Tag Archives: liens

Tatum Highlands Community Association v. Michael R Burns: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on by

HOA Judgment | CV2002-002028

The court granted judgment for Tatum Highlands against the named defendants.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Tatum Highlands Community Association v. Michael R Burns, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2002-002028.

Download ruling

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

Scope note: This page covers Tatum Highlands Community Association v. Michael R Burns (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2002-002028) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s collected minute entries through 2002-04-03; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: later filings, satisfaction history, appeals, and the formal written orders referenced by the minutes may not be included in these records. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The court granted judgment for Tatum Highlands against the named defendants.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Tatum Highlands Community Association (Plaintiff)
    Association party in the HOA-related dispute. Court party records list counsel as James Hazlewood.

Respondent Side

  • Michael R Burns (Defendant)
    Opposing homeowner or property-side party identified in the case caption.
  • Midland Credit Management INC (Defendant)
    Listed in the court party records as defendant.
  • Sheri Sprague Burns (Defendant)
    Listed in the court party records as defendant.

Neutral Parties

  • Hon. Toby Maureen Gerst (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.

What happened

The court granted judgment against Michael R. Burns and related defendants for Tatum Highlands in a one-entry record.

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

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

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Tatum Highlands Community Association v. Michael R Burns (CV2002-002028 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). Tatum Highlands obtained judgment in a one-entry record with no merits analysis. 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 Tatum Highlands Community Association v. Michael R Burns. 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

2002-04-03

IT IS ORDERED granting judgment against Defendants Michael R.

Download source
Judgment Entered

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 2002-04-03

Judgment Entered

Type: Decision or judgment

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

Download source file
2002-04-03_001_judgment-entered.pdf

FAQ

What did the superior court decide?

The court granted judgment for Tatum Highlands against the named defendants.

Is this superior-court ruling precedent?

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

Does the page summarize addresses or unit numbers?

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

Who was the association party?

The association party identified in the collected court records was Tatum Highlands Community Association.

Does this replace legal advice?

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

Case Dossier

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

Case Summary

Case ID / citationCV2002-002028 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateApril 3, 2002
Judge / panelHon. Toby Maureen Gerst
PartiesTatum Highlands Community Association (Plaintiff) v. Michael R Burns (Defendant)
Topics
AssessmentsLiensProcedure
Outcome / holding

After a civil default hearing, the superior court granted judgment against Michael R. Burns, Sheri Sprague-Burns, and Midland Credit Management, Inc. in accordance with the formal written default judgment entered April 3, 2002.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package1 PDF
Step-by-step docket roadmap1 roadmap entry
Video overviewTatum Highlands Community Association v. Michael R Burns
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

The court granted judgment against Michael R. Burns and related defendants for Tatum Highlands in a one-entry record.

Key Issues & Findings

The court granted judgment against Michael R. Burns and related defendants for Tatum Highlands in a one-entry record.

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

Why It Matters

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

← Back to Superior Court cases

Suntrails III Homeowners Association v. John Ward: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on by

HOA Judgment | CV2021-094264

The court approved and settled the formal written judgment for Suntrails III.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Suntrails III Homeowners Association v. John Ward, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2021-094264.

Download ruling

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

Scope note: This page covers Suntrails III Homeowners Association v. John Ward (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2021-094264) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s collected minute entries through 2021-12-01; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: later filings, satisfaction history, appeals, and the formal written orders referenced by the minutes may not be included in these records. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The court approved and settled the formal written judgment for Suntrails III.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Suntrails III Homeowners Association (Plaintiff)
    Listed in the court party records as plaintiff. Court party records list counsel as Kristopher Amundsen.

Respondent Side

  • John Ward (Defendant)
    Opposing homeowner or property-side party identified in the case caption.

Neutral Parties

  • Hon. Rodrick Coffey (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.

What happened

The court approved and settled a formal written judgment for Suntrails III Homeowners Association after placing the case on a dismissal calendar unless judgment or dismissal papers were filed.

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

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

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Suntrails III Homeowners Association v. John Ward (CV2021-094264 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). Suntrails III obtained a formal judgment in a thin minute-entry record. 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 Suntrails III Homeowners Association v. John Ward. 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

2021-09-22

IT IS ORDERED continuing the Telephonic Order to Show Cause Return Hearing to October 22, 2021 at 4:30 p.

Download source
Minute Entry
2021-10-22

IT IS ORDERED placing this case on the Court’s Dismissal calendar for dismissal, without further notice, on February 20, 2022.

Download source
Minute Entry
2021-12-01

IT IS ORDERED approving and settling the formal written judgment signed by the Court on November 29, 2021 and filed [entered] by the clerk on December 1, 2021.

Download source
Judgment Entered

View all 3 source documents for this case ↓

Complete source-document index

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

Source 1 2021-09-22

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2021-09-22_001_minute-entry.pdf
Source 2 2021-10-22

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2021-10-22_002_minute-entry.pdf
Source 3 2021-12-01

Judgment Entered

Type: Decision or judgment

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

Download source file
2021-12-01_003_judgment-entered.pdf

FAQ

What did the superior court decide?

The court approved and settled the formal written judgment for Suntrails III.

Is this superior-court ruling precedent?

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

Does the page summarize addresses or unit numbers?

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

Who was the association party?

The association party identified in the collected court records was Suntrails III Homeowners Association.

Does this replace legal advice?

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

Case Dossier

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

Case Summary

Case ID / citationCV2021-094264 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateDecember 1, 2021
Judge / panelHon. Rodrick Coffey
PartiesSuntrails III Homeowners Association (Plaintiff) v. John Ward (Defendant)
Topics
AssessmentsLiensProcedure
Outcome / holding

The superior court approved and settled the formal written judgment for Suntrails III Homeowners Association, signed November 29, 2021 and entered December 1, 2021. The minute entry contains no substantive analysis of the assessment, lien, or foreclosure merits.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package3 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap3 roadmap entries
Video overviewSuntrails III Homeowners Association v. John Ward
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

The court approved and settled a formal written judgment for Suntrails III Homeowners Association after placing the case on a dismissal calendar unless judgment or dismissal papers were filed.

Key Issues & Findings

The court approved and settled a formal written judgment for Suntrails III Homeowners Association after placing the case on a dismissal calendar unless judgment or dismissal papers were filed.

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

Why It Matters

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

← Back to Superior Court cases

Russell Ranch Homeowners Association v. Gregory T Heard: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on by

HOA Foreclosure Judgment | CV2025-010660

The court approved the formal foreclosure judgment and order of sale for Russell Ranch.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Russell Ranch Homeowners Association v. Gregory T Heard, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2025-010660.

Download ruling

Scope note: This page covers Russell Ranch Homeowners Association v. Gregory T Heard (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2025-010660) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s collected minute entries through 2025-08-19; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: later filings, satisfaction history, appeals, and the formal written orders referenced by the minutes may not be included in these records. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The court approved the formal foreclosure judgment and order of sale for Russell Ranch.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Russell Ranch Homeowners Association (Plaintiff)
    Association party in the HOA-related dispute. Court party records list counsel as Charlene Cruz.

Respondent Side

  • Gregory T Heard (Defendant)
    Opposing homeowner or property-side party identified in the case caption.

Neutral Parties

  • Hon. Christopher Whitten (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.
  • Hon. Jason Easterday (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.

What happened

The court approved and settled a formal written Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure and Order of Sale for Russell Ranch Homeowners Association.

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

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

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Russell Ranch Homeowners Association v. Gregory T Heard (CV2025-010660 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). Russell Ranch obtained a foreclosure judgment and order of sale after default proceedings. This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own ruling controls.

Listen: audio deep dive on the ruling

An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the court’s reasoning and disposition in Russell Ranch Homeowners Association v. Gregory T Heard. 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

2025-05-19

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

Download source
Default Judgment
2025-08-12

IT IS ORDERED that Counsel for Plaintiff to submit a proposed form of order no later than August 15, 2025.

Download source
Default Judgment
2025-08-19

IT IS ORDERED approving and settling the formal written Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure and Order of Sale signed by the Court on August 14, 2025 and filed (entered) by the Clerk on August 19, 2025.

Download source
Judgment Entered

View all 3 source documents for this case ↓

Complete source-document index

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

Source 1 2025-05-19

Default Judgment

Type: Decision or judgment

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

Download source file
2025-05-19_001_default-judgment.pdf
Source 2 2025-08-12

Default Judgment

Type: Decision or judgment

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

Download source file
2025-08-12_002_default-judgment.pdf
Source 3 2025-08-19

Judgment Entered

Type: Decision or judgment

Judgment-entry minute entering or approving the formal written Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure and Order of Sale.

Download source file
2025-08-19_003_judgment-entered.pdf

FAQ

What did the superior court decide?

The court approved the formal foreclosure judgment and order of sale for Russell Ranch.

Is this superior-court ruling precedent?

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

Does the page summarize addresses or unit numbers?

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

Who was the association party?

The association party identified in the collected court records was Russell Ranch Homeowners Association.

Does this replace legal advice?

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

Case Dossier

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

Case Summary

Case ID / citationCV2025-010660 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateAugust 19, 2025
Judge / panelHon. Christopher Whitten, Hon. Jason Easterday
PartiesRussell Ranch Homeowners Association (Plaintiff) v. Gregory T Heard (Defendant)
Topics
AssessmentsLiensProcedureForeclosure
Outcome / holding

The court approved the formal foreclosure judgment and order of sale for Russell Ranch.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package3 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap3 roadmap entries
Video overviewRussell Ranch Homeowners Association v. Gregory T Heard
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

The court approved and settled a formal written Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure and Order of Sale for Russell Ranch Homeowners Association.

Key Issues & Findings

The court approved and settled a formal written Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure and Order of Sale for Russell Ranch Homeowners Association.

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

Why It Matters

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

← Back to Superior Court cases

Paloma Paseo Homeowners Association v. David Falk: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on by

HOA Fees on Appeal | A.R.S. § 33-1807(H) | LC2018-000421

The superior court vacated a later fee award to Paloma Paseo because the association did not timely include or amend those fees into the final judgment.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Paloma Paseo Homeowners Association v. David Falk, Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2018-000421.

Download ruling

Current-status note: This page is published as a litigation record based on the source files available through 2019-01-14. Later filings, appeals, mandates, settlements, or dismissal orders may change the posture; the linked court records control.

Scope note: This page covers Paloma Paseo Homeowners Association v. David Falk (Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2018-000421) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s collected minute entries through 2019-01-14; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: later filings, satisfaction history, appeals, and the formal written orders referenced by the minutes may not be included in these records. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

HOA fee entitlement does not eliminate judgment-timing rules. A later fee application after final judgment can be waived or unsupported if the judgment did not reserve or include the amounts.

Case Participants

Respondent Side

  • David Falk (DEFT/Appellant)
    Opposing homeowner or property-side party identified in the case caption. Court party records list counsel as Gary Henman.
  • Melody Falk (DEFT/Appellant)
    Listed in the court party records as deft/appellant. Court party records list counsel as Gary Henman.
  • Mcdowell Mountain Justice Court (Originating Court)
    Listed in the court party records as originating court.
  • Paloma Paseo Homeowners Association (PLF/Appellee)
    Association party in the HOA-related dispute. Court party records list counsel as Rodrigo Sauaia.

Neutral Parties

  • Hon. Patricia Ann Starr (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.
  • Hon. Patricia Starr For (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.
  • Hon. Patricia A. Starr (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.

What happened

Paloma Paseo sued the Falks in justice court for assessments and related collection amounts. The parties stipulated to principal, and the trial court entered judgment for attorneys’ fees and costs in January 2018.

Months later, the association filed another fee application. The Falks responded, but the trial court treated the response as moot and awarded additional fees and costs.

On record appeal, the superior court held the association waived additional pre-judgment fees by not including them before judgment and had no basis for post-judgment fees through a later order where the judgment did not reserve them.

The superior court vacated the justice-court award and remanded for further proceedings, while declining to sanction the association.

Video overview of the case record

An AI-generated video overview of Paloma Paseo Homeowners Association v. David Falk (LC2018-000421 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). A justice-court post-judgment fee award to an HOA was vacated as untimely after final judgment. 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 Paloma Paseo Homeowners Association v. David Falk. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked case records below.

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

Procedural timeline

2018-11-19

IT IS ORDERED assigning this appeal on November 19, 2018 to Hon.

Download source
Oral Argument
2019-01-14

The Court finds that by failing to include those amounts, the Association waived its ability to recover them in the judgment.

Download source
Ruling

View all 2 source documents for this case ↓

Complete source-document index

This index contains 2 PDFs from the reviewed public source packet. Byte-identical copies are listed once. Files are ordered by the date and sequence in the public filename, and party filings or research materials are labeled separately from court rulings.

Source 1 2018-11-19

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
2018-11-19_001_oral-argument.pdf
Source 2 2019-01-14

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

Record-appeal ruling vacating the justice-court post-judgment fee award to Paloma Paseo and remanding.

Download source file
2019-01-14_002_ruling.pdf

FAQ

What did the superior court decide?

It vacated the additional post-judgment fee-and-cost award and remanded.

Is this superior-court ruling precedent?

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

Does the page summarize addresses or unit numbers?

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

Who was the association party?

The association party identified in the collected court records was Paloma Paseo Homeowners Association.

Does this replace legal advice?

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

Case Dossier

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

Case Summary

Case ID / citationLC2018-000421 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateJanuary 14, 2019
Judge / panelHon. Patricia Ann Starr, Hon. Patricia Starr For, Hon. Patricia A. Starr
PartiesDavid Falk and Melody Falk (Appellants) v. Paloma Paseo Homeowners Association (Appellee)
Governing law
Topics
Attorney FeesAssessmentsProcedureLiens
Outcome / holding

The superior court vacated the justice-court fee-and-cost award entered five months after final judgment and remanded, while declining sanctions against the association.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package2 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap2 roadmap entries
Video overviewPaloma Paseo Homeowners Association v. David Falk
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

On appeal from justice court, the superior court vacated a post-judgment attorneys’ fee and cost award to Paloma Paseo. It held the association waived additional pre-judgment fees by not including them before judgment and had no basis for later post-judgment fees where the final judgment did not reserve them, despite the HOA provisions and A.R.S. § 33-1807(H).

Key Issues & Findings

The superior court applied the justice-court fee timing rule and found the association filed its second fee application months after judgment. Because the association could have included all pre-judgment fees before the January 2018 judgment but did not, it waived those amounts.

The court also found the trial court erred by treating the homeowners’ timely opposition as moot. The opposition was not moot as to the new fee application filed months later.

For post-judgment fees, the court acknowledged the association’s reliance on HOA provisions and A.R.S. § 33-1807(H), but held those provisions supported fees for the prevailing party in a judgment and the association had already received such an award in the judgment. Because the later award was by order after final judgment and the association had not timely amended the judgment, there was no basis for it.

Why It Matters

This is must-read for HOA collection fee practice because it vacates a later fee award and explains that an association must timely include fee claims in the judgment or amend the judgment, rather than seeking a new order months later.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association v. Ismael Rivas: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on by

HOA Foreclosure Judgment | CV2024-037894

The court granted judgment and approved the formal foreclosure judgment and order of sale.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association v. Ismael Rivas, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2024-037894.

Download ruling

Scope note: This page covers Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association v. Ismael Rivas (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2024-037894) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s collected minute entries through 2025-07-08; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: later filings, satisfaction history, appeals, and the formal written orders referenced by the minutes may not be included in these records. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The court granted judgment and approved the formal foreclosure judgment and order of sale.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association (Plaintiff)
    Association party in the HOA-related dispute. Court party records list counsel as Charlene Cruz.

Respondent Side

  • Ismael Rivas (Defendant)
    Opposing homeowner or property-side party identified in the case caption.
  • Judy Rivas Armendariz (Defendant)
    Listed in the court party records as defendant.
  • Robert Armendariz (Defendant)
    Listed in the court party records as defendant.

Neutral Parties

  • Hon. Scott (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.
  • Hon. Brian (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.

What happened

The court granted judgment against the named defendants and entered a formal Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure and Order of Sale for Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association.

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

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

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association v. Ismael Rivas (CV2024-037894 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). Mountain Vista Ranch obtained a foreclosure judgment and order of sale after default proceedings. This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own ruling controls.

Listen: audio deep dive on the ruling

An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the court’s reasoning and disposition in Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association v. Ismael Rivas. 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

2025-04-07

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

Download source
Default Judgment
2025-07-07

IT IS ORDERED vacating the Default Hearing set for today, July 7, 2025, and resetting the same to July 8, 2025 at 1:30 p.

Download source
Default Judgment
2025-07-08

IT IS ORDERED granting judgment against the named Defendants, all in accordance with the formal written Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure and Order of Sale signed by the Court on July 8, 2025 and filed (entered) by the Clerk on July 9, 2025.

Download source
Judgment Entered

View all 3 source documents for this case ↓

Complete source-document index

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

Source 1 2025-04-07

Default Judgment

Type: Decision or judgment

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

Download source file
2025-04-07_001_default-judgment.pdf
Source 2 2025-07-07

Default Judgment

Type: Decision or judgment

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

Download source file
2025-07-07_002_default-judgment.pdf
Source 3 2025-07-08

Judgment Entered

Type: Decision or judgment

Judgment-entry minute entering or approving the formal written Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure and Order of Sale.

Download source file
2025-07-08_003_judgment-entered.pdf

FAQ

What did the superior court decide?

The court granted judgment and approved the formal foreclosure judgment and order of sale.

Is this superior-court ruling precedent?

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

Does the page summarize addresses or unit numbers?

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

Who was the association party?

The association party identified in the collected court records was Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association.

Does this replace legal advice?

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

Case Dossier

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

Case Summary

Case ID / citationCV2024-037894 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateJuly 8, 2025
Judge / panelHon. Scott, Hon. Brian
PartiesMountain Vista Ranch Owners Association (Plaintiff) v. Ismael Rivas (Defendant)
Topics
AssessmentsLiensProcedureForeclosure
Outcome / holding

The court granted judgment and approved the formal foreclosure judgment and order of sale.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package3 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap3 roadmap entries
Video overviewMountain Vista Ranch Owners Association v. Ismael Rivas
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

The court granted judgment against the named defendants and entered a formal Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure and Order of Sale for Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association.

Key Issues & Findings

The court granted judgment against the named defendants and entered a formal Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure and Order of Sale for Mountain Vista Ranch Owners Association.

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

Why It Matters

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

← Back to Superior Court cases

Coventry Tempe Community Association v. Faisal Elhassan: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on by

HOA Summary Judgment | Ledger Dispute | CV2024-090807

The court granted Coventry Tempe summary judgment because the owner did not create a factual dispute over the association’s ledger.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Coventry Tempe Community Association v. Faisal Elhassan, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2024-090807.

Download ruling

Current-status note: This page is published as a litigation record based on the source files available through 2025-12-09. Later filings, appeals, mandates, settlements, or dismissal orders may change the posture; the linked court records control.

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

Scope note: This page covers Coventry Tempe Community Association v. Faisal Elhassan (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2024-090807) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s collected minute entries through 2025-12-09; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: later filings, satisfaction history, appeals, and the formal written orders referenced by the minutes may not be included in these records. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

An owner opposing HOA summary judgment must point to actual evidence; disagreement with a prior judgment and unsupported ledger objections were not enough here.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Faisal Elhassan (Plaintiff)
    Opposing homeowner or property-side party identified in the case caption.

Respondent Side

  • Coventry Tempe Community Association (Defendant)
    Association party in the HOA-related dispute. Court party records list counsel as Jill Ormond.

Neutral Parties

  • Hon. Rodrick Coffey (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.
  • Hon. David Mcdowell (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.

What happened

The owner sued Coventry Tempe after earlier litigation involving the same parties. The court first allowed implied-covenant and unjust-enrichment claims to proceed while dismissing other theories.

Coventry Tempe later moved for summary judgment. The court found the owner’s factual references concerned matters already decided in the earlier case.

The court also found the owner produced no documents, receipts, cancelled checks, bank statements, or other evidence to dispute the association’s ledger of charges and credits.

Summary judgment was granted in full for the association, and reconsideration was denied.

Video overview of the case record

An AI-generated video overview of Coventry Tempe Community Association v. Faisal Elhassan (CV2024-090807 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). Coventry Tempe won summary judgment because the owner offered no evidence disputing the ledger. 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 Coventry Tempe Community Association v. Faisal Elhassan. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked case records below.

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

Procedural timeline

2024-04-03

IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Respond and extending the deadline for Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss until May 1, 2024.

Download source
Minute Entry
2024-04-04

IT IS ORDERED granting the Defendants Motion for Enlargement of Time for Defendants to File a Responsive Pleading, electronically filed on February 28, 2024.

Download source
Minute Entry
2024-05-29

IT IS ORDERED granting the Defendant, Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado and Bolen, LLP’s Motion to Dismiss Caption, electronically filed March 8, 2024 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing with prejudice against Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado and Bolen, LLP.

Download source
Minute Entry
2024-07-18

IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff request.

Download source
Minute Entry
2024-09-11

IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint.

Download source
Minute Entry
2024-09-12

IT IS ORDERED approving and settling the formal written Judgment signed by the Court on September 10, 2024 and filed [entered] by the clerk on September 12, 2024.

Download source
Judgment Entered
2024-10-09

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants may file a response to that Motion by no later than October 25, 2024.

Download source
Minute Entry
2024-11-07

Minute entry filed.

Download source
Minute Entry
2024-12-17

IT IS ORDERED denying Defendants’ Motion to Strike Notice of Appeal.

Download source
Minute Entry
2025-01-14

IT IS ORDERED denying in part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss with regard to Plaintiff’s claims for: 1) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and 2) unjust enrichment.

Download source
Ruling
2025-10-10

IT IS ORDERED setting oral argument for October 28, 2025 at 11:30 a.

Download source
Oral Argument Set
2025-10-28

IT IS ORDERED granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in its entirety.

Download 2 sources
RulingOral Argument

View all 14 source documents for this case ↓

Complete source-document index

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

Source 1 2024-04-03

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2024-04-03_001_minute-entry.pdf
Source 2 2024-04-04

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2024-04-04_002_minute-entry.pdf
Source 3 2024-05-29

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2024-05-29_003_minute-entry.pdf
Source 4 2024-07-18

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2024-07-18_004_minute-entry.pdf
Source 5 2024-09-11

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2024-09-11_005_minute-entry.pdf
Source 6 2024-09-12

Judgment Entered

Type: Decision or judgment

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

Download source file
2024-09-12_006_judgment-entered.pdf
Source 7 2024-10-09

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2024-10-09_007_minute-entry.pdf
Source 8 2024-11-07

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2024-11-07_008_minute-entry.pdf
Source 9 2024-12-17

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2024-12-17_009_minute-entry.pdf
Source 10 2025-01-14

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

Ruling granting in part and denying in part Coventry Tempe’s motion to dismiss, leaving only implied-covenant and unjust-enrichment claims.

Download source file
2025-01-14_010_ruling.pdf
Source 11 2025-10-10

Oral Argument Set

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2025-10-10_011_oral-argument-set.pdf
Source 12 2025-10-28

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

Ruling granting Coventry Tempe summary judgment because the owner failed to show a genuine issue of material fact.

Download source file
2025-10-28_012_ruling.pdf
Source 13 2025-10-28

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
2025-10-28_013_oral-argument.pdf
Source 14 2025-12-09

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

Ruling denying reconsideration of the summary-judgment order.

Download source file
2025-12-09_014_ruling.pdf

FAQ

What did the superior court decide?

It granted summary judgment for Coventry Tempe.

Is this superior-court ruling precedent?

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

Does the page summarize addresses or unit numbers?

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

Who was the association party?

The association party identified in the collected court records was Coventry Tempe Community Association.

Does this replace legal advice?

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

Case Dossier

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

Case Summary

Case ID / citationCV2024-090807 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateOctober 28, 2025
Judge / panelHon. Rodrick Coffey, Hon. David Mcdowell
PartiesFaisal Elhassan (Plaintiff) v. Coventry Tempe Community Association and other defendants
Topics
AssessmentsLiensGood Faith & Fair DealingProcedure
Outcome / holding

The court granted Coventry Tempe’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety and later denied reconsideration, explaining that the ruling rested on the grounds stated in the order rather than the owner’s absence from oral argument.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package14 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap12 roadmap entries
Video overviewCoventry Tempe Community Association v. Faisal Elhassan
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

The court allowed two claims to proceed past dismissal, then granted Coventry Tempe summary judgment. It found the owner’s factual references related to issues already decided in CV2021-001103 and that he produced no documents, receipts, cancelled checks, bank statements, or other evidence disputing the association’s ledger of charges and credits.

Key Issues & Findings

The January 2025 dismissal ruling allowed claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment to proceed, while dismissing other theories.

At summary judgment, the court applied Arizona summary-judgment standards and found the owner relied on matters already fully and finally determined in CV2021-001103, including disputes about judgment, default, and satisfaction. The court further found he did not produce evidence disputing the ledger of charges and credits attached to the association’s statement of facts.

Because the owner did not meet his burden to show a genuine issue of material fact, the court granted summary judgment for the association and directed it to lodge a proposed judgment and any fee application.

Why It Matters

This standard case is useful for repeat-litigation and ledger-proof issues after an HOA judgment. It is not must-read because it applies ordinary summary-judgment and preclusion concepts rather than interpreting HOA statutes or governing documents.

← Back to Superior Court cases

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

Posted on by

HOA Judgment | CV2017-002958

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

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

Download ruling

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

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

The takeaway

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

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

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

Respondent Side

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

Neutral Parties

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

What happened

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

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

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

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Enclave Villas Condominium Council Of Co-owners INC v. Thomas C Tracy (CV2017-002958 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). Enclave Villas obtained a formal judgment against the owner after default-related proceedings. This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own ruling controls.

Listen: audio deep dive on the ruling

An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the court’s reasoning and disposition in Enclave Villas Condominium Council Of Co-owners INC v. Thomas C Tracy. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

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

Procedural timeline

2017-03-15

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

Download source
Default Judgment
2017-05-16

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

Download source
Default Judgment
2017-08-03

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

Download source
Oral Argument Set
2017-08-22

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

Download source
Oral Argument
2017-08-25

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

Download source
Minute Entry
2017-10-03

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

Download source
Minute Entry
2017-11-09

Minute entry filed.

Download source
Minute Entry
2018-01-05

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

Download source
Minute Entry
2018-01-19

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

Download 2 sources
RulingMinute Entry
2018-01-19

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

Download 2 sources
RulingMinute Entry
2018-03-12

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

Download source
Status Conference
2018-04-13

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

Download source
Minute Entry

View all 14 source documents for this case ↓

Complete source-document index

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

Source 1 2017-03-15

Default Judgment

Type: Decision or judgment

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

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

Default Judgment

Type: Decision or judgment

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

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

Oral Argument Set

Type: Court/source PDF

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

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

Oral Argument

Type: Court/source PDF

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

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

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

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

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

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

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

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

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

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

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

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

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

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

Status Conference

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2018-03-12_011_status-conference.pdf
Source 12 2018-04-13

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

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

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

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

Judgment Entered

Type: Decision or judgment

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

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

FAQ

What did the superior court decide?

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

Is this superior-court ruling precedent?

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

Does the page summarize addresses or unit numbers?

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

Who was the association party?

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

Does this replace legal advice?

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

Case Dossier

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

Case Summary

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

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

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

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

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

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

Key Issues & Findings

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

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

Why It Matters

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

← Back to Superior Court cases

Coventry Tempe Community Association v. Faisal H Elhassan: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on by

HOA Foreclosure Judgment | CV2021-001103

The court approved the formal foreclosure judgment and order of sale for Coventry Tempe.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Coventry Tempe Community Association v. Faisal H Elhassan, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2021-001103.

Download ruling

Scope note: This page covers Coventry Tempe Community Association v. Faisal H Elhassan (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2021-001103) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s collected minute entries through 2021-12-03; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: later filings, satisfaction history, appeals, and the formal written orders referenced by the minutes may not be included in these records. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The court approved the formal foreclosure judgment and order of sale for Coventry Tempe.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Coventry Tempe Community Association (Plaintiff)
    Association party in the HOA-related dispute. Court party records list counsel as Charlene Cruz.

Respondent Side

  • C S A A General Insurance Company (Defendant)
    Listed in the court party records as defendant.
  • Faisal H Elhassan (Defendant)
    Opposing homeowner or property-side party identified in the case caption.
  • Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development (Defendant)
    Listed in the court party records as defendant. Court party records list counsel as Emory Hurley.

Neutral Parties

  • Hon. Joseph P. Mikitish (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.
  • Hon. Susan G. White (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.

What happened

The court approved and settled a formal written Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure and Order of Sale for Coventry Tempe Community Association.

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

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

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Coventry Tempe Community Association v. Faisal H Elhassan (CV2021-001103 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). Coventry Tempe obtained a foreclosure judgment and order of sale after default proceedings. This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own ruling controls.

Listen: audio deep dive on the ruling

An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the court’s reasoning and disposition in Coventry Tempe Community Association v. Faisal H Elhassan. 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

2021-05-06

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

Download source
Default Judgment
2021-07-13

IT IS ORDERED approving and settling formal written Order Entering Default Judgment Against Defendant CSAA General Insurance Company signed by the Court on July 13, 2021, and filed (entered) by the Clerk on July 13, 2021.

Download source
Default Judgment
2021-12-03

IT IS ORDERED approving and settling the formal written Judgment and Decree o Foreclosure and Order of Sale, signed by the Court December 2, 2021, and filed (entered) by the Clerk December 3, 2021.

Download source
Judgment Entered

View all 3 source documents for this case ↓

Complete source-document index

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

Source 1 2021-05-06

Default Judgment

Type: Decision or judgment

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

Download source file
2021-05-06_001_default-judgment.pdf
Source 2 2021-07-13

Default Judgment

Type: Decision or judgment

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

Download source file
2021-07-13_002_default-judgment.pdf
Source 3 2021-12-03

Judgment Entered

Type: Decision or judgment

Judgment-entry minute entering or approving the formal written Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure and Order of Sale.

Download source file
2021-12-03_003_judgment-entered.pdf

FAQ

What did the superior court decide?

The court approved the formal foreclosure judgment and order of sale for Coventry Tempe.

Is this superior-court ruling precedent?

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

Does the page summarize addresses or unit numbers?

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

Who was the association party?

The association party identified in the collected court records was Coventry Tempe Community Association.

Does this replace legal advice?

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

Case Dossier

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

Case Summary

Case ID / citationCV2021-001103 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateDecember 3, 2021
Judge / panelHon. Joseph P. Mikitish, Hon. Susan G. White
PartiesCoventry Tempe Community Association (Plaintiff) v. Faisal H Elhassan (Defendant)
Topics
AssessmentsLiensProcedureForeclosure
Outcome / holding

The court approved the formal foreclosure judgment and order of sale for Coventry Tempe.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package3 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap3 roadmap entries
Video overviewCoventry Tempe Community Association v. Faisal H Elhassan
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

The court approved and settled a formal written Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure and Order of Sale for Coventry Tempe Community Association.

Key Issues & Findings

The court approved and settled a formal written Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure and Order of Sale for Coventry Tempe Community Association.

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

Why It Matters

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

← Back to Superior Court cases

Camelback House Homeowners Association INC v. Terri A Ware: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on by

HOA Foreclosure Judgment | CV2013-095550

The court accepted the stipulation and entered the formal order regarding judgment on foreclosure and money judgment.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Camelback House Homeowners Association INC v. Terri A Ware, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2013-095550.

Download ruling

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

Scope note: This page covers Camelback House Homeowners Association INC v. Terri A Ware (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2013-095550) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s collected minute entries through 2013-10-29; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: later filings, satisfaction history, appeals, and the formal written orders referenced by the minutes may not be included in these records. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The court accepted the stipulation and entered the formal order regarding judgment on foreclosure and money judgment.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Camelback House Homeowners Association INC (Plaintiff)
    Association party in the HOA-related dispute. Court party records list counsel as Mark Waldron.

Respondent Side

  • Catholic Healthcare West (Defendant)
    Listed in the court party records as defendant.
  • Donald Ware (Defendant)
    Listed in the court party records as defendant.
  • Mercy Care Plan (Defendant)
    Listed in the court party records as defendant.
  • Orchid Family Revocable Living Trust Agreement, The (Defendant)
    Listed in the court party records as defendant.
  • Terri A Ware (Defendant)
    Opposing homeowner or property-side party identified in the case caption.

Neutral Parties

  • Hon. Mark F. Aceto (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.

What happened

The court accepted a stipulation for judgment on foreclosure and money judgment involving Camelback House and the Ware trust defendants.

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

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

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Camelback House Homeowners Association INC v. Terri A Ware (CV2013-095550 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). Camelback House obtained a stipulated foreclosure and money judgment. This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own ruling controls.

Listen: audio deep dive on the ruling

An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the court’s reasoning and disposition in Camelback House Homeowners Association INC v. Terri A Ware. 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

2013-10-29

IT IS ORDERED accepting the Stipulation electronically filed on October 23, 2013, all in accordance with the formal written Order e-signed by the Court on October 28, 2013 and entered (e-filed) by the clerk on October 29, 2013.

Download source
Minute Entry

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 2013-10-29

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

Judgment-entry minute entering or approving the formal written Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure and Order of Sale.

Download source file
2013-10-29_001_minute-entry.pdf

FAQ

What did the superior court decide?

The court accepted the stipulation and entered the formal order regarding judgment on foreclosure and money judgment.

Is this superior-court ruling precedent?

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

Does the page summarize addresses or unit numbers?

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

Who was the association party?

The association party identified in the collected court records was Camelback House Homeowners Association INC.

Does this replace legal advice?

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

Case Dossier

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

Case Summary

Case ID / citationCV2013-095550 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateOctober 29, 2013
Judge / panelHon. Mark F. Aceto
PartiesCamelback House Homeowners Association INC (Plaintiff) v. Terri A Ware (Defendant)
Topics
AssessmentsLiensProcedureForeclosure
Outcome / holding

The court accepted the stipulation and entered the formal order regarding judgment on foreclosure and money judgment.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package1 PDF
Step-by-step docket roadmap1 roadmap entry
Video overviewCamelback House Homeowners Association INC v. Terri A Ware
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

The court accepted a stipulation for judgment on foreclosure and money judgment involving Camelback House and the Ware trust defendants.

Key Issues & Findings

The court accepted a stipulation for judgment on foreclosure and money judgment involving Camelback House and the Ware trust defendants.

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

Why It Matters

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

← Back to Superior Court cases

Camelback House Homeowners Association INC v. Marc Secter: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on by

Condo Assessment Foreclosure | A.R.S. § 33-1256 | CV2013-095878

The court treated A.R.S. § 33-1256(A) as a foreclosure trigger once the condominium owner was delinquent for more than twelve months and more than $1,200.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Camelback House Homeowners Association INC v. Marc Secter, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2013-095878.

Download ruling

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

Scope note: This page covers Camelback House Homeowners Association INC v. Marc Secter (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2013-095878) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s collected minute entries through 2015-12-14; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: later filings, satisfaction history, appeals, and the formal written orders referenced by the minutes may not be included in these records. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

A condominium association can survive dismissal and obtain summary judgment when the recorded CC&Rs impose assessment obligations and the A.R.S. § 33-1256(A) delinquency threshold is met.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Camelback House Homeowners Association INC (Plaintiff)
    Association party in the HOA-related dispute. Court party records list counsel as Mark Waldron.

Respondent Side

  • Marc Secter (Defendant)
    Opposing homeowner or property-side party identified in the case caption.

Neutral Parties

  • Hon. David (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.
  • Hon. John Rea (Judge)
    Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.

What happened

Camelback House sued Marc Secter over unpaid condominium assessments. The owner first moved to dismiss, arguing the complaint failed to state a claim.

In September 2014, the court denied dismissal. It found the complaint alleged a history of nonpayment and that A.R.S. § 33-1256(A) allows a condominium association to exercise foreclosure rights when the statutory delinquency threshold is met.

In May 2015, after oral argument on the association’s summary-judgment motion, the court found the Camelback House CC&Rs applied to the owner, required payment of assessments and charges, and supported late fees, costs, and attorney fees.

The court found the owner remained $3,237.00 in arrears, had been delinquent for more than twelve months and more than $1,200, and granted summary judgment. The June 2015 minute entry granted the association’s fee application and entered final judgment.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Camelback House Homeowners Association INC v. Marc Secter (CV2013-095878 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). A condo association could foreclose once A.R.S. § 33-1256 delinquency thresholds were met. 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 Camelback House Homeowners Association INC v. Marc Secter. 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

2014-09-16

The court denied the owner’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the association’s assessment-foreclosure claim.

Download source
Under Advisement Ruling
2015-05-15

The court granted Camelback House summary judgment, entered $3,237.00 against the owner, and awarded fees and costs.

Download source
Under Advisement Ruling
2015-06-29

The court granted the association’s fee application and entered final judgment under Rule 54(c).

Download source
Judgment Entered
2015-08-20

The court modified a later order to remove language regarding lien voidance and allowed payoff information to be provided to the title company.

Download source
Oral Argument

View all 15 source documents for this case ↓

Complete source-document index

This index contains 15 PDFs from the reviewed public source packet. Byte-identical copies are listed once. Files are ordered by the date and sequence in the public filename, and party filings or research materials are labeled separately from court rulings.

Source 1 2014-02-12

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2014-02-12_001_minute-entry.pdf
Source 2 2014-07-09

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2014-07-09_002_minute-entry.pdf
Source 3 2014-07-24

Oral Argument Set

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2014-07-24_003_oral-argument-set.pdf
Source 4 2014-07-24

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
2014-07-24_004_oral-argument.pdf
Source 5 2014-09-11

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
2014-09-11_005_oral-argument.pdf
Source 6 2014-09-16

Under Advisement Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

Under-advisement ruling denying the owner’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion because the complaint stated an A.R.S. § 33-1256 assessment-foreclosure claim.

Download source file
2014-09-16_006_under-advisement-ruling.pdf
Source 7 2015-02-18

Oral Argument Set

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
2015-02-18_007_oral-argument-set.pdf
Source 8 2015-05-08

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
2015-05-08_008_oral-argument.pdf
Source 9 2015-05-15

Under Advisement Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

Under-advisement ruling granting Camelback House summary judgment, entering $3,237.00 against the owner, and awarding fees and costs.

Download source file
2015-05-15_009_under-advisement-ruling.pdf
Source 10 2015-05-20

Default Judgment

Type: Decision or judgment

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

Download source file
2015-05-20_010_default-judgment.pdf
Source 11 2015-06-29

Judgment Entered

Type: Decision or judgment

Judgment-entry minute granting Camelback House’s fee application and entering final judgment for the association.

Download source file
2015-06-29_011_judgment-entered.pdf
Source 12 2015-08-20

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
2015-08-20_012_oral-argument.pdf
Source 13 2015-11-30

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2015-11-30_013_minute-entry.pdf
Source 14 2015-12-11

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2015-12-11_014_minute-entry.pdf
Source 15 2015-12-14

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
2015-12-14_015_minute-entry.pdf

FAQ

What did the superior court decide?

It granted summary judgment for the association and entered final judgment after finding the statutory foreclosure threshold was met.

Is this superior-court ruling precedent?

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

Does the page summarize addresses or unit numbers?

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

Who was the association party?

The association party identified in the collected court records was Camelback House Homeowners Association INC.

Does this replace legal advice?

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

Case Dossier

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

Case Summary

Case ID / citationCV2013-095878 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateMay 15, 2015
Judge / panelHon. David, Hon. John Rea
PartiesCamelback House Homeowners Association, Inc. (Plaintiff) v. Marc Secter (Defendant)
Governing law
Topics
AssessmentsForeclosureLiensCC&RsAttorney Fees
Outcome / holding

The superior court held that Camelback House stated and proved a foreclosure claim: the owner was delinquent for more than twelve months and more than $1,200, triggering A.R.S. § 33-1256(A), and the association could foreclose on the entirety of its lien and recover fees and costs.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package15 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap4 roadmap entries
Video overviewCamelback House Homeowners Association INC v. Marc Secter
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

The court denied the owner’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion, then granted Camelback House summary judgment on unpaid condominium assessments. The court found the CC&Rs required the owner to pay assessments and charges, found arrears above the A.R.S. § 33-1256(A) foreclosure threshold, entered judgment for $3,237.00, and later awarded fees and final judgment for the association.

Key Issues & Findings

The September 2014 ruling treated the owner’s motion as a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge and accepted the pleaded delinquency allegations. The court noted that A.R.S. § 33-1256(A) allows a condominium association to exercise foreclosure rights when the owner has been delinquent in payment obligations, found the owner had been delinquent for more than one year and more than $1,200, and denied dismissal.

At summary judgment, the court found the recorded Camelback House CC&Rs applied to the owner and required him to pay assessments and charges. It found an undisputed arrearage of $3,237.00 after a payment toward past assessments, held that the statutory delinquency threshold was a triggering mechanism for foreclosure, and concluded there were no genuine issues of material fact. The court entered judgment for the amount owed and awarded attorney fees and costs.

The June 2015 judgment-entry minute then granted the association’s fee application and stated that no further matters remained, making the judgment final under Rule 54(c).

Why It Matters

This is a useful superior-court example of A.R.S. § 33-1256(A) being applied to condominium assessment-lien foreclosure. It is must-read because the court expressly connected the statutory one-year-or-$1,200 delinquency threshold to the association’s foreclosure right and applied the CC&Rs to the owner’s assessment obligations.

← Back to Superior Court cases