliance

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2023-09-22_352_0001-certificate-of-compliance.pdf
Source 351 2023-09-22

0002 Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2023-09-22_353_0002-certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 354 2023-09-26

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
2023-09-26_356_0000-request-for-oral-argument.pdf
Source 355 2023-09-26

0001 Certificate Of Compliance

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2023-09-26_357_0001-certificate-of-compliance.pdf
Source 358 2023-09-26

0002 Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2023-09-26_360_0002-certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 359 2023-10-02

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
2023-10-02_361_0000-request-for-oral-argument.pdf
Source 361 2023-10-12

0000 Order Substituting Brief

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2023-10-12_363_0000-order-substituting-brief.pdf
Source 363 2023-10-25

0001 Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2023-10-25_365_0001-certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 373 2024-01-04

0000 Appellants Reply Brief

Type: Briefing paper

Reply paper; usually the final written response before the court takes the issue under advisement.

Download source file
2024-01-04_375_0000-appellants-reply-brief.pdf
Source 374 2024-01-04

0001 Certificate Of Compliance

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2024-01-04_376_0001-certificate-of-compliance.pdf
Source 375 2024-01-04

0002 Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2024-01-04_377_0002-certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 376 2024-01-19

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
2024-01-19_378_0000-request-for-oral-argument.pdf
Source 380 2024-01-24

0001 Certificate Of Compliance

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2024-01-24_382_0001-certificate-of-compliance.pdf
Source 381 2024-01-24

0001 Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2024-01-24_383_0001-certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 384 2024-02-07

0001 Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2024-02-07_387_0001-certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 389 2024-02-09

0337 Returned Mail

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2024-02-09_392_0337-returned-mail.pdf
Source 390 2024-02-09

0338 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
2024-02-09_393_0338-court-of-appeals-receipt.pdf
Source 391 2024-02-09

0339 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
2024-02-09_394_0339-electronic-index-of-record.pdf
Source 392 2024-02-09

0340 Returned Mail

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2024-02-09_395_0340-returned-mail.pdf
Source 410 2024-04-01

0001 Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2024-04-01_413_0001-certificate-of-service.pdf
Source 415 2024-08-06

0000 Opinion

Type: Decision or judgment

Opinion holding that under both Arizona common law and A.R.S. §§ 33-2001 and 33-2002, a planned community homeowners' association has representative standing to bring construction defect actions for breach of the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability regarding common areas and property it does not own but is contractually obligated to maintain.

Download source file
2024-08-06_418_0000-opinion.pdf
Source 417 2024-08-21

0000 Notice Of Firm Name Change

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2024-08-21_420_0000-notice-of-firm-name-change.pdf
Source 419 2024-08-21

0001 Certificate Of Service

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2024-08-21_422_0001-certificate-of-service.pdf

FAQ

Does a planned community HOA in Arizona have the right to sue a builder for construction defects?

Yes. Under A.R.S. §§ 33-2001 and 33-2002, and the precedent established in this case, planned community HOAs have standing to bring representative lawsuits for construction defects in common areas and individually owned properties (like roofs or exterior walls) they are obligated to maintain under their CC&Rs.

What did the court decide about defect claims on property the HOA doesn't own?

The Arizona Court of Appeals held that an HOA has representative standing to sue for defects on properties it does not own, provided the community’s CC&Rs contractually obligate the association to maintain and repair those areas, such as townhome roofs and exterior stucco walls.

Is the ruling in Gallery Community Association v. K. Hovnanian precedential?

Yes, this is a published opinion of the Arizona Court of Appeals, meaning it is a binding legal precedent across Arizona. However, because the Arizona Supreme Court granted K. Hovnanian’s petition for review in March 2025, boards and counsel must monitor the case for any subsequent modifications by the high court.

What steps must an HOA take before filing a construction defect lawsuit?

An HOA must satisfy the pre-litigation requirements under A.R.S. § 33-2002, which include providing material disclosure to members, holding a properly noticed meeting, obtaining board authorization, and giving the seller notice of the alleged defects with an opportunity to cure.

Can a developer escape warranty liability because an HOA is not a condominium association?

No. The court rejected the developer’s argument that representative defect standing is limited strictly to condominium associations under A.R.S. § 33-1242. Both planned community and condominium HOAs possess the statutory and common-law right to bring dwelling actions on commonly managed property.

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 23-0375
Court / tribunalCourt of Appeals
Decision / key dateAugust 6, 2024
Judge / panelHon. Andrew M. Jacobs, Hon. Jennifer M. Perkins, Hon. David D. Weinzweig
PartiesGallery Community Association (Plaintiff/Appellant) v. K. Hovnanian at Gallery, LLC, et al. (Defendants/Appellees)
Governing law
Topics
CC&RsProcedureAttorney FeesBoard Governance
Outcome / holding

The Arizona Court of Appeals held that under both Arizona common law and A.R.S. §§ 33-2001 and 33-2002, a planned community homeowners' association has representative standing to bring construction defect actions for breach of the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability regarding common areas and property it does not own but is contractually obligated to maintain.

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package426 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap25 roadmap entries
Video overviewGallery Community Association v. K. Hovnanian at Gallery
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links2 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

This case involves a construction defect dispute at a townhome community in Phoenix, Arizona, developed and constructed by K. Hovnanian. The Gallery Community Association (the HOA), a planned community association, filed a lawsuit in Maricopa County Superior Court alleging systemic construction defects in both the common areas and the individual townhome exteriors (roofs and exterior walls) which the HOA is contractually obligated to maintain under the community's CC&Rs. The developer moved for summary judgment, arguing that as a planned community rather than a condominium association, the HOA lacked statutory and common-law standing to assert implied warranty claims for property it did not own. The trial court agreed, granting summary judgment and awarding substantial attorneys' fees against the HOA. On appeal, the Arizona Court of Appeals vacated the judgment, holding that A.R.S. §§ 33-2001 and 33-2002 authorize planned community HOAs to bring representative construction defect actions for breach of the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability.

Key Issues & Findings

The court focused on the plain text of A.R.S. §§ 33-2001 and 33-2002, which govern 'Homeowners' Association Dwelling Actions'. The statutes define 'dwelling' to include residential units, common areas, or jointly owned properties, and define 'association' to include both planned communities and condominium associations. Because the legislature established rigorous procedural prerequisites under § 33-2002(A) (such as member notice, meetings, and board votes) before filing an action, it necessarily recognized and authorized planned community HOAs to possess the underlying power to bring these construction defect lawsuits.

The court rejected Hovnanian's argument that these statutes are purely procedural, explaining that unlike the Purchaser Dwelling Act (enacted after common law recognized implied warranties for buyers), no Arizona court had recognized an implied warranty right for HOAs when §§ 33-2001 and 33-2002 were enacted. Treating the planned community statutes as purely procedural would render them superfluous 'surplusage' by establishing rules for a non-existent cause of action. The court also held that because the CC&Rs contractually obligate the HOA to repair and maintain roofs and exterior walls of individual lots, the HOA has a direct personal stake in the outcome, establishing representative standing under common law.

Finally, the court concluded that representative standing for planned communities serves principles of judicial economy and convenience. Requiring individual homeowners to coordinate class actions or assign claims individually for systemic roofing or structural defects would create massive procedural hurdles, making the HOA the most logical and equitable party to maintain the action.

Why It Matters

This landmark ruling resolves a long-debated 'legal Gordian knot' regarding whether Arizona planned community HOAs have standing to bring representative implied warranty claims for defects on individually owned lots. Prior to this decision, developers frequently used standing defenses to stall or defeat defect claims. By establishing that planned community HOAs have statutory and common-law standing to sue for defects on properties they are contractually obligated to maintain, the decision provides a unified path for communities to enforce quality standards and protect homeowner investments.

For developers, general contractors, and subcontractors, the decision significantly expands liability exposure for systemic defects across planned communities. It underscores the critical importance of workmanship quality, as associations can now seamlessly litigate structural and exterior defects on behalf of all members. Furthermore, the court's vacatur of the trial court's fee award serves as a cautionary note, showing that courts should not penalize HOAs with punitive fees for bringing legitimate issues of first impression to court.

← Back to Court of Appeals cases