Tag Archives: condominiums

Enclave Villas Condominium Council Of Co-owners INC v. Thomas C Tracy: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on by

HOA Judgment | CV2017-002958

The court approved the formal written judgment against Thomas C. Tracy.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Enclave Villas Condominium Council Of Co-owners INC v. Thomas C Tracy, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2017-002958.

Download ruling

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

Scope note: This page covers Enclave Villas Condominium Council Of Co-owners INC v. Thomas C Tracy (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2017-002958) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s collected minute entries through 2018-05-02; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: later filings, satisfaction history, appeals, and the formal written orders referenced by the minutes may not be included in these records. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The court approved the formal written judgment against Thomas C. Tracy.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Enclave Villas Condominium Council Of Co-owners INC (Plaintiff)
    Association party in the HOA-related dispute. Court party records list counsel as Christina Morgan.

Respondent Side

  • Thomas C Tracy (Defendant)
    Opposing homeowner or property-side party identified in the case caption.

Neutral Parties

  • Hon. Karen (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.
  • Hon. Hugh Hegyi (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.
  • Hon. James (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.

What happened

The court approved and settled a formal written judgment against Thomas C. Tracy for Enclave Villas after earlier default-related proceedings and motion practice.

The minute entries identify the association and opposing property-side parties, then record the court’s disposition.

The collected record does not state a detailed legal analysis or full judgment terms, so this guide does not infer them.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Enclave Villas Condominium Council Of Co-owners INC v. Thomas C Tracy (CV2017-002958 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). Enclave Villas obtained a formal judgment against the owner after default-related proceedings. 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 Enclave Villas Condominium Council Of Co-owners INC v. Thomas C Tracy. 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

2017-03-15

IT IS ORDERED that no action will be taken by this division on the above-referenced document(s).

Download source
Default Judgment
2017-05-16

IT IS ORDERED the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is denied.

Download source
Default Judgment
2017-08-03

IT IS ORDERED setting Oral Argument on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Lien Foreclosure for August 22, 2017 at 9:00 a.

Download source
Oral Argument Set
2017-08-22

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Lien Foreclosure.

Download source
Oral Argument
2017-08-25

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant shall, by August 31, 2017, communicate with Plaintiff’s counsel as to the proposed dates in the report.

Download source
Minute Entry
2017-10-03

IT IS ORDERED placing this matter on the dismissal calendar for dismissal on October 31, 2017, unless an amended joint report and scheduling order is filed by that date.

Download source
Minute Entry
2017-11-09

Minute entry filed.

Download source
Minute Entry
2018-01-05

IT IS ORDERED extending the deadline to complete a settlement conference to April 15, 2018.

Download source
Minute Entry
2018-01-19

IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss in its present form.

Download 2 sources
RulingMinute Entry
2018-01-19

IT IS ORDERED correcting the January 5, 2018 minute entry to reflect the correct judicial officer as Honorable Karen A.

Download 2 sources
RulingMinute Entry
2018-03-12

IT IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: TRIAL This matter is set for a Bench Trial on May 2, 2018 at 9:30 a.

Download source
Status Conference
2018-04-13

IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Deadline to File Trial Exhibits on April 12, 2018.

Download source
Minute Entry

View all 14 source documents for this case ↓

Complete source-document index

This index contains 14 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 2017-03-15

Default Judgment

Type: Decision or judgment

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

Download source file
2017-03-15_001_default-judgment.pdf
Source 2 2017-05-16

Default Judgment

Type: Decision or judgment

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

Download source file
2017-05-16_002_default-judgment.pdf
Source 3 2017-08-03

Oral Argument Set

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2017-08-03_003_oral-argument-set.pdf
Source 4 2017-08-22

Oral Argument

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2017-08-22_004_oral-argument.pdf
Source 5 2017-08-25

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2017-08-25_005_minute-entry.pdf
Source 6 2017-10-03

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
2017-10-03_006_minute-entry.pdf
Source 7 2017-11-09

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2017-11-09_007_minute-entry.pdf
Source 8 2018-01-05

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2018-01-05_008_minute-entry.pdf
Source 9 2018-01-19

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2018-01-19_009_ruling.pdf
Source 10 2018-01-19

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2018-01-19_010_minute-entry.pdf
Source 11 2018-03-12

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
2018-03-12_011_status-conference.pdf
Source 12 2018-04-13

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2018-04-13_012_minute-entry.pdf
Source 13 2018-05-02

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2018-05-02_013_minute-entry.pdf
Source 14 2018-05-02

Judgment Entered

Type: Decision or judgment

Judgment-entry minute entering or approving judgment for the association.

Download source file
2018-05-02_014_judgment-entered.pdf

FAQ

What did the superior court decide?

The court approved the formal written judgment against Thomas C. Tracy.

Is this superior-court ruling precedent?

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

Does the page summarize addresses or unit numbers?

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

Who was the association party?

The association party identified in the collected court records was Enclave Villas Condominium Council Of Co-owners INC.

Does this replace legal advice?

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

Case Dossier

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

Case Summary

Case ID / citationCV2017-002958 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateMay 2, 2018
Judge / panelHon. Karen, Hon. Hugh Hegyi, Hon. James
PartiesEnclave Villas Condominium Council Of Co-owners INC (Plaintiff) v. Thomas C Tracy (Defendant)
Topics
AssessmentsLiensProcedureCondominiums
Outcome / holding

The superior court approved the parties' stipulation to entry of judgment and covenant not to execute, then approved and settled the formal written judgment against Thomas C. Tracy signed May 1, 2018 and entered May 2, 2018.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package14 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap12 roadmap entries
Video overviewEnclave Villas Condominium Council Of Co-owners INC v. Thomas C Tracy
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

The court approved and settled a formal written judgment against Thomas C. Tracy for Enclave Villas after earlier default-related proceedings and motion practice.

Key Issues & Findings

The court approved and settled a formal written judgment against Thomas C. Tracy for Enclave Villas after earlier default-related proceedings and motion practice.

The collected entries do not include substantive analysis of assessment calculations, lien priority, or CC&R interpretation. The page therefore treats the ruling as a procedural judgment record only.

Why It Matters

This case is useful as a public record of an HOA judgment or foreclosure disposition, but the collected minute entries are too thin to serve as guidance on contested HOA law.

← Back to Superior Court cases

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

Posted on by

Condo Maintenance Settlement | Rule 80 | CV2019-015684

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

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

Download ruling

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

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

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

The takeaway

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

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

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

Respondent Side

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

Neutral Parties

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

What happened

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

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

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

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

Video overview of the ruling

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

Listen: audio deep dive on the ruling

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

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

Procedural timeline

2020-06-09

The court dismissed all claims except the alleged September 2015 roof/HVAC leveling claim.

Download source
Minute Entry
2021-08-31

The court found the parties had an enforceable Rule 80 settlement agreement.

Download 2 sources
Minute EntryMinute Entry
2021-09-02

The court adopted the settlement terms and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Download source
Minute Entry
2022-04-01

The court denied a Rule 60-style request for relief from judgment.

Download source
Minute Entry
2026-03-06

The court denied a later motion to enforce or rescind settlement terms in the closed case.

Download source
Judgment Entered

View all 37 source documents for this case ↓

Complete source-document index

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

Source 1 2020-04-22

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

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

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

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

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

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

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

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

Default Judgment

Type: Decision or judgment

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

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

Default Judgment

Type: Decision or judgment

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

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

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

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

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

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

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

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

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

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

Status Conference

Type: Court/source PDF

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

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

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

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

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

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

Oral Argument

Type: Court/source PDF

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

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

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

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

Oral Argument

Type: Court/source PDF

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

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

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

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

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

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

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

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

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

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

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

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

Status Conference

Type: Court/source PDF

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

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

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

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

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

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

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

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

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

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

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

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

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

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

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

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

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

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

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

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

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

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

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

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

Judgment Entered

Type: Decision or judgment

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

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

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

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

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

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

Judgment Entered

Type: Decision or judgment

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

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

FAQ

What did the superior court decide?

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

Is this superior-court ruling precedent?

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

Does the page summarize addresses or unit numbers?

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

Who was the association party?

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

Does this replace legal advice?

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

Case Dossier

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

Case Summary

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

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

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

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

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

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

Key Issues & Findings

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

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

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

Why It Matters

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

← Back to Superior Court cases

Kaplan v. AAM / Regency House Condominium

Posted on by

Superior Court Condo Case

The court found fact questions over whether AAM owed and breached a duty when administering guest key-fob access to condominium common areas.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Kaplan v. AAM / Regency House Condominium, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2015-005625.

Download ruling

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

Scope note: This page covers Kaplan v. AAM / Regency House Condominium (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2015-005625) as a public Arizona superior-court condominium case guide. It is built from the court’s filed minute entries, especially the October 4, 2016 VSS summary-judgment ruling and the August 14, 2017 AAM under-advisement ruling. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

A condominium property manager that administers guest key fobs can face a negligence trial over common-area access and security if fact questions remain about duty, breach, causation, and comparative fault.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Violet Kaplan (Plaintiff)
    Regency House condominium owner whose unlocked unit was burglarized.

Respondent Side

  • AAM LLC (Defendant)
    Property manager for Regency House and administrator of condominium key-fob issuance.
  • VSS Security Services (Defendant)
    Security-services defendant that obtained summary judgment because AAM administered key-fob issuance.
  • Alex Rodriguez (Defendant)
    Guest alleged to have used condominium access and stolen items from the plaintiff's unit.

Neutral Parties

  • Sherry K. Stephens (Judge)
    Superior Court judge who issued the AAM summary-judgment ruling.

What happened

The plaintiff owned a unit at Regency House. A guest of another owner allegedly received a key fob, used access to the common areas, and stole jewelry and cash from the plaintiff’s unlocked unit.

The plaintiff alleged AAM was negligent in drafting and implementing access-control rules and in maintaining property security for unit owners. She also asserted claims against VSS Security Services, which allegedly staffed security functions.

The court granted VSS summary judgment because the evidence showed AAM, not VSS, administered key-fob issuance for the condominium community. It also found no evidence supporting negligent hiring, supervision, or training claims against VSS.

The court later denied AAM summary judgment on negligence. It found a jury could conclude AAM created a duty to residents when it issued guest key fobs and had to monitor issuance consistently with common-area security. The court identified disputed facts over key-fob use, breach, reasonableness, and comparative fault from the unlocked unit. It dismissed negligent entrustment, emotional-distress, and punitive-damages theories.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Kaplan v. AAM / Regency House Condominium (CV2015-005625 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). Condo manager faced negligence trial over guest key-fob access; security vendor won summary judgment. 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 Kaplan v. AAM / Regency House Condominium. 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

2016-01-08

The court dismisses two owner defendants.

Download source
Ruling
2016-04-12

The court denies AAM and VSS Security Services' motion to dismiss.

Download source
Ruling
2016-10-04

The court grants summary judgment for VSS Security Services.

Download source
Ruling
2017-08-14

The court denies AAM summary judgment on negligence but dismisses negligent entrustment, emotional-distress, and punitive-damages theories.

Download source
Under Advisement Ruling
2017-09-21

The court places the settled case on the dismissal calendar and deems pending motions moot.

Download source
Dismissal

View all 11 source documents for this case ↓

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 2016-01-08

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

Ruling dismissing the complaint as to two owner defendants after no response was filed to their Rule 12(b)(6) motion.

Download source file
2016-01-08_001_ruling.pdf
Source 2 2016-04-12

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

Ruling denying AAM and VSS Security Services' motion to dismiss the claims against them.

Download source file
2016-04-12_002_ruling.pdf
Source 3 2016-07-11

Order

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2016-07-11_003_order.pdf
Source 4 2016-09-19

Oral Argument Set

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2016-09-19_004_oral-argument-set.pdf
Source 5 2016-10-04

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

Ruling granting summary judgment for VSS Security Services because AAM administered key-fob issuance for the condominium community and no negligent hiring or supervision evidence was offered.

Download source file
2016-10-04_005_ruling.pdf
Source 6 2016-10-28

Dismissal

Type: Court/source PDF

Partial dismissal entry dismissing claims against VSS Security Services with prejudice under the parties' stipulation.

Download source file
2016-10-28_006_dismissal.pdf
Source 7 2017-07-12

Reassignment

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2017-07-12_007_reassignment.pdf
Source 8 2017-07-25

Oral Argument Set

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2017-07-25_008_oral-argument-set.pdf
Source 9 2017-08-10

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2017-08-10_009_ruling.pdf
Source 10 2017-08-14

Under Advisement Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

Under-advisement ruling denying AAM summary judgment on negligence over guest key-fob access and common-area security while dismissing negligent entrustment, emotional-distress, and punitive-damages claims.

Download source file
2017-08-14_010_under-advisement-ruling.pdf
Source 11 2017-09-21

Dismissal

Type: Court/source PDF

Dismissal-calendar entry noting the case had settled and deeming pending motions moot.

Download source file
2017-09-21_011_dismissal.pdf

FAQ

Did the court find AAM owed a duty?

The court held that a jury could conclude AAM created a duty to residents by issuing guest key fobs and had to monitor key-fob issuance consistently with common-area security.

Did AAM win summary judgment?

Not on negligence. The court denied summary judgment on the negligence claim but dismissed negligent entrustment, emotional-distress, and punitive-damages theories.

Why did VSS Security Services win summary judgment?

The court found the uncontroverted evidence showed AAM administered key-fob issuance for the condominium community, not VSS.

Why is this case marked standard?

The rulings apply general negligence and summary-judgment law to condominium access control; they do not interpret HOA statutes or CC&Rs.

Case Dossier

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

Case Summary

Case ID / citationCV2015-005625 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateAugust 14, 2017
Judge / panelHon. Sherry K. Stephens, Hon. Jo Lynn Gentry, Hon. Randall H. Warner
PartiesViolet Kaplan (Plaintiff, condominium owner) v. AAM LLC, VSS Security Services, Allen Svec, Michael Bowers, and others
Governing law
  • Rule 12(b)(6), Ariz. R. Civ. P.
  • Rule 56, Ariz. R. Civ. P.
Topics
CondominiumsProcedureArchitectural Review
Outcome / holding

The superior court denied AAM summary judgment on negligence because fact questions remained over key-fob access and condominium common-area security, while dismissing negligent entrustment, emotional-distress, and punitive-damages theories.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package11 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap5 roadmap entries
Video overviewKaplan v. AAM / Regency House Condominium
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions4 questions
Featured download links1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

A Regency House condominium owner sued after a guest of another owner allegedly used a key fob to access the condominium common areas and steal items from her unlocked unit. The court dismissed claims against two owner defendants, denied an early motion to dismiss by AAM and VSS, granted summary judgment for the security-services defendant because AAM administered key-fob issuance, and later denied AAM summary judgment on the negligence claim. The court held a jury could find that by issuing guest key fobs, AAM created a duty to residents to monitor key-fob issuance consistently with common-area security. The court dismissed negligent entrustment, emotional-distress, and punitive-damages claims, and the case later settled.

Key Issues & Findings

The October 4, 2016 ruling granted summary judgment for VSS Security Services because the uncontroverted evidence showed AAM, not VSS, administered key-fob issuance for the condominium community. The court also found no evidence supporting negligent hiring, supervision, or training claims against VSS.

The August 14, 2017 under-advisement ruling focused on AAM, the property manager for Regency House. The court described the plaintiff's theory that AAM had a duty to create and administer key-fob rules in a way that maintained proper security for common areas. It noted the plaintiff agreed AAM had no duty to control the conduct of a third person.

The court still found a jury could conclude AAM created a duty to residents by issuing guest key fobs and had to monitor issuance in a manner consistent with common-area security. The court identified fact questions about whether the guest used a key fob to access the common areas, whether AAM breached a duty in issuing the key fob, whether AAM's conduct was reasonable, and whether the plaintiff's unlocked unit made her solely or partially responsible. It therefore denied summary judgment on negligence but dismissed other damages and negligent-entrustment theories.

Why It Matters

This is a condominium-management duty case, not a broad HOA-governance case. It matters because the court allowed a negligence claim to proceed against the property manager based on guest key-fob access to common areas, even while narrowing the case by dismissing other theories.

The case is marked standard because it applies general negligence and summary-judgment principles, not Title 10, Title 33, or CC&R interpretation. It is useful for common-area access and security disputes in condominium communities.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Desert Cove Condominium Association v. BCK Coatings Inc.

Posted on by

Superior Court HOA Case

A Maricopa County judge entered judgment for a condominium association after finding its contractor had no competent, admissible evidence to defeat summary judgment.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Desert Cove Condominium Association v. BCK Coatings Inc., Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2023-093035.

Download judgment entry

Scope note: This page covers Desert Cove Condominium Association v. BCK Coatings Inc. (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2023-093035) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the four collected minute entries, especially the November 25, 2024 under-advisement ruling and the March 10, 2025 judgment-entry minute entry. Currency caveat: the collected record does not include the signed judgment text itself, only the minute entry stating judgment was entered. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The condominium association won summary judgment because it presented admissible evidence of the contract, implied warranty, defective work, repair scope, repair cost, and damages, while the contractor relied on a late affidavit from a witness and testimony that had not been properly disclosed.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Desert Cove Condominium Association (Plaintiff)
    Condominium association that sued over defective work and obtained summary judgment.
  • Mark A. Holmgren (Counsel)
    Counsel for Desert Cove in the minute entries.

Respondent Side

  • BCK Coatings Inc. (Defendant)
    Contractor defendant that opposed summary judgment but failed to present competent, timely disclosed evidence creating a factual dispute.
  • Christina W. Kelly (Counsel)
    Counsel for BCK Coatings in the minute entries.

Neutral Parties

  • Adam D. Driggs (Judge)
    Maricopa County Superior Court judge who granted summary judgment and entered judgment.

What happened

Desert Cove Condominium Association sued BCK Coatings over allegedly defective work performed under a contract. The association moved for summary judgment after discovery closed, arguing BCK had not disclosed a witness or competent evidence that could support a defense at trial.

The court heard argument on November 15, 2024 and issued an under-advisement ruling on November 25, 2024. The court found Desert Cove had produced affidavits and expert reports showing the absence of a genuine material dispute. The ruling specifically identified evidence of a contract, implied warranty, legal duties, defective work, the appropriate repair, repair cost, and damages already incurred.

BCK relied mainly on a two-page affidavit from its president. The court found the witness had not been properly disclosed by name, the content of his affidavit testimony had not been disclosed during discovery, and BCK had not requested an extension or shown good cause to extend disclosure. The court also found some factual statements were cited to the affidavit but were not actually supported by it.

Because Desert Cove met its burden and BCK did not respond with competent, admissible evidence creating a genuine dispute, the court entered summary judgment on all counts for $1,042,429.24 plus attorneys’ fees and costs. On March 10, 2025, the court entered formal judgment in favor of Desert Cove and against BCK.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Desert Cove Condominium Association v. BCK Coatings Inc. (CV2023-093035 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). Condo association won $1.04M summary judgment for defective contractor work after BCK lacked usable evidence. 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 Desert Cove Condominium Association v. BCK Coatings Inc.. 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

2024-09-24

The court sets oral argument on Desert Cove's summary-judgment motion.

Download source
Oral Argument Set
2024-11-15

The court hears argument on summary judgment and takes the matter under advisement.

Download source
Oral Argument
2024-11-25

Under-advisement ruling grants Desert Cove summary judgment on all counts for $1,042,429.24 plus attorneys' fees and costs.

Download source
Under Advisement Ruling
2025-03-10

The court enters formal judgment in favor of Desert Cove and against BCK Coatings.

Download source
Judgment Entered

View all 4 source documents for this case ↓

Complete source-document index

This index contains 4 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 2024-09-24

Oral Argument Set

Type: Court/source PDF

Minute entry setting oral argument on Desert Cove's summary-judgment motion against BCK Coatings.

Download source file
2024-09-24_001_oral-argument-set.pdf
Source 2 2024-11-15

Oral Argument

Type: Court/source PDF

Oral-argument minute entry taking Desert Cove's summary-judgment motion under advisement after argument from both sides.

Download source file
2024-11-15_002_oral-argument.pdf
Source 3 2024-11-25

Under Advisement Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

Under-advisement ruling granting Desert Cove summary judgment on all counts for $1,042,429.24 plus attorneys' fees and costs because BCK lacked competent, timely disclosed evidence to create a factual dispute.

Download source file
2024-11-25_003_under-advisement-ruling.pdf
Source 4 2025-03-10

Judgment Entered

Type: Decision or judgment

Judgment-entry minute entry granting formal judgment for Desert Cove Condominium Association and against BCK Coatings Inc. under the signed order.

Download source file
2025-03-10_004_judgment-entered.pdf

FAQ

What was the association's claim about?

The minute entries describe a contract dispute over defective work by BCK Coatings and the association’s evidence of repair scope, repair cost, and damages.

Why did Desert Cove win summary judgment?

The court found Desert Cove produced competent, admissible evidence supporting its claims, while BCK failed to produce timely disclosed, admissible evidence creating a genuine factual dispute.

What was wrong with BCK's affidavit?

The court found BCK had not disclosed the witness by name or disclosed the substance of his affidavit testimony during the discovery period, and had not shown good cause to extend disclosure.

How much was awarded?

The summary-judgment ruling awarded $1,042,429.24 plus attorneys’ fees and costs. The later minute entry states formal judgment was entered for Desert Cove.

Why is this standard significance?

The case involves a condominium association, but the ruling is ordinary contractor litigation and does not interpret HOA statutes, CC&Rs, governance duties, records rights, elections, or assessments.

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 / citationCV2023-093035 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateMarch 10, 2025
Judge / panelHon. Adam D. Driggs
PartiesDesert Cove Condominium Association (Plaintiff, condominium association) v. BCK Coatings Inc. (Defendant, contractor)
Topics
ProcedureCondominiumsAttorney Fees
Outcome / holding

The superior court granted Desert Cove summary judgment on all counts and entered judgment against BCK Coatings. It awarded $1,042,429.24 plus attorneys' fees and costs after finding BCK failed to offer competent, admissible evidence creating a genuine factual dispute.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package4 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap4 roadmap entries
Video overviewDesert Cove Condominium Association v. BCK Coatings Inc.
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Desert Cove Condominium Association sued BCK Coatings Inc. over defective work performed under a contract. The association moved for summary judgment after discovery closed, arguing BCK had disclosed no trial witness and no competent admissible evidence to support a defense. The superior court agreed, finding the association had presented competent evidence of a contract, implied warranty, legal duties, defective work, repair scope, repair costs, and damages already incurred. The court refused to rely on BCK's late affidavit because the witness and testimony were not timely disclosed, entered summary judgment for Desert Cove on all counts for $1,042,429.24 plus fees and costs, and later entered formal judgment.

Key Issues & Findings

The court applied the Arizona summary-judgment standard from Orme School, Thruston, Stevens, and Kelly. Desert Cove produced affidavits and expert reports that, in the court's view, showed the absence of a genuine dispute on contract formation, implied warranty, legal duties, defective work, proper repair, repair cost, and damages already incurred by the association.

BCK's opposition depended largely on a two-page affidavit from its longtime president. The court found that BCK had not previously disclosed him as a witness by name, had not disclosed the substance of the affidavit testimony during the discovery period, and had not requested an extension or shown good cause to reopen disclosure. The court also found some controverting facts cited the affidavit but were not actually supported by it.

Because Desert Cove met its initial burden and BCK did not respond with competent, admissible evidence creating a genuine material dispute, the court granted summary judgment on all counts. The later judgment-entry minute entry states that formal judgment was entered in favor of Desert Cove and against BCK Coatings.

Why It Matters

This case is relevant to HOA and condominium boards mainly as a vendor-litigation and proof lesson. The association won because it paired expert evidence and damage proof with a disclosure-record argument showing the contractor had no usable defense evidence at summary judgment.

The case is standard, not must-read, because it does not interpret Arizona HOA or condominium statutes, CC&Rs, elections, assessments, records, or governance duties. Its value is practical: associations pursuing defective contractor work still need admissible expert and damages evidence, and contractors can lose dispositively if they miss disclosure obligations.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Vales v. Kings Hill Condominium Association: Procedural Milestones in an HOA Appeal

Posted on by

Procedure | A.R.S. § 12-322A | 1 CA-CV 04-0816

This case illustrates the complex procedural path of an Arizona homeowners association dispute on appeal. It highlights key milestones including docketing, record transmission, and the final mandate. Homeowners and boards can observe how appellate courts govern procedural compliance and cost recovery.

Last updated June 29, 2026. Case: Vales, appellate No. 1 CA-CV 04-0816; mandate issued.

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

Scope note: This page covers the procedural history, timeline, and cost awards of the Arizona HOA appeal in Janet Vales v. Kings Hill Condominium Association, including its precedential posture. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The Court of Appeals issued its opinion and memorandum decision on December 22, 2005, and subsequently issued a mandate on March 29, 2006, commanding the Maricopa County Superior Court to comply with its decision and awarding appellate costs of $297.80.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Janet Vales (Plaintiff)
    A married woman dealing with her sole and separate property; Plaintiff/Appellant.
  • Melody K. Seal (Counsel)
    Jackson White PC
    Represented Plaintiff/Appellant Janet Vales.
  • James L. Tanner (Counsel)
    Jackson White PC
    Represented Plaintiff/Appellant Janet Vales.

Respondent Side

  • Kings Hill Condominium Association (Defendant)
    An unincorporated condominium association; Defendant/Appellee.
  • Michael A. Ludwig (Counsel)
    Jones Skelton & Hochuli PLC
    Represented Defendant/Appellee Kings Hill Condominium Association.
  • Randall H. Warner (Counsel)
    Jones Skelton & Hochuli PLC
    Represented Defendant/Appellee Kings Hill Condominium Association.

Neutral Parties

  • Hon. J. Richard Gama (Judge)
    Maricopa County Superior Court
    Trial Court Judge on Appeal.
  • Hon. Philip Hall (Judge)
    Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
    Presiding Judge, Department D.
  • Hon. G. Murray Snow (Judge)
    Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
    Judge, Department D.
  • Hon. Patricia K. Norris (Judge)
    Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
    Judge, Department D.
  • Philip G. Urry (Other)
    Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
    Clerk of Court of Appeals, Division One.
  • Michael K. Jeanes (Other)
    Maricopa County Superior Court
    Clerk of Maricopa County Superior Court.
  • Patricia Sanderman (Other)
    Maricopa County Superior Court
    Supervisor, Appeals Section, Maricopa County Superior Court.

What happened

Janet Vales filed an appeal (No. 1 CA-CV 04-0816) in the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, from a judgment of the Maricopa County Superior Court (No. CV2003-009786) presided over by Judge J. Richard Gama. The case was docketed in December 2004, with Vales paying the $140.00 filing fee on January 3, 2005.

Following the docketing, the Court of Appeals ordered the Clerk of the Maricopa County Superior Court to transmit the record on appeal. The Superior Court compiled and transmitted a record consisting of one volume of instruments and minute entries, with no transcripts or exhibits, in April 2005. The appeal was submitted without oral argument to Department D, consisting of Presiding Judge Philip Hall and Judges G. Murray Snow and Patricia K. Norris, who took the matter under advisement in October 2005. The court issued an opinion and memorandum decision on December 22, 2005, and, after denying a motion for reconsideration, issued its mandate on March 29, 2006, awarding $297.80 in costs.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Vales v. Kings Hill Condominium Association (1 CA-CV 04-0816). The Court of Appeals issued its opinion and memorandum decision on December 22, 2005, and subsequently issued 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 Vales v. Kings Hill Condominium Association. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

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

Procedural timeline

2004-11-30

A docketing statement was received from Appellant Janet Vales.

2004-12-21

The index of record from the Superior Court was filed, and the case was assigned docket number 1 CA-CV 04-0816 in the Court of Appeals, Division One.

Download source
0000 Div 1 Civil Notice To Counsel Appell
2005-01-03

Appellant paid the filing fee of $140.00.

2005-01-12

Clerk Philip G. Urry issued a Notice to Counsel setting the appellee's $70.00 filing fee deadline and reminding appellant of the January 31, 2005 opening brief due date.

Download source
0000 Div 1 Notice To Counsel Appellees Fe
2005-04-19

Court of Appeals issued an order directing the Clerk of the Maricopa County Superior Court to transmit the record on appeal within 15 days.

Download source
0000 Div 1 Civil Record Ordered From Supe
2005-04-27

Maricopa County Superior Court filed the inventory of the record on appeal, consisting of one volume of instruments and minute entries, and no transcripts or exhibits.

Download source
0000 Div 1 Inventory
2005-10-05

The Court of Appeals Department D ordered the appeal taken under advisement without oral argument.

2005-12-22

The Court of Appeals filed its Opinion and Memorandum Decision.

2005-12-22

Clerk Philip G. Urry transmitted the court's slip opinion to West Publishing and LEXIS for immediate online availability.

2006-03-07

The motion for reconsideration was denied, and notice of denial was given.

2006-03-29

The Court of Appeals issued its Mandate commanding the Superior Court to comply with the appellate decision and awarding costs of $297.80.

Download source
0000 Div 1 Civil Mandate Package

View all 7 source documents for this case ↓

Complete source-document index

This index contains 7 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 2005-04-27

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
2005-04-27_004_0000-div-1-inventory.pdf
Source 5 2005-09-06

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
2005-09-06_005_0000-div-1-under-advisement.pdf
Source 6 2005-12-21

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
2005-12-21_006_0000-div-1-westmead-package-letters.pdf

FAQ

What is the precedential value of the decision in Vales v. Kings Hill Condominium Association?

The Court of Appeals issued both an ‘Opinion’ and a ‘Memorandum Decision’ on December 22, 2005. Under Arizona court rules, memorandum decisions are non-precedential, while opinions are published and binding. Because the mandate references both, parties must check which parts of the decision were officially published as precedential.

What is the penalty if an appellant fails to pay the filing fee on time?

If the appellant fails to pay the required filing fee ($140.00 in this case) within the timeframe specified by the court, the appeal will be deemed abandoned in accordance with A.R.S. § 12-322A.

How does the Arizona Court of Appeals obtain the trial court record?

Under Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure (ARCAP) Rule 11(a)(3), the Court of Appeals issues an order directing the Clerk of the Superior Court to transmit the record on appeal (including instruments, minute entries, transcripts, and exhibits) within 15 days.

Can an HOA appeal be decided without oral argument?

Yes. If the appeal is deemed ‘at issue,’ the court may submit the case without oral argument. In this case, Department D took the matter under advisement after conference on October 5, 2005.

Are attorneys' fees or costs awarded at the end of an HOA appeal?

Yes, the prevailing party on appeal can recover taxable costs. Upon issuing the final mandate on March 29, 2006, the Court of Appeals awarded costs of $297.80 to be complied with by the Maricopa County Superior Court.

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 04-0816
Court / tribunalCourt of Appeals
Decision / key dateDecember 22, 2005
Judge / panelHon. Philip Hall, Hon. G. Murray Snow, Hon. Patricia K. Norris, Hon. J. Richard Gama
PartiesJanet Vales (Plaintiff/Appellant, homeowner) vs. Kings Hill Condominium Association (Defendant/Appellee, unincorporated condominium association)
Topics
ProcedureCondominiums
Outcome / holding

The Court of Appeals issued its opinion and memorandum decision on December 22, 2005, and subsequently issued a mandate on March 29, 2006, commanding the Maricopa County Superior Court to comply with its decision and awarding appellate costs of $297.80.

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package7 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap12 roadmap entries
Video overviewVales v. Kings Hill Condominium Association
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links2 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

This appeal arises from a dispute between homeowner Janet Vales and the Kings Hill Condominium Association. Following a trial court decision in Maricopa County Superior Court under Judge J. Richard Gama, Vales appealed to the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One. The appellate court docketed the case in December 2004, received briefing throughout early 2005, and ordered the transmission of the record on appeal. The matter was submitted to Department D (consisting of Judges Philip Hall, G. Murray Snow, and Patricia K. Norris) without oral argument and taken under advisement. On December 22, 2005, the Court of Appeals filed its opinion and memorandum decision. After denying a motion for reconsideration on March 7, 2006, and with no petition for review filed with the Arizona Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals issued its mandate on March 29, 2006, commanding the Superior Court to comply with its decision and awarding $297.80 in costs.

Key Issues & Findings

The available record for this matter is procedural rather than substantive: it documents the docketing, filing-fee deadlines, transmission of the record on appeal, submission of the appeal to Department D under advisement without oral argument, and the issuance of the opinion, memorandum decision, and final mandate, but it does not reproduce the court's merits analysis. Accordingly, this page summarizes the procedural posture and disposition rather than the substantive legal reasoning. The Court of Appeals resolved the appeal through a combination of a published opinion and a non-precedential memorandum decision, denied a motion for reconsideration, and then issued its mandate commanding the Superior Court to comply and awarding appellate costs.

Why It Matters

Because the substantive merits of the decision are not detailed in the procedural record, the primary takeaway is procedural. It highlights the structured, multi-step nature of the Arizona appellate process for homeowners and HOA boards, including strict deadlines for filing fees, the compilation of the record on appeal, the submission under advisement without oral argument, and the finality of the mandate. Additionally, it underscores that prevailing parties on appeal in Arizona HOA disputes can recover taxable costs (here, $297.80) upon issuance of the mandate.

← Back to Court of Appeals cases