Tag Archives: elections

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

Posted on by

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

An unpublished Division One decision holding that a planned community’s short-term rental amendment was a foreseeable extension of its original CC&Rs, and thus valid and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

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

Download memorandum decision

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

The takeaway

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

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

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

Respondent Side

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

Neutral Parties

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

What happened

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

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

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

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

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

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

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Colin Preston, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Las Sendas Community Association, Inc., Defendant/Appellee (1 CA-CV 22-0761). The 1995 CC&Rs, read in their entirety, provided sufficient notice that a durational limit on leases could be… This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own ruling controls.

Listen: audio deep dive on the ruling

An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the court’s reasoning and disposition in Colin Preston, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Las Sendas Community Association, Inc., Defendant/Appellee. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

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

Procedural timeline

1995

Original Las Sendas CC&Rs recorded, restricting residential units to single-family residential use and limiting business/trade while exempting owner leasing.

Date not specified

CC&Rs amended in 1998, 2004, and 2005 (amendments did not alter the provisions relevant to this appeal).

2009

HOA Board adopts a rule barring leases of fewer than six months ("the six-months rule").

2014

Arizona legislature enacts A.R.S. § 33-1806.01(A), allowing owners to use property as rental property unless prohibited in the CC&Rs, subject to rental time-period restrictions.

2021-07

Board announces a proposed amendment prohibiting leases of 31 days or fewer and advertising units as vacation rentals ("the short-term rental amendment").

2021-11

HOA opens owner voting on the short-term rental amendment.

2022-06

HOA declares the amendment approved (2,604 of 3,090 votes, 84.3%, exceeding the 75% threshold) and records the short-term rental amendment.

Date not specified

Homeowners file suit (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2022-010280) seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions against enforcement of the amendment.

Date not specified

Superior court denies the preliminary injunction, denies plaintiffs' partial summary judgment, and grants summary judgment for the HOA; plaintiffs appeal.

2023-10-31

Court of Appeals, Division One, affirms and awards the HOA its appellate attorneys' fees and costs.

Download source
Memorandum Decision

View all 1 source document for this case ↓

Complete source-document index

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

Source 1 2023-10-31

Memorandum Decision

Type: Decision or judgment

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

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

FAQ

Who won Preston v. Las Sendas?

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

What was the dispute about?

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

What legal test did the court apply?

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

Why did the homeowners lose?

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

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

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

Is this decision precedential?

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

Case Dossier

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

Case Summary

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

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

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

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

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

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

Key Issues & Findings

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

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

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

Why It Matters

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

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

← Back to Court of Appeals cases

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

Posted on by

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

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

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

Download memorandum decision

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

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

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

The takeaway

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

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

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

Respondent Side

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

Neutral Parties

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

What happened

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

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

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

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

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

Procedural timeline

2013

The Association recorded the 2013 Consolidated Declaration without a vote of the record owners.

2014

The Association recorded the 2014 Amendment, changing amendment voting to a three-quarters vote across the platted communities; 47 of Plat 24's 54 units consented.

2017-02

The Trust's attorney demanded release of the Consolidated Declaration and the 2014 Amendment; the Association refused.

Date not specified

About nine months after the demand, the Trust filed its complaint seeking release of the documents and asserting quiet title and a violation of A.R.S. § 33-420 (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2017-055942).

Date not specified

The parties cross-moved for summary judgment; the court found disputes of material fact and denied both motions.

Date not specified

After depositions, the parties again cross-moved for summary judgment and the court granted summary judgment for the Trust.

2020-02

The superior court entered an order awarding statutory damages under A.R.S. § 33-420(A) and (C).

2020-04

The superior court entered judgment for the Trust, awarding $5,000 per document under § 33-420(A), $1,000 per document under § 33-420(C), about $116,000 in attorney's fees, and $4,000 in costs; the Association moved for a new trial.

2020-09

After the original trial judge retired, the newly assigned judge partly granted the new-trial motion, striking the ruling that invalidated the Consolidated Declaration (deeming it a mere restatement) while leaving the 2014 Amendment's statutory damages in place; both sides appealed.

2021-12-02

The Court of Appeals issued its memorandum decision, affirming in part, vacating in part, and remanding.

Download source
Memorandum Decision

View all 1 source document for this case ↓

Complete source-document index

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

Source 1 2021-12-02

Memorandum Decision

Type: Decision or judgment

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

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

FAQ

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

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

Why did the court hold both documents were invalid?

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

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

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

What damages and fees were involved?

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

What was the final disposition?

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

Who represented the parties?

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

Case Dossier

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

Case Summary

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

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

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

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

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

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

Key Issues & Findings

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

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

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

Why It Matters

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

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

← Back to Court of Appeals cases

AZNH Revocable Trust v. Sunland Springs Village HOA: Administrative Appeal and Limited Remand

Posted on by

Arizona HOA Records | Superior Court Administrative Appeal | LC2025-000025

This page separates the Superior Court administrative-review case from the larger OAH 24F-H047 record. The core court order dismissed the broader appeal, sent the matter back for a limited evidentiary hearing, and later denied a motion to enforce the remand as a broader subpoena dispute.

Last updated May 21, 2026. Case: AZNH Revocable Trust v. Arizona Department of Real Estate and Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association, Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2025-000025; minute entries in the uploaded record use LC2025-000025-001 DT; related OAH No. 24F-H047-REL; Hon. Joseph P. Mikitish.

Download remand order Download enforcement denial Filing roadmap Watch video overview Related OAH page Homeowner guide Procedure checklist FAQ Primary sources

Current-status note: This page is published as a litigation record based on the source files available through 2026-03-25. 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 is the Superior Court administrative-appeal page for LC2025-000025. It should be read with the related OAH page for 24F-H047-REL and the later CV2025-036466 special-action page. AI-generated briefing material in the upload was reviewed only as orientation; the published analysis relies on court minute entries, OAH orders, and the normalized source-file roadmap.

The posture in one sentence

The Superior Court did not decide the electronic-ballot records dispute outright; it dismissed the broader administrative appeal, remanded for a limited evidentiary hearing on specified additional evidence, and later denied an enforcement motion over the scope of that remand.

Case snapshot

Case number

Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2025-000025; uploaded minute entries use LC2025-000025-001 DT.

Administrative source

OAH No. 24F-H047-REL, the Sunland Springs electronic-ballot records petition.

Core Superior Court result

The April 17, 2025 minute entry dismissed the appeal and remanded only for a limited evidentiary hearing.

Later enforcement result

On September 17, 2025, the court denied the motion to enforce judgment and order to show cause.

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 / citationLC2025-000025 / OAH 24F-H047-REL
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateApril 17, 2025
Judge / panelHon. Joseph P. Mikitish
PartiesAZNH sought Superior Court administrative review after the OAH/ADRE electronic-ballot records decision involving Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association.
Governing law
Topics
Admin. AppealsRecords RequestsElectionsProcedure
Outcome / holding

The Superior Court dismissed the broader administrative appeal, remanded for a limited evidentiary hearing on specified additional evidence, and later denied the requested enforcement/order-to-show-cause relief.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package37 PDFs, 3 other source files
Step-by-step docket roadmap18 roadmap entries
Video overviewAZNH Revocable Trust v. Arizona Department of Real Estate and Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Ass
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions4 questions
Curated download aliases11 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

CURRENT STATUS (June 2026): NOT FINAL / PENDING — this is one stage of an active, multi-track dispute; the controlling published appellate decision in this family is AZNH Revocable Trust v. Sunland Springs Village HOA, 1 CA-CV 25-0424 (2026). AZNH filed a Maricopa County Superior Court administrative appeal after the OAH decision and ADRE rehearing denial in the Sunland Springs electronic-ballot records dispute. The key April 17, 2025 minute entry did not decide the broader merits of the ballot-retention claim. Instead, the court dismissed the appeal and remanded the matter to ADRE/OAH for a limited evidentiary hearing addressing specific additional evidence proposed by AZNH. Later, when the parties disputed whether OAH was following that remand correctly, the court denied a motion to enforce judgment and order to show cause.

Key Issues & Findings

The record shows a narrow judicial-review ruling rather than a full merits reversal. The court treated the proposed additional evidence as the issue requiring further administrative handling, so it sent the matter back to ADRE/OAH for that limited purpose. Later OAH subpoena and hearing-scope orders, and the Superior Court’s September 17, 2025 enforcement-denial minute entry, show the practical consequences of that limited-remand framing.

Why It Matters

This administrative appeal is a useful Arizona HOA procedure map. It shows how an ADRE/OAH records case can move into Superior Court, return to OAH on a limited evidentiary remand, and then generate later disputes over remand scope, subpoena authority, and enforcement. For homeowners and boards, the case is a reminder to quote remand language precisely and keep merits issues separate from procedural enforcement issues.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • AZNH Revocable Trust (Plaintiff/Appellant)
    Trust party seeking administrative review.
  • John F. Sullivan (Trustee/Counsel)
    AZNH Revocable Trust
    Trustee and counsel for the administrative-review appellant.
  • Susan Sullivan (Trustee)
    AZNH Revocable Trust
    Trustee and real party in interest for AZNH Revocable Trust.

Respondent Side

  • Arizona Department of Real Estate (Agency/Appellee)
    Agency party in the administrative-review action.
  • Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association (Respondent/Appellee)
    Association party in the administrative-review action.
  • Megan E. Ritenour (Counsel)
    Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP
    Counsel for Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association.
  • Téhaura R. Henning (Counsel)
    Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP
    Entered an appearance for Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association.

Neutral Parties

  • Joseph P. Mikitish (Judge)
    Superior Court judge assigned to the administrative review.

What the administrative appeal was about

AZNH appealed after the OAH decision and ADRE rehearing denial in the Sunland Springs electronic-ballot records dispute. The appeal focused on whether additional evidence about the electronic voting interface and vendor video should be considered after the original administrative decision.

The April 17, 2025 order is the turning point. The court did not hold a broad new merits trial. Instead, it sent the matter back to ADRE/OAH to address the additional evidence proposed by AZNH. That narrow remand is why the later OAH subpoena and enforcement filings matter.

The September 17, 2025 minute entry is the second Superior Court checkpoint. After disputes over whether OAH was treating the remand as too narrow, the court denied the motion to enforce judgment and order to show cause.

Video overview of the case record

An AI-generated video overview of AZNH Revocable Trust v. Arizona Department of Real Estate and Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association (LC2025-000025 / OAH 24F-H047-REL). The Superior Court dismissed the broader administrative appeal, remanded for a limited evidentiary hearing on… 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 AZNH Revocable Trust v. Arizona Department of Real Estate and Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked case records below.

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

What the key court orders do

1. The appeal moved into judicial review

The administrative-review orders set the service and record-transmission mechanics after the January 14, 2025 notice of appeal.

2. The remand was limited

The April 17, 2025 minute entry dismissed the appeal and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to address the additional evidence proposed by AZNH.

3. The subpoena fight followed from remand scope

OAH orders after remand treated additional subpoena relief as constrained by the court’s limited-remand framing.

4. The enforcement motion did not expand relief

The September 17, 2025 minute entry denied the requested enforcement and order-to-show-cause relief.

For homeowners: how to use this administrative-review record

This page is most useful as a map of what happens after an ADRE/OAH HOA case is appealed to Superior Court. A homeowner can ask for judicial review, but the court may send the case back only for a specific task rather than reopening every discovery and evidence question.

If a remand order is narrow, track the exact wording. Later subpoena requests, hearing notices, and enforcement motions should be measured against the court’s actual remand language, not against what either side wishes the remand had said.

The record also shows why procedural issues should be separated. The electronic-ballot merits dispute, the evidentiary-hearing request, the subpoena/remand-scope fight, and the later ALJ-change issue each have different source documents and different legal consequences.

Suggested judicial-review workflow

  1. Start with the final agency action. Identify the OAH decision and the ADRE rehearing order before filing or reviewing a Superior Court administrative appeal.
  2. Separate new-evidence requests from the merits. If the issue is additional evidence, identify the specific evidence and why the existing agency record is incomplete.
  3. Read the remand order literally. A limited evidentiary remand is not the same as a full restart of the administrative case.
  4. Document every post-remand order. Hearing notices, subpoena rulings, and OAH orders become the record for any later enforcement or special-action request.
  5. Keep related court cases linked but distinct. LC2025-000025 explains the limited remand. CV2025-036466 separately addresses the peremptory ALJ-change issue.

Procedure checklist for ADRE/OAH administrative appeals

Do this
  • Keep the OAH decision, rehearing order, notice of appeal, and administrative-review orders together.
  • Quote the remand language when asking OAH or the court for later action.
  • Preserve proof of what additional evidence the court was asked to consider.
  • Use a source-file roadmap so readers can follow the procedural chain without guessing.
Avoid this
  • Do not treat a limited remand as authority for unlimited discovery.
  • Do not bury a remand-scope issue inside a general merits argument.
  • Do not assume an enforcement motion will broaden the original remand order.
  • Do not merge the LC administrative appeal with later special actions when explaining the posture.

What LC2025-000025 does not decide

This Superior Court record does not itself create a final appellate ruling on whether the HOA violated the electronic-ballot retention requirements. The court order sent a limited issue back to the administrative process.

It also does not decide the later peremptory-change-of-ALJ question. That issue is handled in the separate CV2025-036466 special action, which is linked below and included in the case-family timeline for context.

Timeline highlights

DateEventWhy it mattered
November 5, 2024OAH issued the initial decision denying the electronic-ballot records petition.This was the administrative decision that led to rehearing and judicial review.
January 14, 2025AZNH filed the Superior Court administrative appeal.LC2025-000025 opened the judicial-review phase.
April 17, 2025Superior Court entered the dismissal/remand minute entry.The court sent the case back for a limited evidentiary hearing on specified additional evidence.
August 15, 2025OAH denied expanded subpoena relief.The ALJ applied a narrow view of the remand scope.
September 17, 2025Superior Court denied the motion to enforce judgment and order to show cause.The court did not grant additional enforcement relief over the remand-scope dispute.
March 25, 2026In CV2025-036466, the Superior Court ordered ALJ reassignment.That later special action changed the administrative posture but did not rewrite the LC remand order.

Related AZNH pages

OAH electronic-ballot records page

24F-H047-REL custom OAH page
This page contains the broader OAH case-family guide, video overview, and complete uploaded document list.

Peremptory ALJ-change special action

CV2025-036466 authority page
The later Superior Court special action over A.R.S. 41-1092.07(A) and ALJ reassignment.

Published executive-session appeal

Court of Appeals authority page
A separate published appellate decision on open meetings, executive-session votes, and A.R.S. 33-1804.

Filing roadmap and source PDFs

This roadmap focuses on the LC2025-000025 administrative-review chain while preserving the connection to the larger OAH case family. Rows without a direct PDF button are still accounted for in the downloadable source-file roadmap CSV.

Step 1 December 2021 and October 2022

Vendor setup and demo emails

Filed by: Vote HOA Now / Sunland Springs

The administrative record begins with electronic-voting setup material. The roadmap CSV identifies these source entries because they are part of the evidence history rather than separate court orders.

Step 2 June 19, 2024

Subpoena for absentee ballots

Filed by: OAH

Before the Superior Court appeal, OAH subpoenaed ballot materials in the underlying administrative case.

Step 4 January 8, 2025

Order denying rehearing request

Filed by: ADRE

ADRE denied rehearing, which moved the dispute toward Superior Court administrative review.

Step 5 January 14, 2025

Notice of appeal of administrative decision

Filed by: AZNH Revocable Trust

AZNH opened Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2025-000025 to review the agency decision.

Step 6 January 21, 2025

Motion for evidentiary hearing

Filed by: AZNH Revocable Trust

The motion asked the court to consider additional evidence, including electronic voting interface material and video.

Step 7 January 24, 2025

Administrative review orders

Filed by: Superior Court

The court set the administrative-review mechanics for service, record transmission, and briefing.

Download source
2025-01-24_002_administrative-review-orders.pdf
Step 8 February 3 to March 24, 2025

Opening brief, answering brief, certified record, and reply brief

Filed by: Parties / OAH

The administrative appeal was briefed while OAH certified the record for review.

Step 9 April 17, 2025

Minute entry order of dismissal and limited remand

Filed by: Superior Court

Judge Mikitish dismissed the broader appeal and remanded for ADRE/OAH to address the additional evidence proposed by AZNH.

Download source
2025-04-17_003_limited-remand-order-dismissal.pdf
Step 10 June 27, 2025

Notice of hearing after remand

Filed by: ADRE

ADRE/OAH restarted proceedings after the remand and set a new hearing track.

Step 11 August 13, 2025

Motion for subpoena duces tecum and OAH order

Filed by: AZNH Revocable Trust / OAH

AZNH sought additional ballot/vendor material; the resulting OAH order shows how the tribunal framed the remand.

Download source
2025-08-13_006_oah-order-subpoena-duces-tecum.pdf
Step 13 August 22, 2025

Motion to enforce judgment and for order to show cause

Filed by: AZNH Revocable Trust

AZNH returned to Superior Court arguing ADRE/OAH was not following the limited-remand order correctly.

Step 15 September 15, 2025

Response to motion to enforce judgment and order to show cause

Filed by: ADRE

ADRE took a nominal-role position and explained its conduit relationship with OAH.

Step 16 September 17, 2025

Minute entry denying enforcement relief

Filed by: Superior Court

The court denied the motion to enforce judgment and order to show cause after the return hearing.

Download source
2025-09-17_005_minute-entry-enforcement-denied.pdf
Step 17 September 26, 2025

Peremptory ALJ-change request in the remanded OAH case

Filed by: AZNH Revocable Trust / OAH

This later procedural issue became a separate Superior Court special action rather than part of the LC administrative appeal itself.

Download source
Related CV2025-036466 roadmap
Step 18 March 25, 2026

Special-action ruling on ALJ reassignment

Filed by: Superior Court

Judge Blaney vacated later ALJ orders and required reassignment in CV2025-036466; that ruling explains the later procedural posture of the same OAH case family.

Download source
2026-03-25_008_special-action-ruling-peremptory-alj-change.pdf

Complete uploaded source-document index

This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/aznh-revocable-trust-v-sunland-springs-village-homeowners-association-lc2025-000025/raw/: 37 PDFs, 3 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 2024-11-05

Initial OAH Decision Electronic Ballots

Type: Decision or judgment

OAH decision denying the election challenge after finding the record did not show a violation requiring relief over electronic ballots.

Download source file
2024-11-05_001_initial-oah-decision-electronic-ballots.pdf
Source 6 2025-01-21

Proof Service Notice Of Action

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2025-01-21_013_proof-service-notice-of-action.pdf
Source 7 2025-01-24

Administrative Review Orders

Type: Court order/minute entry

Order setting administrative-review service, transcript, record-transmittal, appearance, and briefing requirements.

Download source file
2025-01-24_002_administrative-review-orders.pdf
Source 11 2025-02-03

Certificate Service Rule 4 G

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2025-02-03_017_certificate-service-rule-4g.pdf
Source 12 2025-02-03

Declaration Service ADRE

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
2025-02-03_018_declaration-service-adre.pdf
Source 13 2025-02-03

Plaintiff Opening Brief

Type: Briefing paper

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

Download source file
2025-02-03_022_plaintiff-opening-brief.pdf
Source 17 2025-02-19

Reply Motion Evidentiary Hearing

Type: Motion/application

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

Download source file
2025-02-19_021_reply-motion-evidentiary-hearing.pdf
Source 18 2025-03-04

Sunland Answering Brief

Type: Responsive pleading

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

Download source file
2025-03-04_023_sunland-answering-brief.pdf
Source 19 2025-03-04

OAH Certification Record On 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
2025-03-04_024_oah-certification-record-on-review.pdf
Source 21 2025-03-24

Plaintiff Reply Brief

Type: Briefing paper

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

Download source file
2025-03-24_026_plaintiff-reply-brief.pdf
Source 22 2025-04-17

Limited Remand Order Dismissal

Type: Court order/minute entry

Order denying a superior-court evidentiary hearing, dismissing the administrative appeal, and remanding for a limited evidentiary hearing before ADRE/OAH.

Download source file
2025-04-17_003_limited-remand-order-dismissal.pdf
Source 23 2025-08-13

OAH Order Subpoena Duces Tecum

Type: Court order/minute entry

OAH order requiring AZNH to identify the court-referenced additional evidence and explain the requested subpoena witness and documents.

Download source file
2025-08-13_006_oah-order-subpoena-duces-tecum.pdf
Source 24 2025-08-15

OAH Order Regarding Hearing Denying Subpoena

Type: Court order/minute entry

OAH order limiting the rehearing to ADRE’s rehearing grounds, denying AZNH’s subpoena request, and leaving the hearing date in place.

Download source file
2025-08-15_007_oah-order-regarding-hearing-denying-subpoena.pdf
Source 35 2026-03-25

Special Action Ruling Peremptory ALJ Change

Type: Court order/minute entry

Special-action ruling granting peremptory-change relief in part, vacating OAH orders issued on or after September 26, 2025, and ordering reassignment to a different ALJ.

Download source file
2026-03-25_008_special-action-ruling-peremptory-alj-change.pdf
Source 36 Undated

AI Administrative Appeal Anatomy

Type: AI-generated review PDF

AI-generated review material from the upload. Use it only for orientation; verify any legal claim against the linked court filings and orders.

Download source file
undated_040_ai-administrative-appeal-anatomy.pdf
Source 37 Undated

AI Briefing Document AZNH ADRE Sunland

Type: AI-generated review PDF

AI-generated review material from the upload. Use it only for orientation; verify any legal claim against the linked court filings and orders.

Download source file
undated_041_ai-briefing-document-aznh-adre-sunland.pdf
Source 38 Undated

AI Audio Digital Ballot Legal Fight

Type: AI-generated media review asset

AI-generated review material from the upload. Use it only for orientation; verify any legal claim against the linked court filings and orders.

Download source file
undated_042_ai-audio-digital-ballot-legal-fight.m4a
Source 39 Undated

AI Video HOA Legal Battles

Type: AI-generated media review asset

AI-generated review material from the upload. Use it only for orientation; verify any legal claim against the linked court filings and orders.

Download source file
undated_043_ai-video-hoa-legal-battles.mp4
Source 40 No docket date in filename

Source File Roadmap

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.csv

Complete source set

Oversized and roadmap files

Two source PDFs exceeded the normal WordPress media upload limit when the OAH page was rebuilt, so they are preserved here as static downloads. The roadmap CSV is the best index for every source item in the administrative-review chain.

Additional preserved source downloads

Oversized source PDF

Download oversized source PDF
Preserved as a static download because the regular WordPress media upload limit rejected it.

Administrative Appeal Anatomy PDF

Download Administrative Appeal Anatomy PDF
Included as reviewed orientation material, not as an independent court source.

Frequently asked questions

Is LC2025-000025 the same as OAH 24F-H047-REL?

No. OAH 24F-H047-REL is the administrative case. LC2025-000025 is the Superior Court administrative appeal from that agency record.

Did the Superior Court rule that AZNH won the electronic-ballot records claim?

No. The key April 17, 2025 order dismissed the broader appeal and remanded for a limited evidentiary hearing on specified additional evidence.

Why is the September 17, 2025 minute entry important?

It shows that the court later denied the motion to enforce judgment and order to show cause after the remand-scope dispute returned to Superior Court.

Why does this page link CV2025-036466?

The later special action did not replace LC2025-000025, but it changed the same OAH case family’s posture by requiring ALJ reassignment.

Review note and disclaimer

Reviewed against the local OAH 24F-H047 source folder, the normalized source-file roadmap, and the Superior Court minute entries preserved in the uploaded record. This page is educational information for Arizona HOA homeowners, boards, managers, and advocates. It is not legal advice for any specific dispute.

Primary sources

← Back to Superior Court cases

AZNH Revocable Trust v. Arizona Department of Real Estate: Peremptory ALJ Change Special Action

Posted on by

Arizona HOA Administrative Appeals | A.R.S. 41-1092.07(A) | Superior Court Special Action

This page organizes the Superior Court special-action record over whether AZNH could invoke the new statutory right to one peremptory change of administrative law judge in the Sunland Springs election-records OAH case.

Last updated May 16, 2026. Case: AZNH Revocable Trust v. Kay Abramsohn, et al., Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2025-036466; related OAH No. 24F-H047-REL-RMD; Hon. Scott A. Blaney.

Download Blaney ruling Download complaint Filing roadmap Related OAH page Homeowner guide Procedure checklist FAQ Primary sources

Current-status note: This page is published as a litigation record based on the source files available through 2026-03-25. Later filings, appeals, mandates, settlements, or dismissal orders may change the posture; the linked court records control.

Video/audio is held or de-promoted until its title and description clearly carry the same non-final/current-status posture as this page.

Scope note: This page is an educational guide to the uploaded court record. AI-generated briefing and media files in the upload were reviewed only as orientation; the published analysis relies on court filings, orders, and agency records.

The posture in one sentence

When a new procedural statute gave parties one peremptory change of ALJ, AZNH could invoke it in the pending OAH case, and later orders by the challenged ALJ were vacated.

Case snapshot

Core issue

Whether the revised A.R.S. 41-1092.07(A) gave AZNH one peremptory change of administrative law judge in an already-pending OAH case.

Administrative backdrop

The special action grew out of OAH No. 24F-H047-REL-RMD, part of the Sunland Springs electronic-ballot records dispute.

Superior Court result

Judge Blaney vacated OAH orders issued on or after September 26, 2025 and ordered reassignment to another ALJ.

Practical use

The case is a roadmap for preserving and reviewing procedural rights in HOA administrative hearings.

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 / citationCV2025-036466 / OAH 24F-H047-REL-RMD
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateMarch 25, 2026
Judge / panelHon. Scott A. Blaney
PartiesAZNH sought special-action relief after an ALJ and OAH leadership refused to honor a peremptory change request filed minutes after A.R.S. 41-1092.07(A) became effective.
Governing law
Topics
Admin. AppealsProcedureRecords RequestsElections
Outcome / holding

The Superior Court granted special-action relief in part, vacated OAH orders issued on or after September 26, 2025, and ordered reassignment to a different administrative law judge.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package26 PDFs, 3 other source files
Step-by-step docket roadmap23 roadmap entries
Video overviewTemporarily unavailable while the expanded case record is reviewed
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions4 questions
Featured download links4 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

CURRENT STATUS (June 2026): NOT FINAL / PENDING — this is one stage of an active, multi-track dispute; the controlling published appellate decision in this family is AZNH Revocable Trust v. Sunland Springs Village HOA, 1 CA-CV 25-0424 (2026). AZNH filed a Maricopa County Superior Court special action after the Office of Administrative Hearings refused to honor a peremptory change of administrative law judge filed minutes after the revised A.R.S. 41-1092.07(A) became effective. The dispute arose from the Sunland Springs electronic-ballot records case. Judge Scott A. Blaney ruled on March 25, 2026 that AZNH was entitled to exercise the new procedural right, that the challenged ALJ acted in excess of authority by issuing later rulings, and that OAH had to reassign the case to another ALJ.

Key Issues & Findings

The ruling treated A.R.S. 41-1092.07(A) as a procedural statute that could be applied to the pending administrative proceeding. Because the statutory right came into existence only hours before the scheduled hearing, AZNH could not have invoked it sooner. Once AZNH filed the peremptory change request, later rulings by the challenged ALJ were without effect.

Why It Matters

This case is useful for Arizona HOA administrative disputes because it shows how the new peremptory ALJ-change language can operate in a pending OAH case. It also gives homeowners and associations a concrete example of special-action review when an administrative tribunal refuses to honor a claimed procedural right.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • AZNH Revocable Trust (Plaintiff)
    Trust party bringing the special action.
  • John F. Sullivan (Trustee/Counsel)
    AZNH Revocable Trust
    Trustee and counsel for the plaintiff trust.
  • Susan Sullivan (Trustee)
    AZNH Revocable Trust
    Trustee and real party in interest for the plaintiff trust.

Respondent Side

  • Arizona Department of Real Estate (Defendant/Agency)
    Agency defendant in the special-action caption.
  • Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (Defendant/Agency)
    Agency defendant in the special-action caption.
  • Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association (Defendant)
    Association party named in the special-action caption.
  • Tammy Eigenheer (Official-Capacity Defendant)
    Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
    OAH official named as an official-capacity defendant in the special-action caption.
  • Deanie Reh (Counsel)
    Arizona Attorney General’s Office
    Assistant Attorney General listed for ADRE.
  • Raya Gardner (Counsel)
    Arizona Attorney General’s Office
    Assistant Attorney General listed for ADRE.
  • Kara Karlson (Counsel)
    Arizona Attorney General’s Office
    Counsel listed for Abramsohn and Eigenheer.
  • Chad Gallacher (Counsel)
    Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association
    Counsel listed for the HOA.

Neutral Parties

  • Kay Abramsohn (Administrative Law Judge)
    Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
    Named administrative law judge in the special-action caption.
  • Scott A. Blaney (Judge)
    Superior Court judge who issued the special-action ruling.

What the record shows

The case turned on timing: A.R.S. 41-1092.07(A) became effective on September 26, 2025, and AZNH filed its peremptory-change request minutes later before the scheduled hearing.

The ALJ treated the request as a motion and denied it. The Superior Court later held that the Trust properly invoked the statutory right under the circumstances.

The uploaded folder contained the opening and briefing-stage Superior Court filings through December 29, 2025. The local OAH override set supplies the related March 25, 2026 under-advisement ruling, so this page includes the actual Superior Court outcome.

What Judge Blaney decided

1. The new ALJ-change statute applied procedurally

The ruling treated A.R.S. 41-1092.07(A) as a procedural statute that could be applied to the still-pending OAH matter.

2. Timing mattered

The statutory right became effective on September 26, 2025, and AZNH filed its request that same morning before the scheduled hearing.

3. Later ALJ orders were vacated

Orders entered by the challenged ALJ on or after September 26, 2025 were vacated because the peremptory-change request should have been honored.

4. Reassignment was required

The Superior Court ordered the administrative case reassigned to a different ALJ for the remaining OAH proceedings.

What this ruling does not decide

The special-action ruling does not decide the merits of the underlying electronic-ballot records dispute. It decides who may preside over the remaining administrative proceedings after the statutory peremptory-change request.

It also does not mean every disagreement with an ALJ becomes an immediate special action. The useful lesson is narrower: preserve the procedural right promptly, build a clear record of the request and denial, and identify why ordinary appeal would not give adequate relief.

For homeowners: how to use this procedural ruling

If an Arizona HOA dispute is already in ADRE/OAH and a procedural right becomes available, timing and documentation are everything. A homeowner should preserve the request in writing, identify the statute, keep the filing timestamp, and ask for a clear order if the request is denied.

The ruling is especially useful as a record-building example. AZNH did not ask the Superior Court to retry the records case. It isolated the procedural issue, tied it to A.R.S. 41-1092.07(A), and asked for reassignment before the challenged ALJ could continue issuing orders.

Suggested administrative-procedure workflow

  1. Identify the procedural right. Write down the exact statute or rule you are invoking, such as A.R.S. 41-1092.07(A).
  2. File before the contested event when possible. The cleaner record is a request filed before the hearing, ruling, or deadline the request affects.
  3. Keep proof of filing and service. Preserve the timestamp, email confirmation, portal receipt, and service list.
  4. Ask for an order, not informal silence. A written denial makes the issue easier to review than an oral or unexplained refusal.
  5. Separate procedure from merits. Do not bury the procedural issue inside every factual dispute about the HOA. Keep the review question focused.

Procedure checklist for ADRE/OAH disputes

Do this
  • Track effective dates of new procedural statutes or rule changes.
  • File requests in writing and cite the specific authority.
  • Preserve every OAH order entered after the disputed procedural request.
  • Keep the Superior Court request limited to the procedural relief needed.
Avoid this
  • Do not wait until after the hearing if the right can be invoked before it.
  • Do not rely on an oral objection without a filed document.
  • Do not mix the ALJ-change issue with every disagreement about evidence or discovery.
  • Do not assume reassignment decides the underlying HOA records claim.

Timeline highlights

DateEventWhy it mattered
2025-09-26A.R.S. 41-1092.07(A) became effective and AZNH requested a peremptory ALJ change.This created the timing issue that drove the special action.
2025-10-08AZNH filed the special-action complaint.The Superior Court case focused on whether OAH had to honor the peremptory-change request.
2025-12-21AZNH filed a motion for judgment on the case filings.The case moved toward decision on the written record.
2026-03-25Judge Blaney issued the under-advisement ruling.The court vacated later ALJ orders and required reassignment.

Frequently asked questions

Did this case decide who wins the electronic-ballot records dispute?

No. The ruling addressed the peremptory ALJ-change issue and reassignment, not the final merits of the underlying records petition.

Why is September 26, 2025 important?

That is the effective date of the revised A.R.S. 41-1092.07(A), and the request was filed that morning before the scheduled OAH hearing.

What practical lesson should homeowners take from it?

Preserve procedural rights immediately, file them clearly, keep proof of timing, and separate the procedural review issue from the broader HOA dispute.

Why are the source PDFs still included?

The page is designed as a source-document guide. The filing roadmap lets readers check the court record rather than relying on a summary alone.

Review note and disclaimer

Reviewed against the Superior Court special-action record, the March 25, 2026 under-advisement ruling, and the related OAH case-family documents. This page is educational information for Arizona HOA homeowners, associations, managers, and advocates. It is not legal advice for any specific dispute.

Related AZNH pages

Related OAH records page

Related OAH records page
The administrative election-records page explains the OAH case family and links the same special-action ruling in context.

AZNH executive-session voting page

AZNH executive-session voting page
Separate Court of Appeals page on open-meeting voting and executive-session agendas.

Companion 2026 special action

Companion 2026 special action
Separate pending special action about an alleged unauthorized HOA response in a later ADRE petition.

Filing roadmap and source PDFs

This roadmap uses the normalized filenames in the raw download folder. Duplicate exhibit references may point to the same PDF because some filings attach earlier administrative records as exhibits.

Step 1 2025-10-07

Certificate

Filed by: AZNH Revocable Trust

Plaintiff files a Certificate of Compulsory Arbitration stating the case is not subject to compulsory arbitration. Original upload name: e5ca0471-0d3f-4682-accb-3eb4ab2be23e.pdf.

Download source
2025-10-07_001_certificate-compulsory-arbitration.pdf
Step 2 2025-10-08

Complaint

Filed by: AZNH Revocable Trust

Plaintiff files a Complaint for Special Action challenging the refusal of the ALJ and OAH Director to allow a peremptory change of judge. Original upload name: 3744c55f-dd9b-4d2a-b71a-f180cd707bb6.pdf.

Download source
2025-10-08_002_complaint-special-action-peremptory-change-alj.pdf
Step 3 2025-10-08

Civil Cover Sheet

Filed by: Record filing

Initial filing document identifying parties and nature of action as a Special Action. Original upload name: 7895fb88-4e65-4c9f-b64a-7dcd80db3915.pdf.

Download source
2025-10-08_003_civil-cover-sheet.pdf
Step 4 2025-10-10

Order

Filed by: Court

Court assigns the Special Action matter to the Honorable Scott A. Blaney for determination. Original upload name: 4c292ba8-d62d-447b-a173-bf3fb971d3a5.pdf.

Download source
2025-10-10_004_order-assigning-judge-blaney.pdf
Step 5 2025-10-13

Order to Appear

Filed by: Court

Court orders parties to appear virtually on November 11, 2025, for an Order to Show Cause Return Hearing. Original upload name: b27c3cae-59ec-43e0-91bf-a3af20b1f066.pdf.

Download source
2025-10-13_005_order-to-appear-osc-return-hearing.pdf
Step 7 2025-10-15

Order

Filed by: Court

Court grants motion to reset Show Cause hearing to January 14, 2026, and extends service deadline to December 15, 2025. Original upload name: 76d7f189-793e-4436-a4ff-5c8dc4bcddf5.pdf.

Download source
2025-10-15_007_order-resetting-show-cause-hearing.pdf
Step 8 2025-11-12

Email / Waiver

Filed by: Sunland Springs HOA

HOA counsel sends signed Waiver of Service Form with modified language regarding the answer deadline. Original upload name: 8cff3679-258c-4460-95e4-aad459d2d589.pdf.

Download source
2025-11-12_008_email-waiver-service-hoa-counsel.pdf
Step 9 2025-12-08

Motion

Filed by: AZNH Revocable Trust

Plaintiff moves to transfer the Special Action and a related administrative appeal (LC2025-000397) to a single judge. Original upload name: 42137ec3-a54d-4626-ae9b-9ef82aef2ed8.pdf.

Download source
2025-12-08_009_motion-transfer-related-cases-single-judge.pdf
Step 10 2025-12-09

Motion to Dismiss

Filed by: Record filing

Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) moves for dismissal as a non-jural entity or for designation as a nominal party. Original upload name: 1b595f2c-e310-4881-950b-fc2d63baee2e.pdf.

Download source
2025-12-09_010_adre-motion-dismiss-nominal-party.pdf
Step 11 2025-12-10

Response

Filed by: OAH / judicial defendants

Judicial Defendants file a limited response stating they are prohibited from substantively defending the correctness of their rulings. Original upload name: c91b7dcc-6ebb-4328-8040-68bd25c94477.pdf.

Download source
2025-12-10_011_limited-response-judicial-defendants.pdf
Step 12 2025-12-11

Notice

Filed by: ADRE / Commissioner

ADRE notifies the Court that it takes no position on the motion to transfer cases to a single judge. Original upload name: 4be655dd-10d3-4914-9571-0df2ad42831c.pdf.

Download source
2025-12-11_012_adre-notice-no-position-transfer.pdf
Step 13 2025-12-15

Response

Filed by: AZNH Revocable Trust

Plaintiff opposes ADRE’s dismissal but agrees that the department functions as a nominal party in the proceedings. Original upload name: 790b15ea-c03c-4568-863e-ce250ec93981.pdf.

Download source
2025-12-15_013_response-adre-motion-dismiss.pdf
Step 14 2025-12-17

Notice of Dismissal / Motion

Filed by: AZNH Revocable Trust

Plaintiff files notice to voluntarily dismiss the HOA from the action, arguing they are no longer necessary for complete relief. Original upload name: 783b5ce4-2918-43ed-9a71-bb454265aa0f.pdf.

Download source
2025-12-17_014_notice-dismiss-hoa-motion.pdf
Step 15 2025-12-19

Notice

Filed by: AZNH Revocable Trust

Plaintiff files a notice to add a previously omitted exhibit (OAH Order Vacating Hearing) to its motion to dismiss the HOA. Original upload name: 20795574-fc53-4f34-b244-215b6529c54a.pdf.

Download source
2025-12-19_015_notice-add-omitted-exhibit.pdf
Step 16 2025-12-21

Motion for Judgment

Filed by: AZNH Revocable Trust

Plaintiff moves for judgment on the case filings, arguing the Judicial Defendants admitted allegations by failing to defend. Original upload name: 8d6745ab-b480-47d8-8084-c4f3dd8af6b5.pdf.

Download source
2025-12-21_016_motion-judgment-case-filings.pdf
Step 17 2025-12-22

Reply

Filed by: ADRE / Commissioner

ADRE replies in support of its motion to be dismissed, reiterating its status as a non-jural and nominal entity. Original upload name: 5a60b48c-daa7-41e3-9dbf-fa3ee62a42c6.pdf.

Download source
2025-12-22_017_adre-reply-support-dismissal.pdf
Step 18 2025-12-22

Response

Filed by: Sunland Springs HOA

The HOA objects to being dismissed if the dismissal allows Plaintiff to obtain requested relief without opposition. Original upload name: 659cf11a-e085-4585-b4f5-2370e83d27e8.pdf.

Download source
2025-12-22_018_hoa-response-objection-dismissal.pdf
Step 19 2025-12-23

Response

Filed by: AZNH Revocable Trust

The HOA opposes Plaintiff’s motion for judgment, arguing it is premature and that the answer deadline has not passed. Original upload name: c2b54ede-6d9f-466d-9793-5000f0c5bfcb.pdf.

Download source
2025-12-23_019_hoa-response-motion-judgment.pdf
Step 20 2025-12-26

Motion

Filed by: AZNH Revocable Trust

Plaintiff moves to add the Commissioner of the ADRE as a defendant in place of the department to ensure complete relief. Original upload name: 757b92f5-5d41-4332-b305-81be87726b59.pdf.

Download source
2025-12-26_020_motion-add-adre-commissioner-defendant.pdf
Step 21 2025-12-27

Reply

Filed by: AZNH Revocable Trust

Plaintiff replies to the HOA, arguing the HOA has presented no legal basis to remain a defendant in the Special Action. Original upload name: 16edac22-3839-4cd1-8491-5e62bbef9973.pdf.

Download source
2025-12-27_021_reply-hoa-opposition-dismissal.pdf
Step 22 2025-12-29

Reply

Filed by: AZNH Revocable Trust

Plaintiff argues the HOA failed to timely answer and that statutory changes for peremptory ALJ removal apply to the case. Original upload name: 50982a51-7fba-46b3-ae73-210bb07af9e5.pdf.

Download source
2025-12-29_022_reply-untimely-answer-statute-application.pdf
Step 23 2026-03-25

Under Advisement Ruling

Filed by: Record filing

Judge Scott A. Blaney grants special-action relief in part, vacates OAH orders issued on or after September 26, 2025, and orders reassignment to a different administrative law judge. Original upload name: m11714084.pdf.

Download source
2026-03-25_023_under-advisement-ruling-peremptory-alj-change.pdf

View all 29 source documents for this case ↓

Complete source-document index

This index contains 26 PDFs, 3 other source files from the reviewed public source packet. Byte-identical copies are listed once. Files are ordered by the date and sequence in the public filename, and party filings or research materials are labeled separately from court rulings.

Source 3 2025-10-08

Civil Cover Sheet

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2025-10-08_003_civil-cover-sheet.pdf
Source 7 2025-10-15

Order Resetting Show Cause Hearing

Type: Court order/minute entry

Order granting the motion to reset the show-cause hearing, vacating the original hearing, and extending the service deadline.

Download source file
2025-10-15_007_order-resetting-show-cause-hearing.pdf
Source 8 2025-11-12

Email Waiver Service HOA Counsel

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
2025-11-12_008_email-waiver-service-hoa-counsel.pdf
Source 13 2025-12-15

Response ADRE Motion 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
2025-12-15_013_response-adre-motion-dismiss.pdf
Source 14 2025-12-17

Notice Dismiss HOA 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
2025-12-17_014_notice-dismiss-hoa-motion.pdf
Source 15 2025-12-19

Notice Add Omitted Exhibit

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2025-12-19_015_notice-add-omitted-exhibit.pdf
Source 16 2025-12-21

Motion Judgment Case Filings

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
2025-12-21_016_motion-judgment-case-filings.pdf
Source 17 2025-12-22

ADRE Reply Support Dismissal

Type: Briefing paper

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

Download source file
2025-12-22_017_adre-reply-support-dismissal.pdf
Source 19 2025-12-22

Unlisted Response

Type: Briefing paper

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

Download source file
2025-12-22_018b_unlisted-response.pdf
Source 20 2025-12-23

HOA Response Motion 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
2025-12-23_019_hoa-response-motion-judgment.pdf
Source 24 2026-03-25

Under Advisement Ruling Peremptory ALJ Change

Type: Court order/minute entry

Under-advisement ruling granting special-action relief in part, vacating OAH orders issued on or after September 26, 2025, and ordering reassignment to a different ALJ.

Download source file
2026-03-25_023_under-advisement-ruling-peremptory-alj-change.pdf
Source 25 No docket date in filename

Original Source File Roadmap

Type: Source roadmap CSV

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

Download source file
original-source-file-roadmap.csv
Source 26 No docket date in filename

Source File Roadmap

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.csv
Source 27 No docket date in filename

AI Anatomy Of A Procedural Conflict

Type: AI-generated review PDF

AI-generated review material from the upload. Use it only for orientation; verify any legal claim against the linked court filings and orders.

Download source file
ai-anatomy-of-a-procedural-conflict.pdf
Source 28 No docket date in filename

AI Audio The Midnight Ambush Over HOA Ballots

Type: AI-generated media review asset

AI-generated review material from the upload. Use it only for orientation; verify any legal claim against the linked court filings and orders.

Download source file
ai-audio-the-midnight-ambush-over-hoa-ballots.m4a
Source 29 No docket date in filename

AI Legal Briefing AZNH V Abramsohn

Type: AI-generated review PDF

AI-generated review material from the upload. Use it only for orientation; verify any legal claim against the linked court filings and orders.

Download source file
ai-legal-briefing-aznh-v-abramsohn.pdf

Additional uploaded court PDFs

These court PDFs were present in the upload but were not separate rows in the AI-generated chronology. They are preserved in the raw source folder for completeness.

DateDownloadNote
2025-12-222025-12-22_018b_unlisted-response.pdfAdditional December 22, 2025 response PDF present in the upload but not listed in the chronology CSV.

Primary sources

← Back to Superior Court cases

AZNH Revocable Trust v. Nicolson, Eigenheer, and Sunland Springs: Corporate Authority and HOA Default Theory

Posted on by

Arizona HOA Elections | Corporate Authority | ADRE/OAH Special Action

This page organizes the pending Superior Court special-action record over whether Sunland Springs had a valid authorized response to an ADRE petition and whether the Commissioner had to treat the allegations as admitted.

Last updated May 16, 2026. Case: AZNH Revocable Trust v. Susan Nicolson, Tammy Eigenheer, and Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2026-008484; Hon. Adele Ponce.

Download complaint Download motion for judgment Watch video overview Filing roadmap Related AZNH pages Homeowner guide Board/counsel guide FAQ Primary sources

Current-status note: This page is published as a litigation record based on the source files available through 2026-04-29. 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 is an educational guide to the uploaded court record. AI-generated briefing and media files in the upload were reviewed only as orientation; the published analysis relies on court filings, orders, and agency records.

The posture in one sentence

The uploaded record presents a pending fight over whether an HOA response filed without an identified board vote can still defeat default treatment in an ADRE homeowner petition.

Case snapshot

Core issue

Whether an allegedly unauthorized HOA response to an ADRE petition can be treated as no response for default purposes.

Procedural posture

The record is pending-stage litigation through the July 23, 2026 oral argument, not a final merits ruling.

Next setting in file set

A June 19, 2026 order reset argument to July 23, 2026, when it was heard and taken under advisement.

Practical use

The record is useful for tracking board authorization, apparent authority, and ADRE/OAH default procedure arguments.

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 / citationCV2026-008484
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateFebruary 26, 2026
Judge / panelHon. Adele Ponce
PartiesAZNH brought a special action against the ADRE Commissioner, the OAH Interim Director, and Sunland Springs over a disputed HOA response in an administrative election-materials petition.
Governing law
Topics
Admin. AppealsBoard GovernanceProcedureElections
Outcome / holding

No final merits ruling appears in the uploaded file set. The motions to dismiss and the motion for judgment on the case filings were argued on July 23, 2026 and taken under advisement.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package38 PDFs, 4 other source files
Step-by-step docket roadmap36 roadmap entries
Video overviewAZNH Revocable Trust v. Susan Nicolson, Tammy Eigenheer, and Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Asso
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions4 questions
Curated download aliases5 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

CURRENT STATUS (August 2026): NOT FINAL / PENDING — this is one stage of an active, multi-track dispute; the controlling published appellate decision in this family is AZNH Revocable Trust v. Sunland Springs Village HOA, 1 CA-CV 25-0424 (2026). AZNH filed CV2026-008484 as a special action after a later ADRE/OAH election-materials petition involving Sunland Springs. The Trust argues that the HOA response was not authorized by the board and should be treated as no response, triggering default treatment under A.R.S. 32-2199.01(E). The Commissioner and the association dispute that theory, arguing that ADRE received a response and that internal corporate authority questions do not require the Commissioner to enter default. The record now runs through the July 23, 2026 oral argument, which the court took under advisement.

Key Issues & Findings

The pending briefing frames a conflict between corporate-governance authority and ADRE/OAH procedure. AZNH relies on nonprofit-corporation statutes and the HOA board-vote record to argue that an unauthorized response is legally no response. The Commissioner and the HOA argue that ADRE is a neutral conduit, that a filed response prevents default, and that any apparent-authority or internal-corporate dispute should not be resolved through mandatory administrative default.

Why It Matters

This case is worth tracking because it tests how far a homeowner can push corporate-authorization defects inside the Arizona HOA petition process. It also links board meeting records, attorney authority, ADRE default procedure, and OAH hearing authority in one pending Superior Court record.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • AZNH Revocable Trust (Plaintiff)
    Trust party bringing the special-action complaint.
  • John F. Sullivan (Trustee/Counsel)
    AZNH Revocable Trust
    Trustee and counsel for the plaintiff trust.
  • Susan Sullivan (Trustee)
    AZNH Revocable Trust
    Trustee and real party in interest for the plaintiff trust.

Respondent Side

  • Arizona Department of Real Estate (Agency/Defendant)
    Agency associated with the ADRE Commissioner defendant.
  • Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (Agency/Defendant)
    Agency associated with the OAH director defendant.
  • Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association (Defendant)
    Association party named in the special-action caption.
  • Tammy Eigenheer (Official-Capacity Defendant)
    Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
    OAH director named as an official-capacity defendant in the special-action caption.
  • Raya A. Gardner (Counsel)
    Arizona Attorney General’s Office
    Counsel for Susan Nicolson and ADRE.
  • Deanie Reh (Counsel)
    Arizona Attorney General’s Office
    Counsel for Susan Nicolson and ADRE.
  • Kara Marie Karlson (Counsel)
    Arizona Attorney General’s Office
    Counsel for Tammy Eigenheer.
  • Chad M. Gallacher (Counsel)
    Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association
    Counsel for Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association.
  • Brian Crowe (Board President)
    Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association
    Present at the March 27, 2026 status conference.

Neutral Parties

  • Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
    Named official-capacity defendant in the special-action caption.
  • Adele Ponce (Judge)
    Superior Court judge assigned to the special-action case.

What the record shows

AZNH ties its default theory to corporate-governance statutes and board meeting records, arguing that the association did not authorize the petition response or counsel involvement.

The Commissioner and Sunland Springs take the opposite view: ADRE received a response, the Commissioner is not required to investigate internal corporate authorization, and apparent authority can bind the corporation.

No final ruling is in the uploaded file set. The page therefore treats this as a pending litigation record and uses exact dates from the filings rather than implying an outcome.

Video overview of the case record

An AI-generated video overview of AZNH Revocable Trust v. Susan Nicolson, Tammy Eigenheer, and Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association (CV2026-008484). Pending special-action challenge over ADRE/OAH response authority; no final merits ruling in the file set. 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 AZNH Revocable Trust v. Susan Nicolson, Tammy Eigenheer, and Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked case records below.

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

Transcript: July 23, 2026 oral argument

Unofficial transcript. This is a machine-generated (AI) transcript of the July 23, 2026 oral argument, reproduced verbatim and uncorrected. It is not a certified transcript prepared by a court reporter and it is not part of the court’s official record. It contains recognizable speech-recognition errors, including garbled party names and legal terms, and speaker attribution may be imperfect. Verify any quotation against the official transcript or the audio before relying on it.

Oral argument was heard by the Hon. Adele Ponce on July 23, 2026 at 10:30 a.m., lasting approximately one hour. The court heard three motions together: AZNH’s motion for judgment on the case filings, Sunland Springs Village HOA’s motion to dismiss, and the ADRE Commissioner’s amended motion to dismiss. At the close of argument the court took the matter under advisement. No ruling was announced from the bench, and no merits ruling appears in the record as of this page’s review date.

Appearances

  • Hon. Adele Ponce — Maricopa County Superior Court
  • John Sullivan — counsel for plaintiff AZNH Revocable Trust
  • Katie Ray, Assistant Attorney General (with Raya Gardner) — for Commissioner Susan Nicolson, Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Kelly Gillilan-Gibson, Assistant Attorney General — for Tammy Eigenheer, Interim Director, Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Chad Gallagher — counsel for defendant Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association (board member Larry Newitt also present by phone)

What was argued

Counsel confirmed that settlement discussions between the Trust and the association had failed. Both sides told the court that the underlying ADRE/OAH matter proceeded to hearing on April 6, 2026 in the Trust’s absence and that the administrative law judge dismissed the petition.

AZNH argued that the association’s board never met or voted to authorize a response to the Trust’s petition, that corporate powers under the Nonprofit Corporations Act may not be delegated absent authority in the articles of incorporation, and that a response signed without board authorization is a nullity — so the Commissioner had no discretion and was required to enter a default decision under A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(E). AZNH further argued that no adequate remedy existed before the agency because the administrative law judge’s subject-matter jurisdiction does not reach the Commissioner’s statutory duty, making a special action the only avenue.

The Commissioner responded that the Department is a conduit rather than a fact-finding body: it received a petition and a facially valid response and forwarded both to the Office of Administrative Hearings, as the statute requires. She argued the fraud allegation has never been adjudicated anywhere, that the OAH could have taken evidence on the validity of the response, and that the Trust chose not to appear — a failure to exhaust administrative remedies that a special action should not be used to circumvent.

Sunland Springs argued that Rule 4 of the Rules of Procedure for Special Actions is not satisfied because the Department did exactly what it was required to do and had no discretion to do otherwise; that a timely response was filed and signed by the board president consistent with the association’s long-stated position; and that the board later voted to confirm that position. Counsel also pointed to a recently published Court of Appeals decision in a related AZNH matter as authority that a board may delegate certain actions to an officer. The OAH took no substantive position, relying on its limited response and noting it may not be a proper party under the special-action rules.

In rebuttal, AZNH disputed that the published appellate decision addressed corporate powers as opposed to delegation of duties, and reiterated that the association’s articles of incorporation do not permit delegation.

The summary above describes the parties’ arguments as made on the record. Nothing in it is a finding by the court.

Read the full transcript (149 speaker turns, approximately one hour)

Hon. Adele Ponce (00:00:01)
Association Arizona Department of Real Estate. Please state your appearances for the record beginning with the plaintiff.

John Sullivan — counsel for AZNH Revocable Trust (00:00:10)
Attorney John Sullivan for the NH Revocable Trust and its trustees.

Hon. Adele Ponce (00:00:16)
And for Ms. Nicholson?

Katie Ray, Assistant Attorney General — for Commissioner Nicolson (ADRE) (00:00:22)
Sorry, Katie Ray, Assistant Attorney General and also Raya Gardner is present for the commissioner in the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Hon. Adele Ponce (00:00:32)
Okay, thank you. And I meant to say Commissioner Nicholson. And for Tammy Igan here?

Kelly Gibson, Assistant Attorney General — for the OAH (Eigenheer) (00:00:39)
Yes, Your Honor. Kelly Gibson from the Arizona Attorney General's office on her behalf.

Hon. Adele Ponce (00:00:47)
Thank you. And then for Sunland Springs?

Chad Gallagher — counsel for Sunland Springs Village HOA (00:00:50)
Good morning, Your Honor. Attorney Chad Gallagher on behalf of defendant Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association. Also on the phone with us is one of the board members, Larry Newitt.

Hon. Adele Ponce (00:01:01)
Okay, thank you. This is the time set for oral argument. There have been some motions filed, motion for judgment on the pleadings that was filed by the plaintiff, the motion to dismiss filed by Sunland Springs. And then there was also a motion to dismiss Commissioner Nicholson as a party. That motion was fully briefed, but just in the last couple of days there was an amended motion to dismiss that was also filed. And so before we begin, I wanted to ask if the parties have had a chance to confer about the issues in the case and reached any kind of resolution on any of the issues before the court today. And so my question right now, just so it's really clear, is about just the general state of the litigation and whether there have been any agreements reached. I'm not looking right now for advocacy or to get into all the details of the arguments.

Hon. Adele Ponce (00:02:05)
We're going to get to that kind of in a minute. I just want to see sort of the lay of the land and where things stand. And I'll go ahead and hear from Mr. Sullivan first.

John Sullivan — counsel for AZNH Revocable Trust (00:02:16)
Judge, there were discussions between us and the HOA about settling all matters, but those were unsuccessful. So nothing's been resolved, Judge.

Hon. Adele Ponce (00:02:26)
Okay. And Mr. Sullivan, the status of any action currently before the Arizona Department of Real Estate?

John Sullivan — counsel for AZNH Revocable Trust (00:02:39)
I'm not sure what you're asking, Judge.

Hon. Adele Ponce (00:02:42)
Okay. Is the matter there stayed currently? I think the last time we were together there had been… I just, what is the state of the litigation?

John Sullivan — counsel for AZNH Revocable Trust (00:02:56)
Judge, that matter, the ALJ, the administrative law judge conducted a hearing in the absence of the trust and issued a decision and the decision was that the matter was dismissed.

Hon. Adele Ponce (00:03:10)
Okay. And so the matter has been dismissed?

John Sullivan — counsel for AZNH Revocable Trust (00:03:16)
Well, according to the ALJ.

Hon. Adele Ponce (00:03:21)
Okay. All right. I'll go ahead and hear from Mr. Gallagher first. Any addition to that or any updates from your perspective?

Chad Gallagher — counsel for Sunland Springs Village HOA (00:03:37)
Mr. Sullivan's statements were correct. There were extensive discussions attempting to reach a resolution, but ultimately they failed. And so nothing has been recall. With respect to the underlying matter, it did proceed. As I represented to the court, I was willing to stipulate to continue that hearing and from that in writing to Mr. Sullivan right after that March hearing. So Mr. Sullivan was not willing to stipulate with me to continue the ALJ hearing. And so it did take place on April 6th.

Hon. Adele Ponce (00:04:21)
Okay. Thank you for that update. I'll go ahead and hear from… Ms. Ray, you're appearing today on behalf of Commissioner Nicholson and the Department of Real Estate. Or who's addressing the court today?

Katie Ray, Assistant Attorney General — for Commissioner Nicolson (ADRE) (00:04:37)
I would be the person addressing the court today. I'm sorry, Your Honor. I keep forgetting to turn my mic on.

Hon. Adele Ponce (00:04:44)
Oh no, that's all right. And so do you have anything to add at this time? Then if you can clarify with respect to the motions that have been filed, are we proceeding on the motion that's fully briefed? Are we sort of replacing that motion with your amended filing? If you can just kind of update the court on what your

Katie Ray, Assistant Attorney General — for Commissioner Nicolson (ADRE) (00:05:08)
Perspective

Katie Ray, Assistant Attorney General — for Commissioner Nicolson (ADRE) (00:05:08)
Is. I have to apologize to the court. So when I was reviewing the motion that had been filed previously, I realized that the exhibit A that we referenced in the motion had not been filed. And then in the process I went through the motion and though, well, if I'm going to amend the motion to include the exhibit A, I might as well make sure everything else is correct. So we made a couple of minor changes. I apologize for that. And then apparently our office filed the amended motion without the exhibit A and had to refile it again. So that's why you have all those filings. I'm really sorry about that, but the –

Hon. Adele Ponce (00:05:49)
No, that's all right. I did see the multiple filings and I wasn't sure what was going

Katie Ray, Assistant Attorney General — for Commissioner Nicolson (ADRE) (00:05:53)
On there, but I had looked at the most

Hon. Adele Ponce (00:05:54)
Recent

Katie Ray, Assistant Attorney General — for Commissioner Nicolson (ADRE) (00:05:56)
One. Well, basically we just messed up. And the amended motion to dismiss not substantively different than the original motion to dismiss other than we just included exhibit A and corrected a couple of citation errors and that's it. And so substantively it's exactly the same

Hon. Adele Ponce (00:06:18)
If that

Katie Ray, Assistant Attorney General — for Commissioner Nicolson (ADRE) (00:06:18)
Helps.

Hon. Adele Ponce (00:06:20)
All right. Thank you for that. And then I'll go ahead and hear from Ms. Jillian Gibson. Any updates from your perspective? And Your

Kelly Gibson, Assistant Attorney General — for the OAH (Eigenheer) (00:06:28)
Honor, Ms. Gibson is fine. I know I have a hyphenated name, but just Ms. Gibson is fine. Your Honor, we have nothing new from our limited response we filed. As the judicial officer, our position under referrals is that's inappropriate for us to make any type of argument. I would also add it's probably inappropriate for us to be named in the special action under the new rules of special action procedure.

Hon. Adele Ponce (00:06:53)
Okay. And then Mr. Sullivan, there has been the Arizona Department of Real Estate's filed an amended motion to dismiss that they say is not substantively different from what was initially filed, that it just added an exhibit that they had neglected to add and then corrected a few things. I haven't gone through and compared the two, but are you fine proceeding on the amended motion today?

John Sullivan — counsel for AZNH Revocable Trust (00:07:28)
Yes, Judge. There's nothing really substantively different from the first filing. It is what Ms. Ray represented it to be. So I'm a plaintiff in it.

Hon. Adele Ponce (00:07:38)
Okay. So there are three motions that have been filed there. There's a significant amount of overlap in the issues covered in those motions. And so my sense had been to hear from Mr. Sullivan first and he can address sort of all of the issues and I'll ask about kind of each filing so he can address each issue and then kind of go and hear from all of the parties if they have positions on any particular motions or not, or if they want to address the motions that are relevant for them. And then go back and hear from Mr. Sullivan one last time and then probably from the other part, from Mr. Gallagher and then from the Arizona Department of Real Estate one last time as well. And so that's the way that the court is intending to proceed. If someone has a suggestion for a different way to proceed that they think would be more efficient.

Hon. Adele Ponce (00:08:47)
I think when there are these multiple motions, it's just the other way to proceed would be to just start with one motion and then argue the separate motion and go through all of that. But I think there's just so much overlap in all of these that that wouldn't be a good use of time.

Hon. Adele Ponce (00:09:06)
Okay. And then if I can just ask, there are a lot of parties here. If you are not addressing the court, if you could just mute your line so we don't hear a background noise. It's not like speaking, but it is sort of air and other sounds. All right. Anything else to add as a procedural matter before we start?

John Sullivan — counsel for AZNH Revocable Trust (00:09:32)
Judge, this is Attorney Sullivan. I this morning sent a demonstrative to your judicial assistant to print and give to you because I'm going to reference it during my presentation to you. Did you receive that? It's exhibit five from the defendant HOA.

Hon. Adele Ponce (00:09:49)
I did receive it.

John Sullivan — counsel for AZNH Revocable Trust (00:09:50)
Oh, thank you.

Hon. Adele Ponce (00:09:52)
Okay. All right. And so we'll go ahead and start Mr. Sullivan. So right now, I do expect you to address all of the issues. You can start with your motion for judgment on the pleadings. If there's anything else that you want to add to address the motion to dismiss subsequent to that, then you can do that. And then you can then address the motion with respect to Commissioner Nicholson. We were set I believe for… How long are we set for today, Marisol?

Kelly Gibson, Assistant Attorney General — for the OAH (Eigenheer) (00:10:31)
90 minutes, Judge.

Hon. Adele Ponce (00:10:33)
Okay. And so you do have a significant amount of time, but there are other parties who need to address the court today. And so if you can sort of focus your comments and address the court for sort of no more than 10 minutes given that we need to hear rebuttals and all of that. So go ahead, Mr. Sullivan. Judge,

John Sullivan — counsel for AZNH Revocable Trust (00:10:55)
As I understand it, you'd like me to address all the issues at one time. Is that correct? That's

Hon. Adele Ponce (00:10:59)
Correct. All

John Sullivan — counsel for AZNH Revocable Trust (00:11:01)
Right. I don't think I can do that in 10 minutes, Judge, because there's so many… There's a shotgun approach to the defense here. There's a variety of issues to address. So I think I'm going to need more than 10 minutes.

Hon. Adele Ponce (00:11:14)
Okay. I'm giving you 10 minutes now. You can focus your comments. You're going to have an opportunity for rebuttal. And so I will hear from you again. I'm just asking you to focus your comments, please. All

John Sullivan — counsel for AZNH Revocable Trust (00:11:27)
Right, Judge. AZNA Travocal Trust owns a home in Summon Springs Village in Mesa. Summon Springs Village is an age restricted community of approximately 2,500 homes and 4,000 residents across 900 acres. The community contains extensive common use facilities, including auditoriums, multiple sport courts, two fitness centers, multiple activity rooms, multiple swimming pools, and is associated with a homeowner owned 27 hole golf course. The HOA is a nonprofit corporation and operates very much like a small municipality with a multimillion dollar budget funded by large assessments on homeowners. The developer managed and control the community from 1998 till February of 2020, at which point control was turned over to the homeowners and the first homeowner board of directors was elected. Following the transition, the board repeatedly failed to comply with the laws requiring that all election ballots be retained or stored for homeowner review, inspection and recount. That's ARS 331812 and ARS 103708.

John Sullivan — counsel for AZNH Revocable Trust (00:12:24)
The board president, Mr. Penman, and that's a pseudonym that I'm using, Judge, because there's no need to put his name on the record. He's not a party. Refused to discuss the issue and with no other option that led to litigation. The trust filed a petition with the commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, which complained about the failure to retain ballots. You're being asked today to decide whether the trust is entitled to a default decision from the commissioner pursuant to ARS section 32-2199. 01 E as in echo because the corporation failed to file a response. The statute states the failure of the respondent to submit an answer is 'deemed an admission of the allegations made in the petition and the commissioner shall issue a default decision.

John Sullivan — counsel for AZNH Revocable Trust (00:13:08)
Now the uncontroverted facts in this matter support a judgment on the case filings. As I told you, the trust submitted a petition to the commissioner alleging that Sundland Springs Village violated the Planned Communities Act. The commissioner has sent the petition to the corporation with instructions for the corporation to submit a response no later than December 31st of 2025. Per ARS Section 1033-02 whether the defendant matter is a complete, excuse me, is a corporate power. Per ARS Section 10-3801, all corporate powers are vested in the corporate board of directors. And per section 10-3801 and the corporation's articles of incorporation, the corporation's corporate powers cannot be delegated. Per ARS 10-3140, nonprofit corporations exercise corporate powers at a duly called meeting by a qualm majority vote of its directives. The corporation is currently under a court order requiring the board to conduct all voting and formal actions in open meetings.

John Sullivan — counsel for AZNH Revocable Trust (00:14:09)
Per ARS section 10-11601, a nonprofit corporation must keep written minutes of all board meetings and board actions. The corporation's records show that the board did not hold a meeting and took no action authorizing anyone to submit a response to the ADRA commissioner about the petition filed by AZNH Revocable Trust. Per ARS section 32-2199. 01E as in echo. As I said before, failure of the corporation to submit a response is deemed an admission of the allegations made in the petition and the commissioner shall issue a default decision. With knowledge that the corporation's board had not authorized anyone to submit a response, Mr. Penman, who is now a former member of the board, signed a false response and Attorney Gallagher delivered it to the commissioner. Per ARS section 32-21 point, excuse me, 2199. 01, a valid corporate response is jurisdictional. The commissioner may refer a petition to the Office of Administrative Hearings for a hearing only if the corporation exercises its powers to submit a response.

John Sullivan — counsel for AZNH Revocable Trust (00:15:14)
Because of the false response, the commissioner was duped into treating the response as one submitted by the corporation. And because she was duped, she had no actual authority to do anything other than issue a default decision under the statute that I've mentioned. Consequently, the commissioner failed to perform a duty required by law for which he has no discretion and proceeded without or an excessive legal authority. Therefore –

Hon. Adele Ponce (00:15:37)
Let me ask, Mr. Sullivan, did you file any sort of motion in that action sort of raising your concerns about the validity of the response?

John Sullivan — counsel for AZNH Revocable Trust (00:15:51)
There's no procedure for that act in the administrative hearing level, Judge. There's no rule of procedure that covers that.

Hon. Adele Ponce (00:16:00)
Did you raise your concerns about the answer with the board?

John Sullivan — counsel for AZNH Revocable Trust (00:16:11)
With the commissioner of the department?

Hon. Adele Ponce (00:16:12)
With the commissioner, yes.

John Sullivan — counsel for AZNH Revocable Trust (00:16:15)
No, not except through this lawsuit.

Hon. Adele Ponce (00:16:19)
When you say this lawsuit, you mean this special action? That's

John Sullivan — counsel for AZNH Revocable Trust (00:16:22)
Correct,

Hon. Adele Ponce (00:16:23)
Judge. Okay. And so when this answer was filed, you deemed the answer not appropriate and so you filed this special action.

John Sullivan — counsel for AZNH Revocable Trust (00:16:35)
Well, the answer was filed and I discovered after the answer was filed that the corporations had not authorized any response to the –

Hon. Adele Ponce (00:16:45)
I mean, and I understand that that's your perspective. And so I understand that, but I'm saying I'm just clarifying that you didn't take any additional steps before the commission to get any kind of reversal or to raise your concerns about the response.

John Sullivan — counsel for AZNH Revocable Trust (00:17:05)
Well, that's true, Judge. If that's because there's no avenue –

Hon. Adele Ponce (00:17:09)
I mean, I am asking. I'm not stating as a fact. I am asking your question.

John Sullivan — counsel for AZNH Revocable Trust (00:17:15)
Right, right. Yeah, but I just want to make it clear that there just isn't any avenue to do that.

Hon. Adele Ponce (00:17:21)
All right.

John Sullivan — counsel for AZNH Revocable Trust (00:17:22)
And then what I was saying, Judge, is that because of all these facts, the trust was denied its statutory right to a default decision under the statute 32-2199. 01E as an echo. Do you have another question, Judge?

Hon. Adele Ponce (00:17:38)
Not at the moment. All

John Sullivan — counsel for AZNH Revocable Trust (00:17:40)
Right. One of the leading defenses that the HOA is presenting, and they use two pages of their opposition to judgment on the pleadings, to try to convince the court that they didn't need to vote to defend the 2025 matter because they had previously voted to defend the 2024 matter. In making that argument, they didn't produce any records showing that the board voted to do that. I've examined the corporate records and found that there never was a board meeting where the board considered or acted upon the 2024 position. It appears again that Mr. Penman and Attorney Gallagher filed a response without corporate authority. And so it's my position that even that response is a illegal nullity. And then the HOA is trying to argue that the judgment in 2024 was favorable to them, but that judgment has basically been vacated. I'm going to quote from Campbell versus Superior Court, which is a 1972 case where the court said, "Where the statute gives the discretion and final determination to a law board or commission and makes such determination final and conclusive.

John Sullivan — counsel for AZNH Revocable Trust (00:18:59)
It has such conclusive effect only in the absence of an appeal to the Superior Court." And that matter was appealed to the Superior Court. One of the reasons it was appealed to the Superior Court is because after that hearing concluded, I found that the HOA had withheld material and relevant evidence. That matter went before Judge McKish on appeal. And as a result of that, Judge McKish remanded the matter to the Department of Real Estate for an evidentiary hearing. After the judge issued an order for an evidentiary hearing, the commissioner of the Department of Real Estate ordered a rehearing due to multiple legal errors, a denial of fair hearing and findings that were arbitrary, capricious and contrary to the evidence. So the original ALA decision at the moment has no legally operative effect. Now going back to exhibit five that I asked you about at the beginning, I'm –

Hon. Adele Ponce (00:19:55)
I want to make sure I understand what you're talking about right now. So when you say the original ALA decision has no operative effect, are you talking about the dismissal or are you talking about something different? No,

John Sullivan — counsel for AZNH Revocable Trust (00:20:08)
I'm talking about the 2024 matter, Judge, that the HOA has argued is controlling in some way over the 2025 matter. It has no legally operative effect, Judge.

Hon. Adele Ponce (00:20:22)
Okay. And the reason for that is what?

John Sullivan — counsel for AZNH Revocable Trust (00:20:28)
That matter was taken up on appeal. The Superior Court judge remanded the matter because evidence had been withheld by the association and then the commissioner also ordered a rehearing. And the difference between a rehearing and an evidentiary hearing is that with a rehearing under the rules, no new evidence or additional evidence may be introduced. And that's why it's important to recognize that the judge had ordered an evidentiary hearing

Hon. Adele Ponce (00:20:56)
For purposes. What is the status of that matter?

John Sullivan — counsel for AZNH Revocable Trust (00:21:00)
That matter is waiting on a special action judgment from Judge Blaney regarding the administrative law judge exceeding her authority. What happened in that case, Judge, when it was sent back, eventually I submitted a peremptory strike to remove the administrative law judge from the case. The administrative law judge did not comply with the peremptory strike. And Judge Blaney essentially the administrative law judge was wrong to do that and is sending the matter back for the hearing.

Hon. Adele Ponce (00:21:40)
All right. Go ahead and proceed, Mr. Sullivan. I

John Sullivan — counsel for AZNH Revocable Trust (00:21:44)
Just wanted to clarify one thing though. We still haven't got a judgment from Judge Blaney yet. We're waiting on it. Now I did mention exhibit five. If you have that, you'd like to look at that. One of the things I'd like to point out is that that exhibit five is not signed and it's not authenticated. Now, as I said earlier, pursuant to section 10-11601, a corporation is required to keep a written record of all board meetings and board actions. And if you look at that exhibit five, there is nothing in there, nothing at all that shows that the board ratified any of the acts of Mr. Penman or Attorney Gallagher on or about December 23rd, 2025 when Mr. Penman and Mr. Gallagher submitted to the Department of Real Estate Commissioner a response to the November 27th, 2025 petition filed by AZNH Revocable Trust. So that document, even if it had been signed, does not show that the board did anything to ratify the acts of the people that I mentioned.

John Sullivan — counsel for AZNH Revocable Trust (00:22:58)
And then Judge, in asking the court to allow a ratification, the HOA and Attorney Gallagher did not provide any supporting authority for that argument that ratification is somehow allowed. And so the only authority really to reference on that would be the restatement third of agency. And the restatement third, a ratification can't be made once another party's rights have crystallized and come intervene. And so one of the cases, there is no Arizona case that handles this issue or addresses this issue, Judge. So one case that does address the restatement under I think nearly identical circumstances, I think it's on all fours. It's Federal Election Commission versus NRA Policy Victory Fund, which is 513 US 88. That's a 1994 Supreme Court case. And in that case, an unauthorized agent filed a petition before the statutory deadline and the principal attempted to ratify the filing after the statutory period expired.

John Sullivan — counsel for AZNH Revocable Trust (00:24:16)
The Supreme Court applied the restatement and they said, "If an act to be effective in creating a right against another or to provide him of a right must be performed before a specific time. An affirmance not effective against the other unless made before such time. In a different context, we have recognized the rationale behind this rule. The intervening rights of third persons cannot be defeated by the ratification. In other words, it's essential that the party ratifying should be able not merely to do the act ratified at the time the act was done, but also at the time ratification was made. And the court went on to emphasize that allowing retroactive authorization of an untimely pleading would give the principle 'the unilateral power to extend the statutory period by days, weeks or is here even months. Impermissibly blurring a jurisdictional deadline. Now

John Sullivan — counsel for AZNH Revocable Trust (00:25:16)
The HOA has also argued that there's a state regulation, an Arizona regulation that would require the commissioner before issuing a notice of default to give the HOA 15 days to remove the default. That statute, which is R4-28-1304B as in Baker, is found among the regulations related to the licensing and regulation of real estate brokers and salespersons. The statute that applied here, ARS 32-2199. 01, in its own words, applies specifically to "dispute between an owner and a condominium association or a plant community association." Furthermore, there's state law judge that says, for instance, "If an agency rule conflicts with a statute, the rule must yield." And that's the Arizona State Board of Regents Extral Arizona State University versus Arizona State Personnel Board. And there's another case, Arizona Department of Economic Security versus Leonardo. The first case is a 1999 case out of the Supreme Court and the second case, the Leonardo case is a 2001 division one case.

John Sullivan — counsel for AZNH Revocable Trust (00:26:30)
And so the essence of that is that if ratification is going to take place, it has to take place before another person's rights have crystallized or come into effect. Now also the HOA has argued that because of the case of Miller versus Mason McDuffie, a 1987 Arizona case, that even though the president may not have had the authority to submit a response, that it nevertheless is effective under that case, under Miller versus Mason McDuffie. Now that case dealt with detrimental reliance and estoppel, which are contract matters. And what happened in that case was a bank employee who was doing loan originations told a commercial borrower that their loan had been approved and then the bank employee tried and kept the loan origination fee from the commercial borrower. When the bank discovered the fraud, the bank attempted to deny and withhold the loan. The borrower relied on the fake approval that they had to incur debts and other obligations.

John Sullivan — counsel for AZNH Revocable Trust (00:27:38)
And as a result, when they went to court, they prevailed in court because they relied upon, they were successful in relying upon detrimental alliance and estoppel. That case, the Miller versus Mason McDuffie Company has nothing to do with the case that we have here in this court judge. It's a contract case dealing with contract principles and there is no contract in place here, Judge. Now the association, excuse me, the trust has no equally plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law, which is part of what you were asking about before. If I had tried to do anything with the commissioner of real estate or the administrative law judge, there's no avenue for either one of those entities, those agencies to make a finding that the commissioner, even though she did so unknowingly, to act outside the scope of her ability or to fail to do something that she's required to do for which she has no discretion.

John Sullivan — counsel for AZNH Revocable Trust (00:28:42)
And so Judge, if you look at RPSA rule and procedure for special action two, it will tell you that special actions allow a party to obtain relief in a superior appellate court from a decision of a lower court or from a body officer or person. And then RPSA four spells out the grounds and among those grounds are failing to perform a duty required by law for which the body officer or person has no discretion for if the body officer or person has proceeded without an excessive jurisdiction or legal authority. And then RPSA five says that any person agreed by the action or inaction of body officer or person for the reasons set forth in rule four may file an original special action as a plaintiff. And so there's no requirement of exhausting administrative remedies. That would completely defeat the purpose of a special action because the body officer or person that's being challenged is the only other avenue that could possibly be available.

John Sullivan — counsel for AZNH Revocable Trust (00:29:50)
Under ARS section 41-1092.09 subsection A3, after an administrative hearing is withheld in an HOA dispute A party is not required to file a motion for rehearing or review of the decision in order to exhaust the party's administrative remedies. And then Judge, because the commissioner of Department of Real Estate lacked the actual authority to send the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings for a hearing, the administrative law judge had no authority to consider the matter that was put before her. And then more importantly, Judge, the administrative law judge's subject matter jurisdiction is strictly limited by section 32-2199 and that authority is limited to adjudicating and enforcing matters that arise under the Planned Communities Act or the community documents. And the state apparently is making an argument that the special action is new because the ALJ made a decision. But as I've said, the ALJ has no authority to dismiss a matter.

John Sullivan — counsel for AZNH Revocable Trust (00:31:04)
She just doesn't have any jurisdiction. But if she did, she also has no authority to dismiss a matter even if she had jurisdiction because under administrative code R2-19-117, if a party fails to appear at a hearing, the administrative law judge may proceed with the presentation of evidence of the appearing party or vacate the hearing and return the matter to the agency for any further action. In the hearing that was held in the 2025 matter, the ALJ did not receive any evidence. The administrative law judge just simply issued a decision. It was dismissed. But as I said, she doesn't have the authority to dismiss. But most importantly, Judge, now that we've reached this point under ARS 41-109208 subsection B, the matter is still not moot because the commissioner can be ordered under that statute to modify, accept or reject. And in this case, we're saying it should be rejected or modified to reject or modify the ALJ decision.

Hon. Adele Ponce (00:32:12)
Have you filed a special action or for review of the dismissal, Mr. Sullivan?

John Sullivan — counsel for AZNH Revocable Trust (00:32:20)
Well, that's what this case is about, Judge, because this is the only avenue I have. This is the only remedy I have. There is no other plain, adequate, and speedy remedy allowed. This is it. Now the state's also arguing that the commissioner and director are not proper defendants, but they are. If you look at rule of procedure special action number five, "The complaint in an original special action must name as a defendant the body officer or person whose decision or action is being challenged. It must also name as defendants all of the parties in whose absence the court cannot afford complete relief." The ADR commissioner is being challenged because although she didn't know it, she did not have the authority to send the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings for a hearing. And she was required to issue a default decision where the allegations of the complaint are deemed admitted.

John Sullivan — counsel for AZNH Revocable Trust (00:33:13)
And then with respect to the interim director of the Office Administrative Hearings, that interim director is being joined because that decision should be vacated for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction. And that pretty much sums up everything that I could do within the time you gave me,

Hon. Adele Ponce (00:33:31)
Judge. Okay. Did you have anything else, Mr. Simon?

John Sullivan — counsel for AZNH Revocable Trust (00:33:36)
Well, other than to tell you that what we're looking for relief in this case, but maybe you'd want to wait, but I can do that now if you like.

Hon. Adele Ponce (00:33:44)
No, I think if you can summarize it now, I think that would be helpful. Just go ahead and tell me.

John Sullivan — counsel for AZNH Revocable Trust (00:33:56)
Well, with respect to everything, Judge, you have the authority under rule 10 of the rules of procedure for special actions to order or prohibit specific action by any defendant. And so what we're looking for is an order declaring that the response signed by Mr. Penman and submitted to the commissioner on or about December 23rd, 2025 is a melody and of no effect. We're also looking for an order requiring the commissioner of the Department of Real Estate to recall a matter identified as their docket number 25H115REL, but we call it from the Office of Administrative Hearings. And we're looking for an order requiring the commissioner of the EDRE, the Department of Real Estate, to proceed with the matter as identified by the statute as provided in the statute, ARS 32-2199. 01E as in echo, which is where the commissioner is required to issue a default decision where the allegations of the petition are deemed admitted.

John Sullivan — counsel for AZNH Revocable Trust (00:34:56)
And then we're also asking for attorney's fees and we're looking for costs. And we're also asking you to grant any other further and additional relief deemed appropriate, Judge.

Hon. Adele Ponce (00:35:09)
Thank you, Mr. Sullivan. I'm going to save you for last, Mr. Gallagher. I'll go ahead and hear from Ms. Ray.

Kelly Gibson, Assistant Attorney General — for the OAH (Eigenheer) (00:35:25)
And

Hon. Adele Ponce (00:35:25)
Then Ms. Gardner, since you're not arguing, I'm going to go ahead and just ask you to turn your camera off.

Katie Ray, Assistant Attorney General — for Commissioner Nicolson (ADRE) (00:35:31)
I think her camera is off. Okay. May I proceed, Your Honor?

Kelly Gibson, Assistant Attorney General — for the OAH (Eigenheer) (00:35:37)
Yes.

Katie Ray, Assistant Attorney General — for Commissioner Nicolson (ADRE) (00:35:38)
So basically what Mr. Sullivan is arguing is that the HOA perpetrated a fraud on the Department of Real Estate and there's no adjudication of that. There's been no determination whether or not that's true. And that determination could have been made in the Office of Administrative Hearings. I know that Mr. Sullivan is saying, well, he doesn't have an avenue to do that, but that's just not correct. I mean, the Office of Administrative Hearings could have taken evidence on that, could have decided whether or not the response was adequate or authorized. All of that could have been decided by the Office of Administrative Hearings. And Mr. Sullivan knew that the case was set on April 6th. He knew that he'd asked for stay, he didn't get it. And he voluntarily chose not to show up. And then he files a special action. Well, actually he filed it beforehand, I think.

Katie Ray, Assistant Attorney General — for Commissioner Nicolson (ADRE) (00:36:42)
And he's just trying to jump the line, Your Honor. And I'm a bit frustrated because this is the fourth case that we've been involved in with Mr. Sullivan. And the department is not a party to these matters. The dispute is between the homeowner's association and Mr. Sullivan. We don't care really whether or not there was fraud. That's something that needs to be decided by a judge, not by the department. The department did exactly what it was supposed to do. It received a petition, it received a response and it sent both of them to the office of administrative hearings, which the case was set for hearing in March and then it was continued to April and Mr. Sullivan didn't show up, neither did his client. And the judge did exactly what she should have done, which is basically vacated the proceeding. And I would say that's a voluntary waiver of any issues that exist in this case.

Katie Ray, Assistant Attorney General — for Commissioner Nicolson (ADRE) (00:37:47)
And Mr. Sullivan has waived his arguments because he didn't make them in the lower adjudicatory body. And it is a case of him failing to exhaust this administrative remedy. If you use a special action to interrupt that process, and I would suggest that perhaps the reason the stay was not granted was just for that very reason, that it would have interrupted the normal process for these types of cases where they go to OA, they get decided if the decision is wrong or somebody takes issue with it, they appeal or maybe take a special action. But in this case, Mr. Sullivan didn't even bother with going through the process. He just ignored it. And so I have this frustration, Your Honor, because I feel like I don't really even understand why we're here. The department is not a party. The department doesn't have anything to do with this internal dispute between the HOA and Mr. Sullivan.

Katie Ray, Assistant Attorney General — for Commissioner Nicolson (ADRE) (00:38:55)
The department is merely a conduit and Gigs in the department and the commissioner did exactly what they were supposed to do. To ask this court to demand or order that the commissioner recall the matter from OA is not something that the commissioner has the power to do. That's just not allowed for. And to state that the commissioner must enter a default judgment also makes no sense to me, Your Honor, because we don't have any evidence in the department is not the body that makes these decisions. It's not a fact finding body. It doesn't adjudicate these matters. It merely forwards them to OAA to allow OAA to adjudicate these matters. And if you say, well, you must issue a default judgment because we have an allegation, which is not proved at this point. We have an allegation that the response was fraudulent. Well, first of all, and Mr. Sullivan admits, the department and the commissioner had absolutely no idea or no reason to know that there was some allegation of fraud or that it actually existed.

Katie Ray, Assistant Attorney General — for Commissioner Nicolson (ADRE) (00:40:11)
So he's asking the commissioner to enter a default judgment contrary to the department statutory authority, which is you get a petition, you get a response. They look like they're on their face. They look okay. You send them to OA and OA deals with it. And that's what we're dealing with here. We're dealing with a situation where this could easily have been handled in the office of the administrative hearings. If the decision was not something that Mr. Sullivan liked, he could have appealed it then, but instead he just allowed it to be vacated, to be dismissed. He doesn't show up. So I'm really strongly suggesting that he has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies in this case and is using the special action to circumvent that statutory process that is required. I really think that it's important that we say that the commissioner is not a proper defendant in this case.

Katie Ray, Assistant Attorney General — for Commissioner Nicolson (ADRE) (00:41:30)
She's not a party. She doesn't care about the substantive dispute. And I don't think these arguments weigh her nominal status because we're just saying jurisdictionally the department and the commissioner should not be here. We should not be involved in this matter. And that's really all I have to say, Your Honor, unless you have questions.

Hon. Adele Ponce (00:42:01)
No, not at this time, Ms. Ray. Ms. Gibson, did you have anything to add today? And your microphone's muted.

Kelly Gibson, Assistant Attorney General — for the OAH (Eigenheer) (00:42:16)
Sorry, Your Honor. We'll just rely on the pleadings that we filed, Your Honor.

Hon. Adele Ponce (00:42:21)
Okay. Thank you. Mr. Gallagher.

Chad Gallagher — counsel for Sunland Springs Village HOA (00:42:27)
Thank you, Your Honor. I would like to start also going back and looking at rule four special actions that provide a basis to bring a special action complaint. Rule four reads a special action may be brought only if a lower court or a body officer or person, and based on ARS 12-2001, that references a body officer person who is exercising a judicial capacity, failed to exercise discretion that they have a duty to exercise or fail to perform a duty required by law for which they have no discretion or proceeded or threatened to proceed without or an excess jurisdiction or legal authority. Those are the two subsections cited by Mr. Sullivan in his pleadings as the basis for bringing the special action. However, as Ms. Ray just indicated, the Department of Real Estate who is according to Mr. Sullivan, the judicial body that made the mistake, they did everything they were supposed to do and they didn't have discretion to do anything else.

Chad Gallagher — counsel for Sunland Springs Village HOA (00:43:49)
Yes, there was.

Chad Gallagher — counsel for Sunland Springs Village HOA (00:43:52)
The association filed a timely response. Mr. Sullivan has unilaterally claimed that it was improper. He had alleged that it was fraudulent. He dislikes or suspects that maybe the corporate formalities were not followed, but he cannot deny that a response was timely filed. It was signed by the board president. It's still the form that is provided by the Department of Real Estate that a condition has been finally up to check the box. What's your position? This is a position that the association had taken for over a year and a half in litigating the issue with Mr. Sullivan. The board president was well aware. The board has discussed it many, many times. And what is our position in this case with respect to the electronic voting electronically production? They discussed it many, many times. And the board president signed the response was filed on behalf of the association timely.

Chad Gallagher — counsel for Sunland Springs Village HOA (00:45:02)
With that file I heard Mr. Sullivan say the Department of Real Estate had no discretion and that's true. But the lack of discretion was to say, okay, we got a petition and a response therefore we sent it to the office of administrative hearings. There was no discretion to do anything else. And so because the Department of Real Estate got a petition and the response and then had no discretion to dig deeper like Attorney Ray mentioned to question on its face whether or not it was valid that they had to turn over to the Office of Administrative Hearings and that's what happened. And so there is no grounds for special actions in this case. There is no discretion or action that was performed by the judicial officer of the department real estate in this case that they had to do something and failed to do it.

Chad Gallagher — counsel for Sunland Springs Village HOA (00:46:06)
No, they did what they had to do. That is no ground under rule four for special actions for even bringing this matter. Now yes, we know that Mr. Sullivan disliked the process that was filed or the process that was followed, that filed a response, but fraud is not even fraud. And his complaint doesn't even allege sufficient allegations to support a claim for fraud against the association. One of the essential elements for fraud is falsely a statement.

Chad Gallagher — counsel for Sunland Springs Village HOA (00:46:46)
He may disagree with the corporate formalities, whether or not they're properly followed, but he cannot disagree with the fact that the response that was filed was truthful. It was accurate. And he should not have been surprised by that because for a year and a half, the association had been arguing the same thing that yes, we conducted a vote by electronic means and we preserved the tally, the record and all of it in the matter. And that's his allegation, his underlying allegation was that the association failed to retain and produce these records from the boat. The association has always maintained that the same position that no, that the electronic records that we kept are accurate. And so for the board president, well aware of the association's position to check the box and say it said no, we deny Mr. Sullivan's allegation, that was the truthful, accurate position of the association.

Chad Gallagher — counsel for Sunland Springs Village HOA (00:47:52)
And to the extent necessary, the board voted on it later to say, yes, this is a truthful position. This is the association's position. We actually truthfully disagreed with the allegations of this complaint, of his petition that was filed before the Department of Real Estate. That's what that exhibit five that Mr. Sullivan was talking about.

Chad Gallagher — counsel for Sunland Springs Village HOA (00:48:14)
A vote to say this really is our position. It's not fraudulent. It's not false. It accurately reflected the association's position. And so even the arguments about ratification or about agency, I cited the Miller case as an extreme example to say if Miller and the Department of Real Estate in these particular cases, they're the compatible parts. In the Miller case, Mr. Miller relied on a true fraud was perpetrated and ended up the court said no. Hey, you relied on it, you did what you were supposed to do based on what was represented to you. Even going that far where true fraud was perpetrated under the much more nothing that agreed has happened here. Actually, the board president signed the response. But even then, even to say it was that response was filed under the cover of darkness. The board didn't know. Somebody snuck in and it wasn't even the board president that signed it.

Chad Gallagher — counsel for Sunland Springs Village HOA (00:49:34)
Even in that case if the response was filed, the Department of Real Estate gets a response and it's entitled to rely on it to say, okay, next step is given to the office of administrative hearings. I don't really think we even need to get that detail because rule four just does not support this special action. And then the second we look at the allegations that Mr. It's all his own interpretation. It's all his own speculation. He thinks it was fraud. If he can't prove fraud, we will not be able to prove fraud because there is no falsity in that document that was filed that was the association for truthful response. And the Department of Real Estate is entitled to rely on that. So unless the court has any other questions, the association requests that this matter be dismissed. We believe it was improperly filed in the first instance and that should be awarded in favor of the association against Mr. Sullivan and the trust for the special action.

Hon. Adele Ponce (00:50:45)
What is your understanding of what avenues Mr. Sullivan had if he had questions or doubts about I think you called it just the process that led to the filing of the answer?

Chad Gallagher — counsel for Sunland Springs Village HOA (00:51:03)
I agree with the Department of Real Estate, Yo Honor. Attorney Ray. Motions are filed all the time before the Office of Administrative Hearings. Mr. Sullivan has even filed motions in other proceedings that we've had. In other department real estate proceedings that got submitted to the Office of Administrative Hearings. I don't know. I see no reason why the Office of Administrative Hearings could not have looked into this matter and made a determination as to the appropriateness of the response.

Hon. Adele Ponce (00:51:38)
All right. Thank you.

John Sullivan — counsel for AZNH Revocable Trust (00:51:44)
I'm sorry, Judge. I didn't hear you.

Hon. Adele Ponce (00:51:48)
I'll go ahead and hear from you again. Thank

John Sullivan — counsel for AZNH Revocable Trust (00:51:50)
You. Judge, you can probably bring it up on your computer right now, ARS 32-2199. That spells out the subject matter jurisdiction of the administrative law judge. And the statute that applies to the commission, which I'm saying that the commissioner didn't follow, is not within the subject matter jurisdiction of the administrative law judge. So the idea that I could go to the administrative law judge and get a ruling on a legal matter over which the administrative law judge has no subject matter jurisdiction is just a red herring, Judge. And I noticed that when Ms. Ray was making her presentation to you, she didn't cite any rule or statute that would allow me to bring the issue to the administrative law judge. And frankly, Judge, if you look at the statute that spells out the jurisdiction, the subject matter jurisdiction of the administrative law judge, it just isn't there.

John Sullivan — counsel for AZNH Revocable Trust (00:52:45)
It's limited to the Condominium Act and the condominium documents and it's limited to the Plant Communities Act and plant community documents. And it says that the Administrative Law Judge shall adjudicate complaints regarding and ensure compliance with those areas of the law. There's just nothing there that would give the Administrative Law Judge the authority to rule on section 32-2199. 01. And also Mr. Gallagher is continuing to argue that the board has –

Hon. Adele Ponce (00:53:26)
Just so I understand though, you're saying that the ALJ didn't have the authority to decide whether or not the procedures that had been followed to file the answer were proper and whether it had a proper answer before it?

John Sullivan — counsel for AZNH Revocable Trust (00:53:46)
That's part of it. But the other part is that Judge, the matter should never have been given to the administrative law judge. And that's because although the commissioner of the Department of Real Estate had been duped and didn't know that the response she had was not a response to the corporation, she still had a duty to issue the default decision. And the only reason she didn't is because she was duped. She thought she had an answer from the HOA and she did not. And this goes back to what I was going to say about Mr. Gallagher. He presents no evidence that the board exercised their corporate powers to issue a response of any kind to either one of the petitions, either the 2024 petition or the 2025 petition. But the 2025 petition is the on before you. And they have not controverted the fact from the documents that we presented, the records that we presented to the court, that the board never met and never authorized any response to the Department of Real Estate.

John Sullivan — counsel for AZNH Revocable Trust (00:54:56)
And that deadline under 32-21. 01 is a firm line. It's not flexible. If you don't file your answer, if the named respondent doesn't file their answer within the time period, the commissioner is required to issue a default decision. There's no discretion in it. And that didn't happen this time. And the only reason it didn't happen is because Mr. Penman and Attorney Gallagher presented a document to the commissioner making the commissioner believe that that was a response of the corporation when it was not. And that's the problem, Judge.

Hon. Adele Ponce (00:55:40)
All right. Did you have anything else to add, Mr. Sullivan? Not

Chad Gallagher — counsel for Sunland Springs Village HOA (00:55:44)
That I can think of, Judge.

Hon. Adele Ponce (00:55:47)
Okay. Do any of the other parties have anything else to ad?

Katie Ray, Assistant Attorney General — for Commissioner Nicolson (ADRE) (00:55:54)
Your Honor, I do have one thing I think I would like to add. And that is that a lot of this argument is based on facts that have never been established in a court of law, any kind of court. It's all of allegations. And so basically Mr. Sullivan is asking you to issue an order based on allegations that have not been proven, which could have been proven at the Office of Administrative Hearings. I don't agree that the Office of Administrative Hearings could not have determined this. They could have. They do that kind of thing all the time. They always look into the substantive arguments of the parties. So I don't agree that Mr. Sullivan could not have dealt with this in the lower court and he didn't. And ordering the department to do something based on allegations that there were fraud that have not been proven anywhere, it would be in my opinion, inappropriate.

Katie Ray, Assistant Attorney General — for Commissioner Nicolson (ADRE) (00:56:59)
Thank you, Your Honor.

Hon. Adele Ponce (00:57:00)
Thank you. Does anyone else have anything else to ad? Yes,

John Sullivan — counsel for AZNH Revocable Trust (00:57:04)
Judge. This is Attorney Sullivan. I'd like to respond to –

Hon. Adele Ponce (00:57:07)
Okay. Hold on. Hold on, Mr. Sullivan. I was actually addressing the other attorneys.

Chad Gallagher — counsel for Sunland Springs Village HOA (00:57:14)
Your Honor, I would like to actually… Just make one comment. Yes, go ahead,

Hon. Adele Ponce (00:57:19)
Mr. Gallagher.

Chad Gallagher — counsel for Sunland Springs Village HOA (00:57:20)
Thank you. Just make one comment quickly. I meant to mention this earlier. One of the things Mr. Sullivan said also during his oral argument, his presentation is that corporate towers cannot be delegated. But that is not accurate and that's not a correct state of the law. In fact, there is in another case involving Mr. Sullivan and the association that resulted in a published court of appeals decision just recently. The court of appeals actually referenced the association's ability to delegate to a board member. Mr. Sullivan has petitioned the Supreme Court for review of that issue, but currently the state of the law at least has expressed in the Southern Springs Village case, the ACNH Trust versus Southern Springs Village that was recently published that there is authority to delegate from a board to a board officer certain actions. So I just wanted to point that out that was an inaccuracy based on the crime state of the law.

Hon. Adele Ponce (00:58:31)
Okay. Thank you. And then Ms. Gibson, you had something.

Kelly Gibson, Assistant Attorney General — for the OAH (Eigenheer) (00:58:42)
Your Honor, I didn't. I was just going to say I had nothing to add.

Hon. Adele Ponce (00:58:45)
Okay, thank you. And Mr. Sullivan, go ahead and have the last word.

John Sullivan — counsel for AZNH Revocable Trust (00:58:50)
Yes, Judge. I'll start off with the very last thing that Mr. Attorney Gallagher told you. The case that's pending at the Arizona Supreme Court does not have anything to do with corporate powers. It does have to do with delegation of duties within the organization, but it doesn't have anything at all to do with corporate powers. The corporate powers are spelled out in the Nonprofit Corporations Act and they're spelled out in 10-3302. And that's what we're talking about is corporate powers. And corporate powers can only be exercised by the board of directors. Now there is one caveat to be clear. If the articles of incorporation for the corporation allow delegation, delegation can happen. But in this case, and I provided you with the articles of incorporation for the HOA, those articles of a corporation do not allow delegation. So the HOA as a corporation, its board of directors is solely vested with the corporate powers and they cannot delegate those powers.

John Sullivan — counsel for AZNH Revocable Trust (00:59:56)
They have to exercise those powers. And only the corporation can answer the petition that was filed. And the corporation did not answer the petition that was filed and they did not give Mr. Penman or Mr. Gallagher any authority to do that. They just absolutely had no authority to do that. They acted on their own. And once again, Ms. Ray says, again, even though I've already cited the limitations on the subject matter jurisdiction of the administrative law judge, she doesn't tell us by what rule or statute I'm supposed to seek some other form of review. My only avenue of review in this is by special action as I spelled out to you earlier, Judge. Thank

Hon. Adele Ponce (01:00:42)
You. Okay. Thank you. That concludes today's proceeding. The court is taking it under advisement. Thank you.

Chad Gallagher — counsel for Sunland Springs Village HOA (01:00:50)
Thank you, Your Honor.

Katie Ray, Assistant Attorney General — for Commissioner Nicolson (ADRE) (01:00:55)
Thank you, Your Honor. Yes.

Kelly Gibson, Assistant Attorney General — for the OAH (Eigenheer) (01:00:58)
Thank

Katie Ray, Assistant Attorney General — for Commissioner Nicolson (ADRE) (01:00:58)
You, Your Honor.

What this pending record is testing

1. Corporate authorization

AZNH argues the HOA response was not authorized by the board and therefore should not count as a response.

2. ADRE default procedure

The dispute asks whether an allegedly unauthorized response can trigger default treatment under the HOA petition process.

3. Agency role versus internal governance

The Commissioner and HOA argue that ADRE received a response and need not resolve internal corporate-authority disputes before moving the case forward.

4. No final merits ruling yet

Oral argument was held on July 23, 2026 and the court took the motions under advisement; no merits ruling has issued.

What this case does not yet decide

This page should be read as a pending-record guide, not as a final rule. The uploaded file set does not contain a final ruling on whether Sunland Springs defaulted, whether counsel lacked authority, or whether ADRE had to treat the response as void.

That limitation matters. The current value of the page is the way it organizes the filings, arguments, hearing settings, and source documents so readers can follow the pending dispute without confusing allegations with holdings.

For homeowners: preserving an authorization/default theory

A homeowner trying to raise an authorization defect should focus first on the record: board meeting notices, agendas, minutes, written consents, engagement letters, response filings, and correspondence showing who acted for the association and when.

The tighter the record, the easier it is to separate a corporate-governance argument from a general complaint about the association. This page gives readers a roadmap for the kind of filings and exhibits that matter when default, authority, and agency procedure collide.

Suggested record-building workflow

  1. Get the response document. Start with the actual ADRE/OAH response and identify who signed, filed, or authorized it.
  2. Request board authorization records. Look for minutes, written consents, resolutions, engagement letters, or emails showing board approval.
  3. Match dates carefully. Compare the response deadline, board-meeting dates, attorney-appearance dates, and any later ratification attempt.
  4. Keep allegations separate from proof. A missing authorization record is different from a court finding that no authority existed.
  5. Track pending rulings. Because this file set ends before final merits decision, later court orders should be added when available.

For boards, managers, and counsel: avoid the dispute

Do this
  • Document who is authorized to respond to ADRE/OAH petitions.
  • Make attorney engagement and litigation-response authority clear in minutes or written consents.
  • Preserve response-deadline communications and proof of filing.
  • Keep board authorization records accessible if authority is later challenged.
Avoid this
  • Do not assume a response filing will end all questions about authority.
  • Do not leave counsel or management authority undocumented when statutory deadlines are running.
  • Do not mix privileged legal advice with the nonprivileged fact of who authorized action.
  • Do not treat pending allegations as final rulings.

Timeline highlights

DateEventWhy it mattered
2026-02-26AZNH filed the verified complaint and special-action materials.The case opened with the default and corporate-authority theory.
2026-03-25Sunland Springs filed its motion to dismiss and AZNH filed a response.The briefing began framing whether the response could be treated as legally effective.
2026-04-06The underlying ADRE/OAH petition proceeded to hearing in the Trust’s absence and the administrative law judge dismissed it.Per both counsel on the record at the July 23, 2026 argument; central to the exhaustion dispute.
2026-04-21The Commissioner filed a motion to dismiss and response to the motion for judgment.The agency-position filing put the ADRE/OAH procedural view into the Superior Court record.
2026-04-27The court continued oral argument to June 26, 2026.The uploaded record remains pending-stage, so final outcome should not be inferred from the pleadings.
2026-06-19The court granted the parties’ stipulation and reset the June 26, 2026 oral argument to July 23, 2026 at 10:30 a.m. (filed June 22, 2026).Explains the gap between the April filings and the July hearing.
2026-07-23Oral argument was held before Hon. Adele Ponce on the two motions to dismiss and AZNH’s motion for judgment; the court took the matter under advisement.The motions are submitted and no merits ruling has issued.

Frequently asked questions

Is there a final ruling in this uploaded record?

No. Oral argument was held on July 23, 2026 and the court took the pending motions under advisement. No merits ruling has issued.

What is AZNH arguing?

AZNH argues that the HOA response was not properly authorized and should be treated as no response for ADRE default purposes.

What are the opposing arguments?

The Commissioner and HOA argue that ADRE received a response, that internal authority disputes do not require mandatory default, and that apparent authority can matter.

Why include the full filing roadmap?

The page lets readers distinguish filings, allegations, motions, and court settings instead of treating a pending complaint as a decided rule.

Review note and disclaimer

Reviewed against the uploaded Superior Court filings through July 23, 2026 — including the June 19, 2026 order continuing oral argument and an unofficial transcript of the July 23, 2026 argument — and the source-file roadmap. Because no final merits ruling appears in the file set, this page labels the dispute as pending and distinguishes allegations from holdings. It is educational information, not legal advice.

Related AZNH pages

Peremptory ALJ-change special action

Peremptory ALJ-change special action
The 2025 special action over A.R.S. 41-1092.07(A) and reassignment of the earlier OAH case.

Older OAH election-records page

Older OAH election-records page
The administrative election-records dispute that produced the earlier remand and ALJ reassignment fight.

AZNH executive-session voting page

AZNH executive-session voting page
Separate Court of Appeals page on open-meeting voting and executive-session agendas.

Filing roadmap and source PDFs

This roadmap uses the normalized filenames in the raw download folder. Duplicate exhibit references may point to the same PDF because some filings attach earlier administrative records as exhibits.

Step 2 2024-11-05

Administrative Law Judge Decision

Filed by: Underlying record exhibit

ALJ decision denying AZNH’s 2024 petition regarding document production related to the 2024 SSV HOA election. Original upload name: f71ea3cb-cb10-4cf5-ba65-b5c6d1113cb4.pdf.

Download source
2026-04-08_026_hoa-opposition-motion-judgment.pdf
Step 6 2025-12-19

Meeting Minutes

Filed by: Underlying record exhibit

Minutes and agenda for the SSV HOA Board of Directors meeting. Original upload name: b5fe6551-ea43-4f90-aa8f-e44a49f7ed40.pdf.

Download source
2026-03-22_015_motion-judgment-case-filings.pdf
Step 10 2026-02-26

Certificate of Compulsory Arbitration

Filed by: Record filing

Certificate certifying the case is not subject to compulsory arbitration. Original upload name: 1496a1b0-369b-493f-aaac-454ce78b414c.pdf.

Download source
2026-02-26_002_certificate-compulsory-arbitration.pdf
Step 11 2026-02-26

Motion for Order to Show Cause

Filed by: Court

Plaintiff’s request for the court to issue an order for defendants to show cause. Original upload name: 1faf0e37-6f19-4d76-aa4d-932319494b08.pdf.

Download source
2026-02-26_003_motion-order-show-cause.pdf
Step 12 2026-02-26

Order to Appear

Filed by: Court

Court order requiring defendants to appear on March 9, 2026. Original upload name: e3a1a9d0-c927-4b2a-a0b1-fab3c20f61f5.pdf.

Download source
2026-02-26_004_order-to-appear.pdf
Step 14 2026-03-04

Notice of Related Cases

Filed by: ADRE / Commissioner

ADRE’s notice listing other litigations between the parties. Original upload name: f90d2ef5-ca27-46bd-98bb-21d431152663.pdf.

Download source
2026-03-04_009_adre-notice-related-cases.pdf
Step 16 2026-03-06

Limited Response

Filed by: OAH / judicial defendants

Interim Director Eigenheer’s limited response stating judicial neutrality and non-participation. Original upload name: 4d5eb155-9fa2-45b4-8c29-460c63f6bb6c.pdf.

Download source
2026-03-06_011_limited-response-judicial-defendants.pdf
Step 18 2026-03-09

Minute Entry

Filed by: Court

Court record of the OSC Return Hearing; case continued to March 27 to allow for service. Original upload name: cd068156-f8df-4966-abe6-6e2e108e7625.pdf.

Download source
2026-03-09_013_minute-entry-osc-return-hearing.pdf
Step 19 2026-03-20

Declaration of Service

Filed by: ADRE / Commissioner

Proof of service on Susan Nicolson, Commissioner of ADRE. Original upload name: 9f81c7d4-9a0e-405f-8e91-75f977661c11.pdf.

Download source
2026-03-20_014_declaration-service-susan-nicolson.pdf
Step 20 2026-03-22

Motion for Judgment on the Case Filings

Filed by: AZNH Revocable Trust

Plaintiff’s motion requesting judgment based on HOA records showing no board vote for the response. Original upload name: b5fe6551-ea43-4f90-aa8f-e44a49f7ed40.pdf.

Download source
2026-03-22_015_motion-judgment-case-filings.pdf
Step 23 2026-03-25

Motion to Dismiss

Filed by: Sunland Springs HOA

SSV HOA’s motion to dismiss the special action complaint. Original upload name: 95d2fe0e-5e30-4524-b070-4c5d36421c67.pdf.

Download source
2026-03-25_022_hoa-motion-to-dismiss.pdf
Step 24 2026-03-25

Response to Motion to Dismiss

Filed by: AZNH Revocable Trust

Plaintiff’s opposition to the HOA’s motion to dismiss. Original upload name: bed2f745-17c8-47dc-b5cd-119eb03e6159.pdf.

Download source
2026-03-25_023_response-hoa-motion-to-dismiss.pdf
Step 25 2026-03-27

Minute Entry

Filed by: Court

Status conference record; stay denied; oral argument set for May 4, 2026. Original upload name: e11c133a-c8cd-4d78-92a3-e81abcc7ddae.pdf.

Download source
2026-03-27_024_minute-entry-status-conference.pdf
Step 27 2026-04-08

Response

Filed by: AZNH Revocable Trust

HOA’s opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the case filings. Original upload name: f71ea3cb-cb10-4cf5-ba65-b5c6d1113cb4.pdf.

Download source
2026-04-08_026_hoa-opposition-motion-judgment.pdf
Step 29 2026-04-13

Notice of Pinpoint Citation

Filed by: Sunland Springs HOA

HOA’s notice providing specific language from the Miller case regarding apparent authority. Original upload name: bf4cf23c-fa75-4649-9a7e-6fb8a2503b1b.pdf.

Download source
2026-04-13_028_notice-pinpoint-citation-miller.pdf
Step 30 2026-04-21

Motion to Dismiss and Response

Filed by: ADRE / Commissioner

Commissioner Nicolson’s motion to dismiss her as a defendant and response to the motion for judgment. Original upload name: 95ff7482-f6a4-4125-a96b-ebba36781498.pdf.

Download source
2026-04-21_029_commissioner-motion-dismiss-response-judgment.pdf
Step 31 2026-04-23

Notice of Substitution of Counsel

Filed by: Record filing

Notice substituting Kelly Gillilan-Gibson for Kara Karlson as counsel for Tammy Eigenheer. Original upload name: c531d9cb-1924-47d0-8e05-34bb9671ed04.pdf.

Download source
2026-04-23_030_notice-substitution-counsel-eigenheer.pdf
Step 32 2026-04-24

Stipulation to Continue

Filed by: Parties

Parties’ request to continue the May 4 oral argument to explore settlement. Original upload name: b0aef153-672f-47e7-ad73-3ee06c22c300.pdf.

Download source
2026-04-24_031_stipulation-continue-oral-argument.pdf
Step 33 2026-04-27

Order Granting Continuation

Filed by: Court

Court order resetting the May 4 oral argument to June 26, 2026. Original upload name: a95a22a8-28b3-41db-9315-6a37430ca367.pdf.

Download source
2026-04-27_032_order-granting-continuance.pdf
Step 34 2026-04-29

Response to Motion to Dismiss

Filed by: AZNH Revocable Trust

Plaintiff’s response to the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss. Original upload name: 72851100-a4fa-402c-b9bc-8d72bce44a59.pdf.

Download source
2026-04-29_033_response-commissioner-motion-dismiss.pdf
Step 36 2026-06-22

Order Granting Stipulation to Continue Oral Argument

Filed by: Court

Signed June 19, 2026 and filed June 22, 2026. Granted with modifications: the order continues the June 26, 2026 oral argument and resets argument on the association’s motion to dismiss and the plaintiff’s motion for judgment to July 23, 2026 at 10:30 a.m.

Download source
2026-06-22_035_order-granting-stipulation-continue-oral-argument.pdf

Complete uploaded source-document index

This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/aznh-revocable-trust-v-nicolson-eigenheer-sunland-springs-cv2026-008484/raw/: 38 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 3 2026-02-26

Motion Order Show Cause

Type: Court order/minute entry

Motion asking the court to issue an order to show cause on AZNH’s special-action and injunctive-relief request.

Download source file
2026-02-26_003_motion-order-show-cause.pdf
Source 4 2026-02-26

Order To Appear

Type: Court order/minute entry

Order to appear setting a show-cause return hearing on the special-action and injunctive-relief request.

Download source file
2026-02-26_004_order-to-appear.pdf
Source 5 2026-02-26

Civil Cover Sheet

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2026-02-26_005_civil-cover-sheet.pdf
Source 6 2026-02-26

Summons Susan Nicolson

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2026-02-26_006_summons-susan-nicolson.pdf
Source 7 2026-02-26

Summons Tammy Eigenheer

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2026-02-26_007_summons-tammy-eigenheer.pdf
Source 9 2026-03-04

ADRE Notice Related Cases

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2026-03-04_009_adre-notice-related-cases.pdf
Source 14 2026-03-20

Declaration Service Susan Nicolson

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
2026-03-20_014_declaration-service-susan-nicolson.pdf
Source 15 2026-03-22

Motion Judgment Case Filings

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
2026-03-22_015_motion-judgment-case-filings.pdf
Source 16 2026-03-23

Declaration Service Tammy Eigenheer

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
2026-03-23_016_declaration-service-tammy-eigenheer.pdf
Source 18 2026-03-23

Declaration Service Sunland Springs

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
2026-03-23_017_declaration-service-sunland-springs.pdf
Source 23 2026-03-25

HOA 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
2026-03-25_022_hoa-motion-to-dismiss.pdf
Source 24 2026-03-25

Response HOA 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
2026-03-25_023_response-hoa-motion-to-dismiss.pdf
Source 25 2026-03-27

Minute Entry Status Conference

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2026-03-27_024_minute-entry-status-conference.pdf
Source 27 2026-04-08

HOA Opposition Motion 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
2026-04-08_026_hoa-opposition-motion-judgment.pdf
Source 29 2026-04-13

Notice Pinpoint Citation Miller

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file
2026-04-13_028_notice-pinpoint-citation-miller.pdf
Source 32 2026-04-24

Stipulation Continue Oral Argument

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2026-04-24_031_stipulation-continue-oral-argument.pdf
Source 33 2026-04-27

Order Granting Continuance

Type: Court order/minute entry

Order granting the stipulated continuance and resetting oral argument on the motion to dismiss and motion for judgment on the case filings.

Download source file
2026-04-27_032_order-granting-continuance.pdf
Source 37 No docket date in filename

Original Source File Roadmap

Type: Source roadmap CSV

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

Download source file
original-source-file-roadmap.csv
Source 38 No docket date in filename

Source File Roadmap

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.csv
Source 39 No docket date in filename

AI Anatomy Of A Special Action

Type: AI-generated review PDF

AI-generated review material from the upload. Use it only for orientation; verify any legal claim against the linked court filings and orders.

Download source file
ai-anatomy-of-a-special-action.pdf
Source 40 No docket date in filename

AI Audio The Legal Phantom Of Mr Pen Mann

Type: AI-generated media review asset

AI-generated review material from the upload. Use it only for orientation; verify any legal claim against the linked court filings and orders.

Download source file
ai-audio-the-legal-phantom-of-mr-pen-mann.m4a
Source 41 No docket date in filename

AI Briefing Document AZNH V Nicolson

Type: AI-generated review PDF

AI-generated review material from the upload. Use it only for orientation; verify any legal claim against the linked court filings and orders.

Download source file
ai-briefing-document-aznh-v-nicolson.pdf
Source 42 No docket date in filename

AI Video Anatomy Of A Civil Lawsuit

Type: AI-generated media review asset

AI-generated review material from the upload. Use it only for orientation; verify any legal claim against the linked court filings and orders.

Download source file
ai-video-anatomy-of-a-civil-lawsuit.mp4

Additional uploaded court PDFs

These court PDFs were present in the upload but were not separate rows in the AI-generated chronology. They are preserved in the raw source folder for completeness.

DateDownloadNote
2026-02-262026-02-26_005_civil-cover-sheet.pdfCivil cover sheet filed with the complaint package.
2026-02-262026-02-26_006_summons-susan-nicolson.pdfSummons issued for Susan Nicolson.
2026-02-262026-02-26_007_summons-tammy-eigenheer.pdfSummons issued for Tammy Eigenheer.
2026-02-262026-02-26_008_summons-sunland-springs-village-hoa.pdfSummons issued for Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association.
2026-03-232026-03-23_016a_declaration-service-tammy-eigenheer-copy.pdfSecond uploaded copy of the Tammy Eigenheer declaration of service.
2026-03-232026-03-23_017_declaration-service-sunland-springs.pdfDeclaration of service for Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association.
2026-03-252026-03-25_019_declaration-service-susan-nicolson-scanned.pdfScanned declaration of service for Susan Nicolson.
2026-03-252026-03-25_020_declaration-service-tammy-eigenheer-scanned.pdfScanned declaration of service for Tammy Eigenheer.
2026-03-252026-03-25_021_declaration-service-sunland-springs-scanned.pdfScanned declaration of service for Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association.

Primary sources

← Back to Superior Court cases

Duffy v. Sunburst Farms East Mutual Water & Agricultural Co.: Arizona HOA Court Case Guide

Posted on by

Arizona Supreme Court | 124 Ariz. 413, 604 P.2d 1124 (1979)

When a recorded declaration expressly authorizes amendment or revocation by the specified vote of owners, Arizona courts will generally enforce that mechanism, and separate bylaws do not add requirements that the declaration itself does not impose.

Last updated July 6, 2026. Case: Duffy v. Sunburst Farms East Mutual Water & Agricultural Co.; 124 Ariz. 413, 604 P.2d 1124 (1979); Arizona Supreme Court.

Source-file index FAQ

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

Scope note: This page covers the public Arizona Supreme Court ruling or opinion in Duffy v. Sunburst Farms East Mutual Water & Agricultural Co.. The uploaded source-document index below is generated from the local raw source folder; AI-generated review materials are not treated as court authority. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

When a recorded declaration expressly authorizes amendment or revocation by the specified vote of owners, Arizona courts will generally enforce that mechanism, and separate bylaws do not add requirements that the declaration itself does not impose.

What the ruling says

Duffy is an important Arizona Supreme Court decision on how amendment clauses in recorded restrictions actually work. The dispute centered on whether subdivision restrictions could be changed or revoked by a vote of the lot owners under the amendment language in the declaration, and whether extra meeting procedures found elsewhere in association documents had to be layered onto that process. The court enforced the amendment framework written into the recorded restrictions themselves. It treated the declaration as controlling and did not let separate bylaws override the declaration’s stated amendment mechanism. The opinion is also widely cited for two broader propositions: courts read restrictive covenants by looking at both the words used and the surrounding circumstances, and changes to restrictions must be grounded in the recorded document rather than in later procedural improvisation. Arizona courts and HOA lawyers still cite Duffy whenever the validity of a covenant amendment process is at issue.

The court approached the recorded restrictions as the operative contract running with the land. Because the declaration itself spelled out how amendments could occur, that language controlled the analysis. The court would not rewrite the amendment clause by importing additional procedural conditions from other association documents unless the declaration itself required that result.

The opinion also read restrictive covenants in context, not by isolated words alone. That contextual approach later fed into Arizona’s broader covenant-interpretation cases and remains important in disputes about amendment power, owner voting rights, and the relationship between declarations and bylaws.

Duffy is still useful in modern HOA litigation whenever parties argue over whether an amendment was adopted under the right document and by the right vote. It reminds boards that the declaration usually sits at the top of the governing-document hierarchy for land-use restrictions.

For homeowners, Duffy cuts both ways. It can support enforcement of a clearly written amendment clause, but it also limits boards from inventing amendment authority or procedures that the declaration never gave them.

Subsequent treatment: The strict-construction-of-covenants rule relied on here was disapproved by name in Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553 (2006). To that extent, Duffy no longer states current Arizona law on the interpretation of restrictive covenants.

Legal hooks

FieldValue
Topic tagscc-and-rs, board-governance, elections

Complete source-document index

This index contains 0 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 1979-11-28

Cap Opinion

Type: Decision or judgment

Public court opinion text source used to build this case-file page and to supply NotebookLM with a substantive source.

Download source file
1979-11-28_001_cap-opinion.txt

FAQ

What did Duffy v. Sunburst Farms East Mutual Water & Agricultural Co. hold?

When a recorded declaration expressly authorizes amendment or revocation by the specified vote of owners, Arizona courts will generally enforce that mechanism, and separate bylaws do not add requirements that the declaration itself does not impose.

Why does this case matter for Arizona HOA disputes?

Duffy is still useful in modern HOA litigation whenever parties argue over whether an amendment was adopted under the right document and by the right vote. It reminds boards that the declaration usually sits at the top of the governing-document hierarchy for land-use restrictions. For homeowners, Duffy cuts both ways. It can support enforcement of a clearly written amendment clause, but it also limits boards from inventing amendment authority or procedures that the declaration never gave them.

Does this page include a NotebookLM video?

Not yet. This source-backed authority page was created first so the case can be evaluated for Stage-2 media generation without forcing a source-less docket-minute record through NotebookLM.

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 / citation124 Ariz. 413, 604 P.2d 1124 (1979)
Court / tribunalArizona Supreme Court
Decision / key dateNovember 28, 1979
PartiesSubdivision owners and a mutual association disputed the validity of an amendment to recorded restrictions.
Topics
CC&RsBoard GovernanceElections
Outcome / holding

When a recorded declaration expressly authorizes amendment or revocation by the specified vote of owners, Arizona courts will generally enforce that mechanism, and separate bylaws do not add requirements that the declaration itself does not impose.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package1 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 questions3 questions
Featured download links0 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Duffy is an important Arizona Supreme Court decision on how amendment clauses in recorded restrictions actually work. The dispute centered on whether subdivision restrictions could be changed or revoked by a vote of the lot owners under the amendment language in the declaration, and whether extra meeting procedures found elsewhere in association documents had to be layered onto that process. The court enforced the amendment framework written into the recorded restrictions themselves. It treated the declaration as controlling and did not let separate bylaws override the declaration's stated amendment mechanism. The opinion is also widely cited for two broader propositions: courts read restrictive covenants by looking at both the words used and the surrounding circumstances, and changes to restrictions must be grounded in the recorded document rather than in later procedural improvisation. Arizona courts and HOA lawyers still cite Duffy whenever the validity of a covenant amendment process is at issue.

Key Issues & Findings

The court approached the recorded restrictions as the operative contract running with the land. Because the declaration itself spelled out how amendments could occur, that language controlled the analysis. The court would not rewrite the amendment clause by importing additional procedural conditions from other association documents unless the declaration itself required that result.

The opinion also read restrictive covenants in context, not by isolated words alone. That contextual approach later fed into Arizona's broader covenant-interpretation cases and remains important in disputes about amendment power, owner voting rights, and the relationship between declarations and bylaws.

Why It Matters

Duffy is still useful in modern HOA litigation whenever parties argue over whether an amendment was adopted under the right document and by the right vote. It reminds boards that the declaration usually sits at the top of the governing-document hierarchy for land-use restrictions.

For homeowners, Duffy cuts both ways. It can support enforcement of a clearly written amendment clause, but it also limits boards from inventing amendment authority or procedures that the declaration never gave them.

Subsequent treatment: The strict-construction-of-covenants rule relied on here was disapproved by name in Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553 (2006). To that extent, Duffy no longer states current Arizona law on the interpretation of restrictive covenants.

← Back to Arizona Supreme Court cases

Related election workflow tool

Many HOA election disputes start with preventable workflow problems: unclear ballot language, separate-vote issues, quorum tracking, paper/online reconciliation, proxy handling, or incomplete records. HOABallot is a separate platform built to document the voting workflow from notice through certification.

Preview HOABallot election workflows