Palm Valley Community Assn v. McAlister: Service by Publication Vacated (LC2024-000143)

Service by Publication | Default Judgments | LC2024-000143

When Palm Valley Community Association sued homeowners and obtained a default judgment through service by publication in a newspaper, Judge Julie A. LaFave vacated the judgment under Ruffino, establishing that HOAs cannot bypass diligent efforts at personal service.

Last updated September 17, 2026. Case: Palm Valley Community Association v. Cynthia A. McAlister & Mark A. McAlister, Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2024-000143 (minute entries use LC2024-000143-001 DT); originating White Tank Justice Court No. CC2015-095536; Hon. Julie A. LaFave.

Scope note: This page covers Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2024-000143, an appeal from White Tank Justice Court. Palm Valley Community Association obtained a default judgment against homeowners Cynthia and Mark McAlister following service by publication. Represented by William Richardson, the homeowners appealed, challenging the lack of due diligence before resorting to newspaper notice. Following the Arizona Court of Appeals decision in Ruffino, Superior Court Judge Julie A. LaFave vacated the default judgment, holding that publication service requires diligent pursuit of all reasonably practicable notice, and remanded the matter to justice court. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

Vacated and remanded. An HOA cannot sustain a default judgment obtained through service by publication without demonstrating strict due diligence in exhausting all reasonably practicable means of providing actual notice under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.1 and Ruffino. Defective publication service voids the default judgment, requiring vacatur and remand.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Palm Valley Community Association (Plaintiff/Appellee)
    Arizona nonprofit corporation
    HOA plaintiff; obtained default judgment via service by publication; judgment vacated on appeal.
  • Trevor Ash (Counsel)
    Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.
    Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee Palm Valley Community Association.

Respondent Side

  • Cynthia A. McAlister (Defendant (underlying justice court case))
    Named defendant and judgment debtor in the White Tank Justice Court case; per the Superior Court's ruling she was not a party to the appeal, which was prosecuted by Mark A. McAlister.
  • Mark A. McAlister (Defendant/Appellant)
    Goodyear homeowner; sole appellant who challenged service by publication and obtained vacatur of the default judgment.
  • William Richardson (Counsel)
    Richardson & Richardson, P.C.
    Counsel for Defendants/Appellants Cynthia and Mark McAlister.

Neutral Parties

  • Hon. Julie A. LaFave (Judge)
    Maricopa County Superior Court
    Superior Court Judge who authored the record appeal rulings vacating default judgment under Ruffino.
  • White Tank Justice Court (Originating Court)
    Trial court (Case No. CC2015-095536) whose default judgment was vacated.

What happened

Palm Valley Community Association, through counsel Trevor Ash of Maxwell & Morgan, filed an assessment collection lawsuit in White Tank Justice Court against homeowners Cynthia and Mark McAlister.

Claiming inability to locate or serve the homeowners personally, the association published a summons in a newspaper and applied for default judgment, which the justice court granted.

Upon learning of the judgment, the McAlisters retained counsel William Richardson and appealed to Maricopa County Superior Court, asserting that the association failed to conduct a diligent search and that publication service was constitutionally deficient.

The appeal was assigned to Judge Julie A. LaFave. On May 14, 2024, she initially reversed the justice court and vacated the default judgment, but on reconsideration (June 21, 2024) she applied the 2015 version of Rule 4.1, affirmed the default judgment for the association, and declined to consider Ruffino. Mark A. McAlister then obtained a mandate from the Arizona Court of Appeals on his special action (issued December 24, 2024; remanded to the Superior Court February 6, 2025) directing the court to evaluate service under Ruffino. On May 27, 2025, applying Ruffino, Judge LaFave issued a ruling vacating the default judgment, finding that the association failed to meet the threshold for service by publication. On July 14, 2025, the court entered a final order remanding the case to White Tank Justice Court.

Video overview of the case record

An AI-generated video overview of Palm Valley Community Association v. Cynthia A. McAlister & Mark A. McAlister (Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2024-000143). Vacated and remanded. HOA default judgment vacated; service by publication requires strict due diligence under Ruffino. This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own records control.

Listen: audio deep dive on the case record

An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the case record in Palm Valley Community Association v. Cynthia A. McAlister & Mark A. McAlister. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked records below.

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

Procedural timeline

2015-05-28

Palm Valley Community Association files its complaint in White Tank Justice Court (No. CC2015-095536).

2015-11-04

Association serves by publication; notice published Nov 4, 11, 18 and 25, 2015.

2016-07-12

Justice court enters default judgment against Mark A. McAlister for $6,241.16.

2023-11-03

Mark A. McAlister moves to set aside the default judgment.

2023-12-18

Justice court denies the motion to set aside.

2024-12-24

Arizona Court of Appeals issues its mandate on McAlister's special action, directing the Superior Court to consider Ruffino (remanded Feb 6, 2025).

Complete source-document index

This index contains 8 PDFs from the reviewed public source packet. Byte-identical copies are listed once. Files are ordered by the date and sequence in the public filename, and party filings or research materials are labeled separately from court rulings.

FAQ

When is an HOA permitted to serve a homeowner by publication in a newspaper?

Under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 4.1(l) and the Court of Appeals holding in Ruffino, service by publication is an extraordinary remedy available only after a plaintiff demonstrates diligent, exhaustive efforts to locate and personally serve the defendant through all reasonably practicable means.

Why did Judge Julie A. LaFave vacate the default judgment in this case?

Judge LaFave held that the association failed to make the required showing of due diligence before publishing notice. Because the association did not exhaust reasonably practicable channels to provide actual notice to the homeowners, service by publication was invalid, rendering the resulting default judgment void.

What was the significance of the Ruffino appellate precedent?

The Arizona Court of Appeals in Ruffino clarified that courts must strictly scrutinize affidavits of due diligence before approving service by publication, ensuring that property owners are not deprived of property or subjected to money judgments without constitutionally sufficient notice.

Who represented the parties in this appeal?

Palm Valley Community Association was represented by Trevor Ash of Maxwell & Morgan P.C., while homeowners Cynthia and Mark McAlister were represented by William Richardson of Richardson & Richardson P.C.

What happened to the justice court collection lawsuit after the appeal?

On July 14, 2025, Judge LaFave entered a final appealable order remanding the lawsuit to White Tank Justice Court, restoring the homeowners’ right to answer the complaint and defend against the association’s assessment claims on the merits.

Case Dossier

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

Case Summary

Case ID / citationMaricopa County Superior Court No. LC2024-000143
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateMay 27, 2025
Judge / panelHon. Julie A. LaFave
PartiesPalm Valley Community Association (Appellee) v. Mark A. McAlister (Appellant); Cynthia A. McAlister (underlying justice court defendant, not a party to the appeal)
Governing law
  • A.R.S. § 12-124
  • A.R.S. § 22-261
  • Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.1(l)
Topics
ProcedureAssessmentsForeclosure
Outcome / holding

Vacated and remanded. An HOA cannot sustain a default judgment obtained through service by publication without demonstrating strict due diligence in exhausting all reasonably practicable means of providing actual notice under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.1 and Ruffino. Defective publication service voids the default judgment, requiring vacatur and remand.

Primary public sourceView hosted source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package8 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap11 roadmap entries
Video overviewPalm Valley Community Association v. Cynthia A. McAlister & Mark A. McAlister
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links2 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Palm Valley Community Association sued homeowners Cynthia and Mark McAlister in White Tank Justice Court for unpaid assessments and collection costs. After unsuccessful personal service attempts, the association published notice in a newspaper and secured a default judgment. Represented by William Richardson, Mark McAlister appealed to Maricopa County Superior Court, arguing that the association failed to exercise due diligence to ascertain his whereabouts before resorting to publication notice. Assigned to Judge Julie A. LaFave, the court reviewed the record in light of the Court of Appeals landmark decision in Ruffino regarding alternative service standards. On May 27, 2025, Judge LaFave issued a formal ruling vacating the justice court default judgment. The court held that publication service was defective because the association failed to demonstrate diligent pursuit of reasonably practicable channels for personal service. On July 14, 2025, the court entered a final order remanding the case to justice court for adjudication on the merits.

Key Issues & Findings

The Superior Court exercised appellate jurisdiction under A.R.S. §§ 12-124 and 22-261. Service of process is a fundamental prerequisite to personal jurisdiction and due process. Under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 4.1, service by publication is an exceptional procedure permitted only upon a showing of due diligence that the defendant cannot be served within the state by ordinary means.

Applying the Arizona Court of Appeals decision in Ruffino, Judge LaFave examined whether the association satisfied the due diligence standard. While due diligence does not require a plaintiff to pursue every conceivable channel of inquiry, it requires a thorough and systematic effort using all practical sources of information reasonably available. Examining the justice court record, the court determined that the association's investigation fell short of constitutional and procedural due diligence standards. Because the association failed to demonstrate that personal service was truly impracticable, service by publication was legally insufficient. Accordingly, the justice court lacked personal jurisdiction to enter default judgment, mandating that the judgment be vacated and the case remanded for proceedings on the merits.

Why It Matters

HOA collection firms frequently resort to service by publication when homeowners do not immediately answer the door for process servers, allowing associations to quickly obtain default judgments and proceed toward wage garnishment or lien foreclosure. This ruling confirms that Arizona courts enforce strict constitutional due diligence standards under Ruffino. Associations cannot take shortcuts with newspaper publication, and default judgments obtained through defective service will be vacated on appeal, protecting homeowners from having their property rights compromised without actual notice.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Velda Rose Estates v. Poggi: HOA Summary Judgment Reversed in Part (LC2014-000179)

Assessment Collection | Overturning Sheriff Sales | LC2014-000179

After an HOA obtained summary judgment and conducted a sheriff’s sale of a homeowner’s property over disputed dues, the owner appealed. Superior Court Commissioner Myra Harris reversed the summary judgment in part and remanded, after which the parties settled and stipulated to set aside the sheriff’s sale and dismiss with prejudice.

Last updated September 17, 2026. Case: Velda Rose Estates Home Owners Association v. Edith Poggi, Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2014-000179 (minute entries use LC2014-000179-001 DT); originating East Mesa Justice Court No. CC2012-132551; Comm. Myra Harris.

Scope note: This page covers Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2014-000179, an appeal from East Mesa Justice Court. Velda Rose Estates Home Owners Association sued Edith Poggi for delinquent assessments, obtained summary judgment, and executed a sheriff’s sale on her property. Represented by Kent Berk, Poggi appealed and argued that the HOA improperly assessed fees per unit rather than per lot, contrary to the CC&Rs.; Superior Court Commissioner Myra Harris issued a comprehensive 16-page ruling affirming in part and reversing in part the justice court’s judgment and remanding the case. Facing reversal and remand, the parties settled and filed a stipulation to vacate all prior judgments, set aside the sheriff’s sale, and dismiss the collection lawsuit with prejudice; the Superior Court took no action on the stipulation, holding it lacked jurisdiction after remand to the East Mesa Justice Court. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The Superior Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the justice court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the HOA, finding a triable issue of material fact regarding whether the HOA improperly calculated assessment debt on a per-unit basis rather than per-lot as the CC&Rs required, and remanded the case; the parties later settled and stipulated to set aside the resulting sheriff’s execution sale.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Velda Rose Estates Home Owners Association (Plaintiff/Appellee)
    Homeowners association in East Mesa that sued for assessments, obtained summary judgment, and initiated an execution sheriff sale.
  • Charles E. Maxwell (Counsel)
    Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.
    Counsel of record representing Velda Rose Estates Home Owners Association in trial and appellate proceedings.
  • Clint G. Goodman (Counsel)
    Vial Fotheringham, LLP
    Successor counsel who signed the final settlement stipulation setting aside the sheriff sale.

Respondent Side

  • Edith Poggi (Defendant/Appellant)
    Homeowner who successfully appealed, overturned summary judgment, and vacated the execution sheriff sale of her real property.
  • Kent S. Berk (Counsel)
    Berk & Moskowitz, P.C.
    Counsel of record representing homeowner Edith Poggi on appeal.

Neutral Parties

  • Comm. Myra Harris (Commissioner)
    Maricopa County Superior Court
    Superior Court Commissioner who stayed execution and issued the ruling affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding the case to the East Mesa Justice Court.

What happened

Velda Rose Estates Home Owners Association sued Edith Poggi in East Mesa Justice Court for unpaid assessments.

The HOA obtained summary judgment and executed a sheriff’s sale on Poggi’s home.

Poggi retained appellate counsel, secured emergency stays in Superior Court, and appealed the denial of Rule 60(c) relief.

Commissioner Myra Harris issued a 16-page ruling affirming in part and reversing in part the justice court’s judgment, setting aside the summary judgment over a disputed per-unit versus per-lot assessment calculation, and remanding to the East Mesa Justice Court.

HOA counsel moved for reconsideration regarding judicial findings, resulting in an amended nunc pro tunc order.

On October 17, 2014, the parties filed a stipulation to vacate all judgments and dismiss with prejudice, agreeing the sheriff’s sale should be set aside. On October 30, 2014, Commissioner Harris declined to act on the stipulation, ruling the Superior Court no longer had jurisdiction because the case had already been remanded to the East Mesa Justice Court.

Video overview of the case record

An AI-generated video overview of Velda Rose Estates Home Owners Association v. Edith Poggi (Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2014-000179). Superior court reversed HOA summary judgment; sheriff’s sale vacated and collection dismissed with prejudice. This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own records control.

Listen: audio deep dive on the case record

An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the case record in Velda Rose Estates Home Owners Association v. Edith Poggi. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked records below.

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

Procedural timeline

2012-07-09

Velda Rose Estates HOA files its collection Complaint (CC2012-132551) against Edith Poggi in East Mesa Justice Court.

2012-10-10

Poggi answers and files a counterclaim; the case is briefly transferred to Superior Court (CV2012-096070) before returning to the Justice Court.

2014-05-01

Superior Court enters emergency stay of sheriff's execution sale pending appeal (LC2014-000179).

2014-10-30

Superior Court declines to act on the parties' stipulation to vacate judgments and set aside the sheriff's sale, ruling it lacks jurisdiction after remand to the Justice Court.

Complete source-document index

This index contains 14 PDFs from the reviewed public source packet. Byte-identical copies are listed once. Files are ordered by the date and sequence in the public filename, and party filings or research materials are labeled separately from court rulings.

Source 2 2014-05-02

Minute Entry Emergency Stay

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Source 4 2014-05-06

Minute Entry Supersedeas Bond

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Source 7 2014-05-22

Minute Entry Record Receipt

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

FAQ

What led to the sheriff's sale in Velda Rose Estates v. Poggi?

Velda Rose Estates Home Owners Association, represented by Charles E. Maxwell of Maxwell & Morgan, sued homeowner Edith Poggi in East Mesa Justice Court for unpaid assessments. The HOA obtained summary judgment and proceeded to enforce the monetary judgment by executing a sheriff’s sale of her property.

Why did the homeowner appeal the judgment?

Represented by counsel Kent Berk of Berk & Moskowitz, Poggi appealed to Maricopa County Superior Court, arguing that the HOA had improperly assessed fees based on the number of units rather than the number of lots as the declaration required.

What did Commissioner Myra Harris rule?

Commissioner Harris issued a detailed 16-page ruling on June 10, 2014, affirming in part and reversing in part the justice court’s judgment and remanding the case. The court held that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the HOA assessed Poggi per unit rather than per lot as the CC&Rs required, and set aside the summary judgment on that basis; it rejected her separate claims, including that the CC&Rs were invalidly adopted and that she had not received the summary judgment motion. Because neither party prevailed, the court awarded no attorney fees.

What happened to the sheriff's execution sale?

Following the Superior Court’s reversal and remand, the parties reached a settlement and, on October 17, 2014, filed a stipulation to vacate all judgments, set aside the sheriff’s sale, and dismiss with prejudice. On October 30, 2014, the Superior Court took no action on that stipulation, holding it lacked jurisdiction because the case had already been remanded to the East Mesa Justice Court.

Why is this ruling significant for Arizona homeowners?

It serves as a powerful demonstration that HOA collection judgments and resulting execution sales can be challenged and overturned on appeal when based on defective notice, improper assessment math, or flawed CC&R enforcement.

Case Dossier

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

Case Summary

Case ID / citationMaricopa County Superior Court No. LC2014-000179
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateJune 10, 2014
Judge / panelComm. Myra Harris
PartiesVelda Rose Estates HOA (Appellee) v. Edith Poggi (Appellant)
Governing law
  • Ariz. R. Civ. P. 56
  • Ariz. R. Civ. P. 60(c)
  • A.R.S. § 12-1551 et seq.
Topics
AssessmentsForeclosureProcedure
Outcome / holding

The Superior Court reversed the justice court's summary judgment for the HOA in part and remanded, finding a triable issue of material fact regarding whether the HOA calculated assessment debt on a per-unit basis contrary to the CC&Rs; the parties then stipulated to vacate the judgments, set aside the resulting sheriff's execution sale, and dismiss with prejudice, but the Superior Court declined to act on the stipulation for lack of jurisdiction after the remand.

Primary public sourceView hosted source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package14 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap7 roadmap entries
Video overviewVelda Rose Estates Home Owners Association v. Edith Poggi
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links3 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Velda Rose Estates Home Owners Association, represented by Charles E. Maxwell of Maxwell & Morgan, initiated an assessment collection lawsuit against homeowner Edith Poggi in East Mesa Justice Court. The association obtained summary judgment and proceeded to execute a sheriff's sale on her real property. Poggi retained counsel Kent Berk and appealed to Maricopa County Superior Court (LC2014-000179), seeking an emergency stay of execution and moving to set aside the judgment. Poggi argued that the HOA's assessment calculations were flawed—that the HOA had billed assessments based on a 'per-unit' formula rather than 'per-lot' as the recorded CC&Rs required. Superior Court Commissioner Myra Harris entered emergency stay orders and issued a 16-page Record Appeal Ruling affirming in part and reversing in part the justice court's judgment and remanding the case. On October 17, 2014, the parties filed a stipulation—stating the matter had settled—to vacate all judgments, set aside the sheriff's sale, and dismiss the collection action with prejudice. On October 30, 2014, Commissioner Harris declined to act on the stipulation, holding the Superior Court no longer had jurisdiction after the remand to the East Mesa Justice Court.

Key Issues & Findings

Under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 56, summary judgment is inappropriate where genuine disputes of material fact exist or where the moving party fails to demonstrate entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Here, Poggi challenged the association's assessment calculations, contending that it had improperly inflated her purported balance by billing separate assessments per residential unit rather than per platted lot.

Commissioner Harris evaluated the recorded CC&Rs and found a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the association's per-unit billing formula departed from the per-lot basis the community documents required. Because the summary judgment rested on that disputed factual premise, the court set the summary judgment aside, affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding to the East Mesa Justice Court. After the ruling, the parties settled and, on October 17, 2014, filed a stipulation to vacate all judgments, set aside the execution sale, and dismiss with prejudice; on October 30, 2014, the Superior Court declined to act on the stipulation, holding it lacked jurisdiction after the remand.

Why It Matters

This case is an extraordinary example of an HOA using a small assessment dispute to obtain an execution sheriff's sale on an owner's home, only to have the entire enforcement action unravel on appeal. It highlights how aggressive collection tactics—such as manufacturing per-unit assessment formulas not supported by CC&Rs and pushing forward with execution sales on flawed judgments—can be unwound through appellate reversal and a resulting settlement.

← Back to Superior Court cases