Lisa Marx v. Tara Condominiums: Open Meetings, Records, Insurance, and Direct-versus-Derivative Claims

Posted on May 30, 2026 by

Arizona Condo Governance | Open Meetings | Direct Claims

This page organizes the uploaded Superior Court record in Marx v. Tara, including the June 2025 preliminary-injunction and derivative-claim rulings, Tara’s May 2026 Rule 12(c) motion, and Marx’s June 2026 response packet.

Last updated June 3, 2026. Case: Lisa Marx v. Tara Condominiums Association, Inc., Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2025-012980; Hon. Randall H. Warner and Hon. Adele Ponce.

Download June 26 order Download complaint June 2026 briefing Document roadmap Source index FAQ

Posture note: This is a pending Superior Court record guide, not a final merits summary. The uploaded packet includes important interim rulings, but it does not include a final judgment resolving every claim.

The posture in one sentence

Marx v. Tara is a pending Arizona condominium governance case where the central practical question is whether alleged open-meeting, records, insurance, voting, and declaration violations are enforceable as a member’s direct rights or must be handled as derivative association claims.

Case snapshot

Core dispute

A Tara condominium owner alleges the association acted without proper board votes, notice, records access, statutory compliance, and member approval.

Interim rulings

The court denied a preliminary injunction, denied Tara’s first derivative-claim dismissal motion against the association, and dismissed individual board members.

Current fight

Tara’s May 27, 2026 Rule 12(c) motion renews the derivative-claim issue after newer appellate authority; Marx’s June 2 response argues those claims remain direct member-right claims.

Source packet

The public source set preserves 168 uploaded PDFs; the generated index deduplicates them to 164 public PDF entries plus a normalized filing roadmap.

Case Dossier

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

Case Summary

Case ID / citation	CV2025-012980
Court / tribunal	Superior Court
Decision / key date	April 14, 2025
Judge / panel	Hon. Randall H. Warner, Hon. Adele Ponce
Parties	Lisa Marx, a Tara condominium owner, sued Tara Condominiums Association over alleged open-meeting, records, insurance, common-element, voting, and declaration/bylaw violations.
Governing law	A.R.S. § 33-1248 A.R.S. § 33-1250 A.R.S. § 33-1258 A.R.S. § 33-1212 A.R.S. § 33-1247 A.R.S. § 33-1253 A.R.S. § 10-11601 A.R.S. § 12-1831
Topics	meetings-and-recordsboard-governancecc-and-rsrecords-requestsprocedureattorneys-fees
Outcome / holding	No final merits ruling appears in the uploaded public court-source file set. The June 2025 record denied preliminary injunctive relief, treated Marx’s association claims as member-right claims rather than derivative claims for that motion, and the July 2025 record dismissed individual board members. Tara’s May 27, 2026 motion for judgment on the pleadings was pending in the uploaded public court-source packet.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package	164 PDFs, 1 supporting source/review file
Step-by-step docket roadmap	No separate litigation roadmap table on this page
Video overview	No video embed currently configured
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	5 questions
Curated download aliases	12 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Lisa Marx filed Maricopa County Superior Court case CV2025-012980 against Tara Condominiums Association after disputes over board votes, open meetings, records inspection, landscaping/common-element decisions, insurance changes, amendments, expenditures, and alleged governance defects. The uploaded record shows a mixed pending posture: the court denied a preliminary injunction in June 2025, denied Tara’s first partial derivative-claims dismissal motion as to the association, dismissed individual board members Mark Gottmann and Dennis Anderson, and Tara’s May 2026 motion for judgment on the pleadings renewed the direct-versus-derivative issue after newer Arizona appellate authority.

Key Issues & Findings

The June 2025 preliminary-injunction ruling found that some alleged board-action defects could be addressed through later ratification or records handling and did not show irreparable harm warranting immediate injunctive relief. The June 26, 2025 derivative-claims ruling treated claims against the association as attempts to enforce Marx’s own membership rights under the declaration, bylaws, and statutes, with damages limited to her own proven harm. The July 31, 2025 dismissal ruling distinguished claims against the association from personal liability claims against individual directors.

Why It Matters

This pending condo case is useful because it places Arizona Condominium Act open-meeting, records, insurance, common-element, amendment, and direct-versus-derivative arguments in one source packet. It is especially relevant after Iqtunheimr and the Sunland Springs appellate decision because Tara’s May 2026 motion asks how those authorities apply when a homeowner frames governance defects as direct statutory and contractual injuries.

What the record shows

The Second Amended Complaint frames the case as breach of contract, Arizona Condominium Act, corporate-records, and declaratory-judgment claims against Tara Condominiums Association. Marx alleges that board actions were taken without proper notice, agenda, discussion, vote, or approval and that she was denied statutory inspection rights.

The early motion practice produced several important but limited rulings. The court denied preliminary injunctive relief in June 2025 because the record did not show irreparable harm requiring immediate intervention, even while noting that some board actions allegedly should have been voted on in an open meeting.

The court then denied Tara’s first partial motion to dismiss claims as derivative, treating the claims against the association as attempts to enforce Marx’s own membership rights under the declaration, bylaws, and law. A later ruling dismissed individual board members Mark Gottmann and Dennis Anderson from the case.

What the court has already done

Preliminary injunction denied

The June 2025 preliminary-injunction ruling did not give emergency relief on insurance, meeting, or records issues because the court did not find irreparable harm on that record.

Association derivative motion denied

The June 26, 2025 minute entry denied Tara’s first partial motion to dismiss, explaining that member-right claims against the association were not derivative as framed.

Individual directors dismissed

The July 31, 2025 ruling dismissed Mark Gottmann and Dennis Anderson, distinguishing association obligations from personal liability claims against board members.

Later derivative fight remains pending

Tara’s May 2026 Rule 12(c) motion asks the court to revisit parts of the direct-versus-derivative dispute after Iqtunheimr; Marx’s June 2026 opposition asks the court to deny the motion or narrow relief rather than dismiss claims with prejudice.

The May 2026 direct-versus-derivative motion

Tara’s May 27, 2026 motion for judgment on the pleadings argues that community-wide claims over common property, association funds, insurance, and governance belong to the association and must satisfy derivative-action requirements.

Marx’s June 2, 2026 opposition accepts that Iqtunheimr is published Arizona authority, but argues it decided only a common-area maintenance derivative claim and does not convert open-meeting, notice, voting, records, insurance-accounting, or declaration-amendment claims into derivative claims.

The same June 2 packet also opposes Tara’s request to stay the pending Colby Management discovery dispute. Marx argues the subpoenaed Colby materials go to direct claims already recognized by the June 26, 2025 ruling and that the motion to compel should be decided before discovery deadlines and trial preparation overtake the issue.

The uploaded packet includes two proposed orders. Those proposed forms are not court rulings; they show the relief Marx asked the court to enter.

What the June 2026 response packet adds

Rule 12(c) opposition

Marx argues her claims seek direct relief for her own Condominium Act, declaration, voting, inspection, and fair-administration rights, not recovery of association funds or generalized damages for all units.

Colby discovery stay opposition

Marx argues the court should not pause her motion to compel Colby Management records about the February 2024 insurance claim, board directives, communications, checks, and accounting treatment.

Claim organization exhibit

Exhibit D is Marx’s organizational aid. It asserts that 89 of 103 listed claim paragraphs are open-meeting violations and that Tara’s motion targets 60 open-meeting items.

Proposed orders

The proposed orders ask the court to deny the Rule 12(c) motion and deny the discovery stay. They should be read as requested relief, not as decisions entered by the judge.

June 2026 filings added to the record guide

Date	Document	What it adds	Download
June 2, 2026	Plaintiff’s response opposing stay of Colby Management production	Argues the Colby subpoena remains relevant to direct claims and should not be paused while Tara’s Rule 12(c) motion is pending.	Response opposing Colby stay
June 2, 2026	Plaintiff’s opposition to Tara’s Rule 12(c) motion	Argues Iqtunheimr does not eliminate direct member-right claims over open meetings, voting, records, insurance accounting, declaration amendments, or individualized statutory relief.	Rule 12(c) opposition
June 2, 2026	Exhibit D – Organization of Claims for Presentation	Organizes 103 claim paragraphs for presentation. Treat this as plaintiff’s categorization aid, not an independent court finding.	Claim organization exhibit
June 2, 2026	Proposed order denying Tara’s Rule 12(c) motion	Proposed form of relief that would deny judgment on the pleadings or, alternatively, narrow relief/allow amendment rather than dismiss with prejudice.	Proposed Rule 12(c) order
June 2, 2026	Proposed order denying Tara’s motion to stay Colby discovery ruling	Proposed form of relief that would deny the stay and leave the pending Colby motion to compel for ordinary-course decision.	Proposed Colby stay order

Timeline highlights

Date	Event	Why it matters
April 2025	Original complaint packet begins the CV2025-012980 record.	The initial claims focused heavily on open meetings, board authority, records, committee action, and association governance.
June 23, 2025	The court held an evidentiary hearing on preliminary injunctive relief.	The hearing created the record for the June 2025 emergency-relief ruling.
June 25, 2025	The court denied the motion for preliminary injunction.	The ruling matters because it separates alleged procedural defects from the emergency showing needed for immediate injunctive relief.
June 26, 2025	The court denied Tara’s partial motion to dismiss association claims as derivative.	This is the key early ruling treating the claims against the association as member-right claims rather than derivative claims, at least for that motion.
July 31, 2025	The court dismissed Mark Gottmann and Dennis Anderson.	The ruling draws a line between claims against the association and personal liability theories against individual directors.
October 2025	The record includes emergency TRO filings over master insurance, amendments, and owner insurance obligations.	The case expanded from meeting and records issues into insurance/amendment governance disputes.
March 2026	The uploaded record indicates related insurance/amendment litigation was treated as a supplemental pleading in this case.	That procedural move matters because later Rule 12(c) briefing addresses both the original and supplemental dispute.
May 27, 2026	Tara filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.	The motion asks the court to treat many community-wide claims as derivative after newer Arizona appellate authority.
June 2, 2026	Marx filed opposition papers and proposed orders addressing the Rule 12(c) motion and the Colby discovery stay.	This moves the live briefing posture from Tara’s motion alone to a disputed pending motion, with Marx asking the court to preserve direct claims or narrow relief rather than dismiss.

Curated document roadmap

After comparing the page against the AI-agent CSV, the missing piece was not the raw source coverage; it was a document-by-document narrative roadmap. The generated source index below already lists the public files, but the table here preserves the CSV’s chronology, document type, and stated case relevance so readers can understand how each filed or public-source item fits into the dispute.

This roadmap intentionally excludes unfiled draft materials that have not been confirmed as part of the court record.

The source-reference numbers in the final column are the CSV’s own reference numbers. They are not separate legal findings by this site, and the underlying PDFs remain the controlling source record.

Document roadmap from uploaded AI CSV

Date	Document	Type	How it fits the case	CSV refs
February 19, 1970	Declaration of Restrictions, Establishment of Board of Management and Lien Rights	CC&Rs	Foundational governing document defining common elements, board authority, maintenance, lien, and insurance duties. Marx uses it as the contract source for alleged breaches involving board authority, maintenance, and building-structure insurance.	1-7
March 29, 2022	CC&R Amendment Update from the Arizona Supreme Court – CHDB Law	Article / news	Kalway-related legal analysis used by Marx to argue that the 2025 insurance amendments were not reasonable or foreseeable enough to bind owners.	8
July 31, 2023	Homeowner Tara COA July 2023 Financials	Financial statement	Historical association financial record used as a comparison point for later disputed budget, insurance, and expense decisions.	7
January 11, 2024	Organizational Meeting Minutes	Meeting minutes	Board organizational minutes. Marx cites them to show board-position decisions, knowledge of meeting requirements, and alleged inaccuracies about leadership and procedure.	9, 10
January 20, 2024	January 20, 2024 Board Meeting Minutes	Meeting minutes	Documents committee-volunteer discussion and the Landscaping Committee, which Marx later uses to challenge the committee’s dissolution and her removal.	7, 9
January 30, 2024	Trench on Newcastle done by Mark and Dennis	Evidence / report	Maintenance-work documentation used to support claims that individual board members acted unilaterally or performed unauthorized maintenance work.	7
February 1, 2024	Email removing Lisa from committees and dissolving them	Email	Evidence that Marx was removed from the Landscaping Committee and committees were dissolved, supporting alleged open-meeting violations and selective targeting.	7, 10
February 5, 2024	Email announcing new board member	Email	Announcement of a new board member without a recorded open board vote, supporting the A.R.S. § 33-1248 board-action theory.	7, 11
February 5, 2024	Gmail – Claim Message from USAA – 13601 N Newcastle Drive	Email	Insurance-claim correspondence used to support allegations about improper insurance handling and board-member maintenance involvement.	7
February 17, 2024	February 17, 2024 Board Meeting Minutes	Meeting minutes	Minutes reflecting discussion and speaking limits. Marx alleges those rules were used selectively and that board-membership status was misdocumented.	7, 9
March 16, 2024	March 16, 2024 Board Meeting Minutes	Meeting minutes	Minutes referencing a workers-comp policy and Bermuda-grass plan, cited as examples of alleged unilateral chair action without open meeting votes.	7, 9
March 17, 2024	Spring newsletter 3-17-24	Newsletter	Association communication to residents, used as evidence of public board statements and owner-facing messaging.	7
May 27, 2024	Dennis working on the shutters	Evidence / report	Documentation of Dennis Anderson performing maintenance work, supporting allegations that board members acted outside authorized roles.	7
June 15, 2024	June 15, 2024 Tara Board Meeting Minutes	Meeting minutes	Procedural record of board actions during summer 2024.	7
July 2, 2024	DAnderson 07 02 24 Expense Voucher	Expense voucher	Financial record used to test whether board-member reimbursement and expenditures were properly authorized.	7
July 16, 2024	07 16 24 Letter to Lisa Marx re Petition Response	Letter	Association correspondence to Marx about a petition, part of the pre-litigation governance-dispute history.	7
July 23, 2024	American Family Master Insurance Policy Invoice Voucher 2024 2025	Financial document	Shows prior master-insurance cost and coverage before the disputed 2025 insurance amendments and policy changes.	7
July 27, 2024	July 27 2024 Tara Board Meeting Minutes	Meeting minutes	Procedural record of board actions and decisions.	7
July 31, 2024	Travis Law Firm July Inv Voucher	Invoice voucher	Legal-fee invoice used to support claims about association legal spending and approval procedure.	7
August 29, 2024	Travis Law Firm August 2024 Invoice Voucher	Invoice voucher	Additional legal-fee record used in the unauthorized-expenditure and approval-procedure theory.	7
November 1, 2024	2025 Tara Condominiums Budget Letter	Budget letter	Board letter recommending a $50 assessment increase due to insurance, sewer, and legal-fee increases; part of the financial buildup to the insurance dispute.	12
November 3, 2024	Issues regarding the 2025 Budget Vote	Email	Marx email arguing that the budget-vote process violated statute, used to show an earlier voting-procedure objection.	13
April 11, 2025	Civil Complaint for Breach of Contract	Complaint	Original filing against the association and individual board members, opening the litigation and asserting governance and CC&R breach theories.	14-16
April 14, 2025	Minute Entry Denying TRO	Court order	Early ruling denying temporary restraining relief because emergency TRO requirements were not met.	17
April 16, 2025	Amended Emergency Orders: TRO and Temporary Injunctive Relief	Motion for injunctive relief	Request to preserve declaration and insurance status quo while the case proceeded.	18, 19
May 28, 2025	Association’s Partial Motion to Dismiss	Motion	Association argued many claims were derivative and Marx lacked individual standing to pursue community-wide harms.	20
June 4, 2025	Responsive Memorandum to Association’s Partial Motion to Dismiss	Responsive memorandum	Marx opposed dismissal by arguing the claims asserted direct individual harms and member-right violations.	14-16
June 6, 2025	Reply to Response to Request for TRO and Injunctive Relief	Reply memorandum	Reply supporting emergency relief and addressing alleged service-delay and response-timing issues.	18
June 26, 2025	Minute Entry – Claim not Derivative	Court order	Key early ruling treating Marx’s claims against the association as direct member-right claims rather than derivative claims for that motion.	21, 22
July 15, 2025	Motion to Dismiss Defendants Mark Gottmann and Dennis Anderson	Motion	Individual board members sought dismissal based on director protections and lack of personal liability.	23
July 20, 2025	Response Memorandum to Motion to Dismiss Individual Defendants	Responsive memorandum	Marx opposed dismissal by arguing Gottmann and Anderson acted in bad faith and outside their authority.	14, 24, 25
July 25, 2025	Minute entry order to file amended complaint	Court order	Order requiring a more definite statement, leading to amended pleadings.	26
July 31, 2025	Ruling dismissing Mark and Dennis	Court order	Dismissed individual defendants, creating a major procedural setback for the personal-liability claims.	27, 28
August 6, 2025	Travis Law Firm Budget Letter / Proposing Amendments	Budget letter / letter	Counsel letter explaining proposed amendments to shift insurance responsibilities to owners, initiating the core insurance-amendment dispute.	4-6, 29-31
August 10, 2025	Motion for Partial Reconsideration of July 31, 2025 Ruling	Motion	Marx sought reconsideration of the dismissal of the individual board members.	32
August 11, 2025	Exhibit N Cert of Ins for 25 26	Certificate of liability insurance	Insurance certificate showing property coverage effective August 1, 2025 to August 1, 2026, used to contrast later claimed coverage changes.	6, 33
August 12, 2025	Order Denying Motion for reconsideration	Court order	Maintained dismissal of Gottmann and Anderson.	34
August 15, 2025	First Amended Complaint (FAC)	Amended complaint	Updated pleading reasserting claims and refining the legal counts against the association and directors.	2, 14
September 6, 2025	Plaintiff’s Initial Rule 26.1 Disclosure Statement	Discovery disclosure	Mandatory disclosure identifying factual bases, witnesses, and evidence Marx expected to use.	35, 36
September 11, 2025	Stipulation for Extension of Time	Legal stipulation	Agreement extending Marx’s deadline to respond to fee applications; later relevant to arguments about premature fee rulings.	28, 37
September 15, 2025	Order Denying Motion to Strike Reply	Court order	Denied Marx’s request to strike Tara’s reply regarding the amended complaint.	38
September 15, 2025	Second Amended Complaint (SAC)	Amended complaint	Operative complaint against the association after dismissal of the individual defendants.	28, 39-41
September 15, 2025	Order on Stipulation to Extend Time	Court order	Granted an extension to respond to attorney-fee requests.	42
September 20, 2025	Minutes for a Board Meeting of the Tara Condominiums Association	Meeting minutes	Board minutes covering approval of the plan to present CC&R amendments for owner vote.	43
September 22, 2025	Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint	Motion	Marx sought to reinstate direct claims against individual board members and add alleged post-filing violations.	14, 44, 45
September 24, 2025	Urgent Concerns on Proposed CC&R Amendments	Email / letter	Marx letter to owners identifying claimed risks of the proposed amendments, including costs, title, loan, and insurance issues.	4, 46
September 25, 2025	Meeting needs to be called to turn in ballots	Email	Marx demanded an open meeting for the amendment vote, preserving her objection to the voting process.	6, 47
September 27, 2025	Proposed Insurance amendments (Board/Owner Emails)	Email	Correspondence framing the association’s justification for the insurance shift and Marx’s objections under statutory and declaration duties.	5, 6, 30, 48
September 30, 2025	Minute Entry Denying Motion to Vacate	Court order	Denied Marx’s request to vacate a fee-related order before the fee award was entered.	49
October 1, 2025	Order Granting Application for Attorney’s Fees	Court order	Awarded individual defendants $5,957.70 in fees after dismissal; Marx contends the award was premature.	28, 49, 50
October 5, 2025	Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction	Motion	Attempt to block implementation of proposed amendments based on alleged statutory and declaration violations.	6, 51
October 9, 2025	Motion for Expedited Hearing	Motion	Request for a hearing within five days before the amendment-vote deadline.	31, 52, 53
October 14, 2025	Scheduling Order	Court order	Set discovery tiers, litigation deadlines, and a September 14, 2026 trial date.	54
October 15, 2025	Action by Written Consent	Voting form	Owner written-consent form used for three proposed declaration amendments.	55
October 17, 2025	Amendment to Declaration of Restrictions	Recorded amendment	Recorded amendment No. 2025-0605584 shifting insurance responsibility to owners; Marx challenges its validity.	31, 56, 57
October 18, 2025	Results of Tara CC&R amendment vote	Email	Announcement that amendments passed and owners had to obtain insurance by November 15, 2025.	58, 59
October 22, 2025	Stipulation to Continue Case Deadlines	Legal stipulation	Joint extension of deadlines due to Marx’s medical hospitalization.	60
October 26, 2025	Meeting to view ballots (Transcript)	Transcript	Transcript in which Gottmann allegedly refused to show owner signatures or vote choices, supporting A.R.S. § 33-1258 inspection-right claims.	61, 62
October 29, 2025	Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order	Motion	Emergency request to stop cancellation of master insurance and implementation of recorded amendments.	31, 63
October 30, 2025	2025 Budget	Financial document	Association budget showing a $50 assessment increase for insurance premiums, part of the financial basis for the amendment dispute.	64
October 30, 2025	Order Granting Leave to File Reply Out of Time	Court order	Procedural relief allowing Marx to file a late reply related to the third amended complaint.	65
November 6, 2025	Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Set Evidentiary Hearing	Motion	Request for an evidentiary hearing on the voting process and alleged harm from insurance lapse.	66, 67
November 10, 2025	Reminder to obtain homeowner insurance	Email	Board email setting a December 1, 2025 proof-of-structural-insurance deadline.	68
November 12, 2025	Notice of Appeal	Legal notice	Notice concerning dismissal of individual defendants and cost/fee issues.	69, 70
November 13, 2025	Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant’s Consolidated Response	Motion / reply	Reply supporting preliminary-injunction relief based on claimed individualized harm and flawed amendment process.	71
November 17, 2025	Minute Entry (Dismissing TAC and Injunction)	Court order	Denied leave to file the Third Amended Complaint and denied injunction relief, prompting later judge-change efforts.	70, 72
November 21, 2025	Official Ballot 2026 Budget Ratification	Ballot	Budget ballot showing a proposed $15 assessment decrease after removing association insurance duties.	73, 74
November 21, 2025	Civil Complaint for Declaratory Judgment	Complaint	New action CV2025-062973 challenging the October 2025 amendments and potential master-policy cancellation.	75
November 23, 2025	Motion for Change of Judge for Cause	Motion	Marx sought to remove Judge Warner, leading to reassignment to Judge Adele Ponce.	72, 76
November 24, 2025	Request for Answers to Interrogatories	Discovery request	Interrogatories targeting board decisions and maintenance work to develop the ultra vires theory.	11
November 25, 2025	Case Reassignment / First Amended Civil Complaint	Court order / complaint	Case reassignment to Judge Ponce and amended pleading in the second insurance-shift action.	70, 75, 77-79
December 1, 2025	Motion for Reconsideration of Nov 17 Minute Entry	Motion	Marx asked Judge Ponce to reconsider denial of the third amended complaint and injunction relief.	70, 80
December 3, 2025	Minute Entry Case Consolidation	Court order	Consolidated CV2025-062973 with CV2025-012980, folding the insurance-amendment dispute into the main litigation path.	81
December 3, 2025	Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Consolidation	Motion	Marx opposed consolidation, arguing the actions involved distinct facts and emergency concerns.	82
December 4, 2025	Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification and Expedited Hearing	Motion	Challenge to characterization of the complaint and request for expedited hearing on insurance risk.	75
December 5, 2025	Joint Notice of Outstanding Motions and Hearings	Legal notice	Catalog of pending matters for Judge Ponce after reassignment.	70
January 4, 2026	Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss	Response memorandum	Opposition to dismissal of the second action, arguing insurance termination was a new occurrence requiring separate attention.	19
January 20, 2026	Certificate of Liability Insurance (Master Policy 2025-2026)	Insurance certificate	Certificate showing liability and D&O coverage but no building property insurance, used as key evidence that buildings became uninsured.	83, 84
January 20, 2026	Notice of Intent to Serve Amended Subpoena	Discovery notice	Notice for records subpoena to Colby Management, part of the discovery fight over association records.	85
January 30, 2026	Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Reconsideration	Legal memorandum	Filing using the January 20 insurance certificate as new evidence of claimed statutory insurance violations.	83
February 26, 2026	Notice of Withdrawal of Motion to Compel	Legal notice	Procedural withdrawal of a discovery motion.	86
March 16, 2026	Minute Entry (Oral Argument and Rule 15d conversion)	Court order	Converted the second lawsuit into a Rule 15(d) supplemental-pleading path in the main case.	41, 87
May 27, 2026	Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings	Motion	Tara’s attempt to dismiss asserted community-wide claims as derivative after newer appellate authority.	88
June 2, 2026	Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Motion to Stay Colby Management Discovery	Response memorandum	Marx opposes Tara’s request to stay a ruling on the Colby Management subpoena dispute, arguing the requested insurance-claim accounting, communications, checks, and board-directive materials remain relevant to direct claims and that discovery deadlines were approaching.	166
June 2, 2026	Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings	Response memorandum	Marx argues Iqtunheimr does not convert her open-meeting, notice, voting, records, insurance-accounting, amendment-validity, and individualized statutory-right claims into derivative claims, and asks the court to deny dismissal or narrow relief/allow amendment.	167
June 2, 2026	Exhibit D – Organization of Claims for Presentation	Exhibit / organizational aid	Marx’s exhibit groups 103 claim paragraphs for presentation, including her assertion that 89 are open-meeting violations and that Tara’s motion targets 60 open-meeting items.	168
June 2, 2026	Proposed Order Denying Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings	Proposed order	Proposed form of order submitted by Marx. It is not a ruling unless and until the court signs or enters an order.	169
June 2, 2026	Proposed Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Stay Ruling on Colby Production	Proposed order	Proposed form of order submitted by Marx to deny Tara’s requested stay of the Colby discovery ruling. It is not a court ruling.	170
Not dated in CSV	Plaintiff’s First Requests for Production of Documents	Discovery request	Formal request for insurance, financial, and related records, aimed at evidence about the 2024 insurance claim and policy-rate increases.	90
September 10, 2020	Marx Warranty Deed	Deed	Warranty deed conveying Unit 5 to Lisa Marx, establishing her standing as unit owner and association member.	2, 91, 92

How to read this case without overclaiming it

Treat interim rulings as interim rulings. The June and July 2025 orders are important, but they do not equal a final merits judgment on every later claim.
Separate association claims from individual-director claims. The uploaded record shows the court was willing to let some claims proceed against the association while dismissing individual board members.
Track the exact injury theory. The direct-versus-derivative question turns on whether the claim seeks to remedy a member’s individual statutory/contractual injury or a generalized association injury.
Do not skip the procedural posture. Preliminary injunction, motion to dismiss, judgment on the pleadings, and final judgment apply different standards.
Use the source index. The upload is large. The normalized roadmap and complete source-document index are the safest way to follow the record in order.

Practical lessons for condo disputes

For owners

Tie each claim to the specific statute, declaration section, bylaw, vote, notice, record request, or personal harm.
Preserve agendas, minutes, emails, insurance notices, amendment materials, ballots, and records-request correspondence.
Do not assume that proving a board process defect automatically proves irreparable harm.
Keep direct personal injury theories separate from generalized association harm.

For boards and counsel

Document board authorization, open-meeting votes, executive-session limits, and ratification steps.
Handle records requests with clear statutory deadlines, production logs, and written explanations.
Treat insurance and amendment changes as high-risk governance events requiring clean notices, votes, and member communications.
Do not rely on derivative-action arguments without addressing member-right statutes and declaration enforcement language.

Complete source set

Download the filing roadmap

The source files were normalized into the standard court-case download layout. Use the roadmap CSV to cross-check original filenames against public filenames, then use the generated source-document index below for direct downloads.

Download roadmap CSV

FAQ

Is this case finally decided?

No. The uploaded packet includes important interim rulings and May/June 2026 briefing, but it does not include a final judgment resolving the full case.

Did the court say all of Marx’s claims are direct claims?

No. The June 26, 2025 minute entry denied Tara’s first partial derivative-claims motion as to the association and described the claims as member-right claims as framed. Tara’s May 2026 Rule 12(c) motion asks the court to revisit direct-versus-derivative treatment for asserted community-wide claims, and Marx’s June 2026 opposition disputes that characterization.

Were the individual board members kept in the case?

No. The uploaded July 31, 2025 ruling dismissed Mark Gottmann and Dennis Anderson, while distinguishing those personal-liability theories from claims against the association.

Why does insurance appear in an open-meeting case?

The record expanded beyond early open-meeting and records allegations. Later filings challenged master-insurance changes, declaration amendments, owner insurance obligations, and related voting/notice procedures.

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file

2025-09-15_015_10-order-9-15-25-denying-motion-to-strike-reply-in-support-of-motion-to-strike-portions-of-amended-complaint.pdf

Source 165 No docket date in filename

Source File Roadmap 2026 05 31

Type: Source roadmap CSV

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

Download source file

source-file-roadmap-2026-05-31.csv

Primary sources

Reviewed against the uploaded Superior Court filings through June 2, 2026 and the normalized source-file roadmap. Proposed orders are identified as proposed forms of relief, not signed court rulings. Unfiled draft materials are not treated as court sources. This page is educational information for Arizona HOA and condominium governance research. It is not legal advice for any specific dispute.

← Back to Superior Court cases

AZNH Revocable Trust v. Sunland Springs HOA: Arizona Planned-Community Boards Cannot Vote in Executive Session

Posted on April 30, 2026 by [email protected]

Arizona HOA Open Meetings • A.R.S. § 33-1804 • Court of Appeals Decision

A Z N H Revocable Trust v. Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association is now the central Arizona case on closed planned-community board meetings, executive-session voting, and what an association must disclose on closed-meeting agendas.

Last updated May 5, 2026. Case: A Z N H Revocable Trust v. Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, No. 1 CA-CV 25-0424; Superior Court No. CV2023-096192.

Download the records request PDF Case overview Homeowner guide Board compliance Filing roadmap + 110 PDFs Primary sources

Scope note: This page focuses on Arizona planned communities governed by A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 16. The decision directly interprets A.R.S. § 33-1804, Arizona’s planned-community open-meeting statute. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The rule in one sentence

An Arizona planned-community board may privately consider the limited topics allowed by A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), but it must vote and take formal action in an open meeting, and closed-meeting agendas must give members more than a bare statutory paragraph.

Case snapshot

Case name

A Z N H Revocable Trust v. Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association.

Appellate docket

Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, No. 1 CA-CV 25-0424.

Decision date

Filed April 28, 2026; affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Statute interpreted

A.R.S. § 33-1804, Arizona’s open-meeting statute for planned communities.

Case Dossier

Case Summary

Case ID / citation	1 CA-CV 25-0424
Court / tribunal	Court of Appeals
Decision / key date	April 28, 2026
Judge / panel	Judge James B. Morse Jr., Presiding Judge Andrew M. Jacobs, Judge Brian Y. Furuya
Parties	A homeowner trust sued a planned-community association over closed-meeting practices, agendas, and votes taken outside open session.
Governing law	A.R.S. § 33-1804
Topics	meetings-and-recordsboard-governancedisclosure
Outcome / holding	The court held that HOA votes and formal actions must occur in open meetings and that meeting agendas must provide reasonably informative descriptions of the topics to be addressed; it remanded on the sufficiency of the closed-meeting notices.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package	110 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	32 roadmap entries
Video overview	Arizona HOA Boards Can’t Vote in Executive Session \| AZNH v. Sunland Springs; Homeowner guide to AZNH v. Sunland Springs and Arizona HOA executive-session voting; Board guide to AZNH v. Sunland Springs and Arizona HOA open-meeting compliance
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	6 questions
Curated download aliases	1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

This recent published opinion is one of the most important Arizona appellate cases on HOA meeting transparency. The homeowner trust challenged Sunland Springs’ practice of conducting formal action and voting in closed sessions while giving members bare-bones agenda references that simply cited statutory closed-session categories. The Court of Appeals held that A.R.S. § 33-1804 requires associations to vote and take formal action in open meetings, not closed ones. It also held that agendas must contain information reasonably necessary to tell members what will be discussed; merely parroting the statutory subsection for a closed session is not enough. The court remanded for factual development on whether the association’s notices adequately identified the reasons for closing meetings. The opinion gives real substance to Arizona’s open-meeting protections for planned communities.

Key Issues & Findings

The court read § 33-1804 as a transparency statute with an explicit state policy favoring open association governance. That policy would be undermined if boards could decide major issues, take formal action, and vote during closed sessions and then later characterize the process as compliant.

The panel also addressed agenda content. It concluded that an agenda is not meaningful if it does no more than cite a statutory paragraph authorizing closure. Members need enough information to understand what kind of business will be taken up. At the same time, the court stopped short of deciding every notice question on the existing record and remanded for further factual development on part of the claim.

Why It Matters

A Z N H is a high-value case for Arizona HOA governance fights. It gives owners a published appellate tool for challenging rubber-stamp secrecy, vague agendas, and closed-door votes.

For boards and managers, it is a real compliance case, not just a technical one. Meeting notices, agendas, and executive-session practice now carry clearer appellate guardrails.

Why this case matters

For years, some Arizona HOA boards treated executive session as a place where directors could not only discuss confidential subjects, but also approve, authorize, ratify, or direct action away from the membership. This case draws a clean line between private deliberation and public action.

The Court of Appeals focused on the statute’s structure. A.R.S. § 33-1804 lets boards close part of a meeting only for the consideration of five narrow categories. The court held that consideration means thought, reflection, discussion, and formulation. Voting is different because it is the formal expression of a final decision.

The practical effect is significant. A board can still receive legal advice privately, discuss pending litigation privately, handle protected personal or financial information privately, address employment issues privately, and hear a violation appeal privately when the statute allows. But the board cannot hide the vote itself inside executive-session minutes.

What the Arizona Court of Appeals decided

The court also held that Sunland Springs’ meeting notices satisfied the statute when they listed the date, time, place, and paragraph of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) authorizing closure. The problem was not the basic notice. The problem was the agenda content and the closed-session voting. Opinion ¶¶ 19, 23.

1. Closed-session voting is not allowed

The court affirmed the superior court’s ruling that all voting or formal actions of an association board must occur during open meetings. Opinion ¶¶ 10-14, 23.

2. Consideration does not include the vote

The court rejected the argument that the statutory authority to privately consider a topic also authorizes the final vote on that topic. Opinion ¶¶ 10-14.

3. Closed-meeting agendas need useful information

The court reversed on agenda adequacy because a closed-meeting agenda must provide information reasonably necessary to advise members about the business being addressed. Opinion ¶¶ 18, 21-24.

4. Statutory identification was remanded

The board may delegate the task of identifying the statutory paragraph for closure, but the record was unclear whether Sunland Springs had formally delegated that responsibility. Opinion ¶¶ 15-16, 23.

What this decision does not eliminate

AZNH does not eliminate executive session. Boards may still privately consider the limited topics listed in A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), including legal advice, pending or contemplated litigation, protected personal, health, or financial information, certain employment matters, and violation appeals when the statute allows closure.

The decision also does not require agendas to disclose attorney-client advice, litigation strategy, personally identifying information, or protected private information. The rule is narrower and more practical: the agenda must give enough nonprivileged information to reasonably advise members what business is being addressed, and any vote or formal action must occur in an open meeting. Opinion ¶ 22.

Video overview: Arizona HOA boards cannot vote in executive session

Watch this overview for the central holding in AZNH v. Sunland Springs: Arizona planned-community boards may use executive session for protected statutory consideration, but the vote and formal action must happen in an open meeting.

The facts that made this case impossible to ignore

The published opinion identifies several examples of formal business conducted during closed meetings. Sunland Springs’ board had approved a $917,000 budget item, granted its community manager up to $7,000 in discretionary spending authority, addressed 13 waivers of the minimum-age requirement for residents, and authorized foreclosures against two homeowners.

Those examples show why the open-meeting statute matters. The dispute was not about minor housekeeping. It involved money, enforcement, age-restricted-community eligibility, and foreclosure authority. Those are exactly the kinds of decisions owners have a statutory interest in seeing before the vote is taken.

For homeowners: how to use this decision

If you suspect your Arizona planned-community HOA has been voting in executive session, the cleanest first step is not a speech at a board meeting. It is a targeted records request. You want existing records showing whether a quorum of the board voted, approved, authorized, ratified, delegated, or directed action in a closed meeting, closed portion of a meeting, informal board meeting, workshop, written consent, or action without a meeting.

Video guide for Arizona homeowners

Start here if you suspect your Arizona planned-community HOA has been voting, approving, authorizing, ratifying, or directing action in executive session. This video explains the AZNH v. Sunland Springs decision from the homeowner perspective and pairs with the downloadable records-request template below.

Copy/paste email cover note

Subject: Records Request Under A.R.S. § 33-1805 – Executive-Session Votes and Formal Actions

Dear Board and Community Manager,

Attached is my formal records request under A.R.S. § 33-1805. Please produce the existing responsive records electronically within the statutory ten-business-day period.

Thank you.

Download the records request template

This PDF is drafted for Arizona planned-community homeowners. It requests existing association records showing executive-session votes and formal actions for the two-year period before the request date. It also includes the appellate opinion as Attachment A so the board and management company can see the rule in context.

Use your own name and email. Send it to the association board and community manager. Preserve a copy of the sent email and any response.

Download PDF template

Suggested homeowner workflow

Save the case name and docket number. Use A Z N H Revocable Trust v. Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association, No. 1 CA-CV 25-0424.
Download and send the records request. Keep the request narrow: existing records showing votes or formal actions in closed meetings.
Do not ask the association to create a new spreadsheet. Ask for existing minutes, agenda materials, resolutions, written consents, approvals, authorizations, ratifications, and delegation records.
Expect lawful redactions. The association may redact privileged legal advice, protected personal information, and other protected substance. But the existence of a motion, second, vote tally, approval, authorization, or formal directive is the critical issue.
Compare the records to open-meeting minutes. If the board took action in closed session, check whether that action was later re-voted in open session after members had a chance to speak.
Document the timeline. Preserve notices, agendas, minutes, emails, board packets, and management responses.

For HOA boards and community managers: the compliance reset

The safest operational response is to redesign the executive-session workflow. Treat executive session as a place for protected consideration, not final action. The vote belongs in an open meeting.

Video guide for HOA boards, managers, and counsel

This video explains the compliance reset after AZNH v. Sunland Springs: executive session may be used for protected statutory consideration, but votes, approvals, authorizations, ratifications, directives, and other formal actions must occur in open meetings.

Compliance reset checklist

Do this now

Move every vote, authorization, ratification, approval, directive, and formal action to open session.
Let members speak after board discussion of the agenda item and before formal action.
Use closed session only for the five statutory categories in A.R.S. § 33-1804(A).
Write closed-meeting agendas with enough nonprivileged detail to inform members about the matter.
Preserve privileged and personal details through careful redaction, not through vague agenda descriptions.
If the board delegates statutory-identification duties to a president, manager, or officer, document the delegation formally.

Stop doing this

Do not vote in executive session and later treat the vote as valid because it appears in closed-session minutes.
Do not use legal advice, litigation, or personal information as a catch-all label for unrelated association business.
Do not give closed-meeting agendas that say only A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1) or executive session.
Do not assume that a management-company custom is enough. The statute controls.
Do not rely on attorney-client privilege to shield the existence of board action.

A.R.S. § 33-1804 in plain English

A.R.S. § 33-1804 starts from a strong transparency baseline: meetings of the members’ association, the board of directors, and regularly scheduled committees are open to members or their designated representatives. The board may impose reasonable speaking limits, but it must allow a member to speak after discussion of a specific agenda item and before formal action on that item.

A board may close a portion of a meeting only when the closed portion is limited to one or more statutory categories:

Legal advice from an attorney for the board or association.
Pending or contemplated litigation.
Personal, health, or financial information about an individual member, employee, or contractor employee.
Job performance, compensation, health records, or specific complaints concerning an individual employee or contractor employee working under association direction.
A member’s appeal of a violation or penalty, unless the affected member requests an open session.

What a compliant closed-meeting agenda should look like after AZNH

A closed-meeting agenda does not have to reveal attorney-client advice, litigation strategy, personally identifying information, health information, financial information, or protected employment details. But it must do more than cite a paragraph number. The goal is to reasonably advise members about what business is being addressed so they can speak meaningfully before the board takes formal action in open session.

Weak agenda wording	Stronger nonprivileged wording	Why it is better
Executive session – A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1)	Attorney consultation regarding proposed settlement structure for pending covenant-enforcement matter; no member names listed.	It identifies the legal-advice category while giving the general business context without revealing privileged advice.
Executive session – A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(3)	Review of owner financial-hardship request related to assessment payment plan; identifying details withheld.	It tells members what kind of personal or financial matter is being addressed without exposing private owner information.
Executive session – violation appeal	Member appeal of architectural violation fine; affected member requested closed session.	It identifies the type of enforcement issue and keeps the affected owner’s identity protected.

Timeline of the case

Date	Event	Why it mattered
December 2023	Declaratory-judgment complaint filed in Maricopa County Superior Court.	Started the lawsuit challenging closed-session voting and agenda practices under A.R.S. § 33-1804.
June 9, 2025	Court of Appeals record opened for No. 1 CA-CV 25-0424.	Moved the dispute into the appellate court after the superior-court judgment.
February 18, 2026	Oral argument before the Arizona Court of Appeals.	The panel heard the statutory interpretation dispute.
April 28, 2026	Court of Appeals opinion filed.	Affirmed open voting, reversed on agenda adequacy, and remanded on delegation and identification issues.

Download 6 PDFs

2025_06_09_05521496-0-0013-part1Of2JointStatementOfDiscov.PDF
2025_06_09_05521497-0-0014-part2Of2JointStatementOfDiscov.PDF
2025_06_09_05521498-0-0015-MeStatusConferenceSet03222024.PDF
2025_06_09_05521499-0-0016-PlaintiffsProposedMinuteEntry.PDF
2025_06_09_05521500-0-0017-MeMatterUnderAdvisement0402202.PDF
2025_06_09_05521501-0-0018-MeUnderAdvisementRuling0403202.PDF

Step 9 2024-04-18 to 2024-07-30

Schedule modifications, appearances, status conferences, and updated discovery record

Filed by: Court / parties / counsel

This was procedural record-building: deadlines, appearances, status conferences, and discovery materials were being set up for dispositive briefing.

Download 11 PDFs

Step 10 2024-08-15

Plaintiff hearing materials and exhibits filed

Filed by: Sullivan / AZNH Trust

Sullivan put hearing materials and supporting documents into the record before the summary-judgment phase.

Download 3 PDFs

2025_06_09_05521509-0-0026-part1Of3PlaintiffsFilingOfHear.PDF
2025_06_09_05521510-0-0027-part2Of3PlaintiffsFilingOfHear.PDF
2025_06_09_05521511-0-0028-part3Of3PlaintiffsFilingOfHear.PDF

Step 11 2024-09-24

Motion for summary judgment

Filed by: Sullivan / AZNH Trust

This was the major trial-court move. Sullivan argued there were no material factual disputes and the court could decide the open-meeting issues as a matter of law.

Download 6 PDFs

2025_06_09_05521516-0-0033-MotionForSummaryJudgment.PDF
2025_06_09_05521517-0-0034-part1Of2Plaintiff’sMemorandumS.PDF
2025_06_09_05521518-0-0035-part2Of2Plaintiff’sMemorandumS.PDF
2025_06_09_05521519-0-0036-part1Of3Plaintiff’sStatementOf.PDF
2025_06_09_05521520-0-0037-part2Of3Plaintiff’sStatementOf.PDF
2025_06_09_05521521-0-0038-part3Of3Plaintiff’sStatementOf.PDF

Step 12 2024-10-24

Opposition to summary judgment

Filed by: HOA

The HOA defended its interpretation of the statute and its closed-meeting practices.

Download 3 PDFs

2025_06_09_05521522-0-0039-part1Of2Defendant’sResponseToP.PDF
2025_06_09_05521523-0-0040-part2Of2Defendant’sResponseToP.PDF
2025_06_09_05521524-0-0041-DefendantSunlandSpringsVillage.PDF

Step 13 2024-10-28

Reply and corrected facts

Filed by: Sullivan / AZNH Trust

Sullivan answered the HOA’s opposition and refined the factual record supporting summary judgment.

Download 5 PDFs

2025_06_09_05521525-0-0042-part1Of2Plaintiff’sReplyBriefO.PDF
2025_06_09_05521526-0-0043-part2Of2Plaintiff’sReplyBriefO.PDF
2025_06_09_05521527-0-0044-part1Of3CorrectedPlaintiffsSta.PDF
2025_06_09_05521528-0-0045-part2Of3CorrectedPlaintiffsSta.PDF
2025_06_09_05521529-0-0046-part3Of3CorrectedPlaintiffsSta.PDF

Step 14 2024-12-12 to 2025-02-11

Oral argument set/reset and taken under advisement

Filed by: Superior Court

The court prepared to hear or decide the summary-judgment dispute and then took the matter under advisement.

Download 3 PDFs

2025_06_09_05521530-0-0047-MeOralArgumentSet12112024.PDF
2025_06_09_05521531-0-0048-MeOralArgumentReset01032025.PDF
2025_06_09_05521532-0-0049-MeMatterUnderAdvisement0210202.PDF

Step 15 2025-02-24

Summary-judgment ruling

Filed by: Superior Court

Sullivan got a partial win. The court agreed votes and formal action had to occur in open meeting, but rejected or limited other parts of his theory.

Download PDF

2025_06_09_05521533-0-0050-MeUnderAdvisementRuling0224202.PDF

Step 16 2025-02-26

Motion for reconsideration

Filed by: Sullivan / AZNH Trust

Sullivan asked the trial court to reconsider the parts of the ruling he lost.

Download PDF

2025_06_09_05521534-0-0051-Plaintiff’sMotionForReconsider.PDF

Step 17 2025-03-11

Reconsideration denied

Filed by: Superior Court

The trial court refused to change its ruling. Appeal became the next logical step.

Download PDF

2025_06_09_05521535-0-0052-MeRuling03112025.PDF

Step 18 2025-03-23 to 2025-04-17

Costs, objection to proposed judgment, and final judgment

Filed by: Sullivan / court

The trial-court case was wrapped into an appealable judgment and Sullivan preserved issues for appeal.

Download 4 PDFs

2025_06_09_05521536-0-0053-part1Of2PlaintiffsRequestForCo.PDF
2025_06_09_05521537-0-0054-part2Of2PlaintiffsRequestForCo.PDF
2025_06_09_05521538-0-0055-PlaintiffsObjectionToDefendant.PDF
2025_06_09_05521539-0-0056-JudgmentOrder.PDF

Step 19 2025-05-11

Notice of appeal and transcript filings

Filed by: Sullivan / AZNH Trust

Sullivan appealed the parts he lost and worked to make sure the appellate court had the needed record.

Download 4 PDFs

2025_06_09_05521540-0-0057-NoticeOfAppeal.PDF
2025_06_09_05521541-0-0058-part1Of2NoticeOfFilingTranscri.PDF
2025_06_09_05521542-0-0059-part2Of2NoticeOfFilingTranscri.PDF
2025_06_09_05521543-0-0060-NoticeOfFilingNoticeOfAppeal.PDF

Step 20 2025-05-30

Cross-appeal

Filed by: HOA

The HOA appealed the part Sullivan had won: the ruling that votes and formal action must occur in open meetings.

Download 2 PDFs

2025_06_09_05521544-0-0061-NoticeOfAppeal.PDF
2025_06_09_05521545-0-0062-NoticeOfFilingNoticeOfAppeal.PDF

Step 21 2025-06-09 to 2025-07-14

Appeal opened, case-management statements filed, and appellate appearances handled

Filed by: Court / parties / counsel

The Court of Appeals opened the case, set deadlines, recognized the appeal/cross-appeal structure, and handled early appellate administration.

Download 14 PDFs

2025_06_09_05521550-0-0000-AppellateClerkNoticefirst.PDF
2025_06_10_05523907-0-0000-CaseManagementStatement.PDF
2025_06_10_05523908-0-0000-CertificateOfService.PDF
2025_06_11_05524194-0-0000-AmendedCaseManagementStatement.PDF
2025_06_11_05524195-0-0000-CertificateOfService.PDF
2025_06_18_05531435-0-0000-SecondAmendedCaseManagementSta.PDF
2025_06_18_05531436-0-0000-CertificateOfService.PDF
2025_06_25_05535536-0-0000-AppellateClerkNoticeXappealsec.PDF
2025_06_30_05540038-0-0000-Div1SettlementConferenceProgra.PDF
2025_07_01_05543577-0-0000-NoticeOfAppearance.PDF
2025_07_01_05543578-0-0001-CertificateOfService.PDF
2025_07_11_05550309-0-0000-CaseManagementStatement.PDF
2025_07_11_05550416-0-0000-CertificateOfService.PDF
2025_07_14_05553153-0-0000-CertificateOfService.PDF

Step 22 2025-07-11

Opening appellate brief

Filed by: Sullivan / AZNH Trust

Sullivan explained to the appellate judges why the trial court should have gone further on open-meeting transparency.

Download 3 PDFs

2025_07_11_05550438-0-0000-OpeningBriefOfPlaintiffappella.PDF
2025_07_11_05550439-0-0001-CertificateOfCompliance.PDF
2025_07_11_05550440-0-0002-CertificateOfService.PDF

Step 23 2025-08-01

HOA gets more time

Filed by: HOA / Court

The HOA requested and received extra time to file its answering brief and cross-opening brief.

Download 3 PDFs

2025_08_01_05571065-0-0000-MotionToExtendTimeToFileAppell.PDF
2025_08_01_05571066-0-0001-CertificateOfService.PDF
2025_08_01_05571092-0-0000-OrderExtendingTimeToFileAnswer.PDF

Step 24 2025-08-15

Administrative appellate correspondence

Filed by: Court / parties

This is part of the appellate case-administration record around briefing and record handling.

Download PDF

2025_08_15_05586887-0-0000-LetterDated08152025ToFreemanMa.PDF

Step 25 2025-09-02

Answering brief and opening cross-appeal brief

Filed by: HOA

The HOA defended the parts it won and attacked Sullivan’s open-voting victory.

Download 3 PDFs

2025_09_02_05602553-0-0000-AppelleecrossappellantSunlandS.PDF
2025_09_02_05602554-0-0001-CertificateOfCompliance.PDF
2025_09_02_05602555-0-0002-CertificateOfService.PDF

Step 26 2025-09-08

Combined reply and answering brief on cross-appeal

Filed by: Sullivan / AZNH Trust

Sullivan replied on his own appeal and defended the open-voting win against the HOA’s cross-appeal.

Download 4 PDFs

2025_09_08_05611488-0-0000-CombinedReplyBriefOnAppealAndA.PDF
2025_09_08_05611489-0-0001-CertificateOfCompliance.PDF
2025_09_08_05611490-0-0002-CertificateOfService.PDF
2025_09_08_05611492-0-0000-AppendixA.PDF

Step 27 2025-09-08

Request for oral argument

Filed by: Sullivan / AZNH Trust

Sullivan asked for live oral argument, emphasizing the importance and likely statewide impact of the issues.

Download 2 PDFs

2025_09_08_05611871-0-0000-RequestForOralArgumentByPlaint.PDF
2025_09_08_05611872-0-0001-CertificateOfService.PDF

Step 28 2025-09-29

Reply brief on cross-appeal

Filed by: HOA

The HOA got the last word on its cross-appeal trying to undo Sullivan’s open-voting win.

Download 3 PDFs

2025_09_29_05634914-0-0000-CrossappellantSunlandSpringsVi.PDF
2025_09_29_05634915-0-0001-BriefCertificateOfCompliance.PDF
2025_09_29_05634916-0-0002-BriefCertificateOfService.PDF

Step 29 2025-10-28 to 2025-11-07

Oral argument granted and record supplemented

Filed by: Court

The appellate court agreed to hear oral argument and made sure the record was complete enough for decision.

Download 7 PDFs

2025_10_28_05658617-0-0000-Div1MemorandumRequestingAdditi.PDF
2025_10_28_05658698-0-0000-OrderGrantingRequestForOralArg.PDF
2025_11_07_05679886-0-0063-CourtOfAppealsAppellateClerkNo.PDF
2025_11_07_05679887-0-0064-ElectronicIndexOfRecord.PDF
2025_11_07_05679888-0-0065-CourtOfAppealsReceipt.PDF
2025_11_07_05679889-0-0066-CourtOfAppealsMemorandumDated1.PDF
2025_06_09_05521483-1-0000-IndexOfRecord.PDF

Step 30 2025-12-10 to 2025-12-17

Oral argument continued and reset

Filed by: HOA / Court

The HOA asked to move the hearing date; the court reset oral argument to February 18, 2026.

Download 3 PDFs

2025_12_10_05712157-0-0000-CrossappellantSunlandSpringsVi.PDF
2025_12_10_05712159-0-0001-CertificateOfService.PDF
2025_12_17_05720197-0-0000-OrderResettingOralArgument.PDF

Step 31 2026-02-02 to 2026-02-18

Oral argument notices and hearing

Filed by: Court / parties

The parties acknowledged the hearing, oral argument occurred, and the panel took the case under advisement.

Download 3 PDFs

2026_02_02_05776181-0-0000-ReturnReceiptForNoticeOfOralAr.PDF
2026_02_05_05779267-0-0000-ReturnReceiptForNoticeOfOralAr.PDF
2026_02_18_05793831-0-0000-SigninSheetcaseIsUnderAdviseme.PDF

Step 32 2026-04-28

Opinion issued

Filed by: Court of Appeals

Sullivan achieved a meaningful appellate win: open-session voting survived, agenda adequacy was reversed, and one issue was remanded for more factual development.

Type: Decision or judgment

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

Download source file

2026_04_28_05866077-0-0000-DecisionDistributionNotificati.PDF

Frequently asked questions

Can an Arizona planned-community HOA board vote in executive session?

No. Under this decision, all voting or formal actions of an association board must occur during open meetings. Executive session can be used for statutory consideration of protected matters, not the final vote.

Can a board still meet privately with its attorney?

Yes. A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1) still allows a closed portion of a meeting for legal advice from an attorney for the board or association. The legal advice can remain confidential. The formal vote or action following that advice must occur in open session unless another valid legal rule applies.

Does the agenda have to disclose private owner names or privileged legal advice?

No. The court made clear that A.R.S. § 33-1804(F) does not require disclosure of personally identifying information or attorney-client privileged information discussed in closed meetings. The agenda must still give enough nonprivileged information to reasonably advise members what business is being addressed.

Is a notice that cites only A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1) enough?

For the basic notice requirement, the court held that a notice with date, time, place, and the paragraph authorizing closure can be sufficient. For the agenda, however, a bare paragraph citation is not enough.

What records should a homeowner request?

Ask for existing portions of minutes, closed-session records, written consents, resolutions, ratifications, approvals, delegations, agenda materials, and other association records showing any motion, second, vote tally, authorization, ratification, approval, directive, or formal action taken by a board quorum outside an open meeting.

What should a board do if it previously voted in executive session?

The board should consult qualified Arizona community-association counsel, identify any closed-session votes or formal actions, preserve the original records, and consider corrective open-meeting action with proper notice, agenda detail, and member speaking opportunities.

Related Arizona HOA resources

Review note and disclaimer

Reviewed against the Arizona Court of Appeals opinion filed April 28, 2026, A Z N H v. Sunland Springs, No. 1 CA-CV 25-0424, and A.R.S. §§ 33-1804 and 33-1805.

This page is educational information for Arizona planned-community homeowners, board members, managers, and advocates. It is not legal advice for any specific dispute.

Primary sources and useful links

← Back to Court of Appeals cases

McNally v. Sun Lakes HOA: Elected Directors and Executive Sessions

Posted on April 30, 2026 by [email protected]

Arizona HOA Board Governance | Executive Sessions | 1 CA-CV 15-0744

McNally limits a majority board’s power to sideline an elected director. The Court of Appeals held the Sun Lakes board lacked authority to exclude Colette McNally from all executive sessions as an ad hoc discipline tool.

Last updated June 3, 2026. Case: Colette McNally v. Sun Lakes Homeowners Association #1, Inc., Arizona Court of Appeals No. 1 CA-CV 15-0744; Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2014-009496.

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

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

The rule in one sentence

An HOA board cannot invent a blanket executive-session exclusion that strips an elected director of core board participation rights without legal authority in statutes, bylaws, or a proper removal process.

Case snapshot

Court result

Denial of preliminary injunction was reversed and remanded.

Board action

Sun Lakes excluded McNally from all executive sessions for the balance of her term.

Core statutes

A.R.S. 10-3801, 10-3822, 10-3825, 10-3810, and 33-1804.

Practical use

Director discipline must follow real authority, not majority convenience.

Case Dossier

Case Summary

Case ID / citation	1 CA-CV 15-0744
Court / tribunal	Court of Appeals
Decision / key date	October 13, 2016
Judge / panel	Presiding Judge Andrew W. Gould, Judge Peter B. Swann, Judge Patricia A. Orozco
Parties	A duly elected board member sued the HOA after the board voted to exclude her from executive sessions.
Topics	board-governancemeetings-and-records
Outcome / holding	The court held that the HOA board lacked authority to exclude a duly elected director from executive sessions and reversed the denial of injunctive relief.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package	134 PDFs, 3 supporting source/review files
Step-by-step docket roadmap	4 roadmap entries
Video overview	McNally v. Sun Lakes HOA: Can an HOA Board Exclude an Elected Director?
Study / briefing material	2 sections
FAQ / homeowner questions	3 questions
Curated download aliases	3 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

After internal conflict on the board, Sun Lakes voted to bar one of its own elected directors from executive sessions. The excluded director sought injunctive relief, arguing the board had no authority to cut her out of board deliberations simply because other directors believed she had breached confidentiality or loyalty duties. The Court of Appeals agreed with her and reversed. The court treated board membership as carrying the right to participate in board meetings, including executive sessions, unless some legally valid removal or other recognized mechanism had been used. It would not let the rest of the board create an ad hoc punishment that effectively stripped an elected director of core board functions without following the governing legal framework.

Key Issues & Findings

The court focused on the nature of board office itself. A director is elected to participate in governing the corporation, and executive sessions are still board meetings, not separate private clubs for a board majority. Without a valid removal, suspension, or other recognized authority, the majority could not invent a partial-disqualification remedy.

The association argued that exclusion was justified by the director’s alleged misconduct and by the board’s need to protect confidential matters. The court was not persuaded that those concerns created authority where none existed. Governance has to follow the corporation’s legal structure and governing documents, not improvisation by fellow directors.

Why It Matters

McNally is highly useful in HOA board-power disputes. It limits majority control tactics against dissident directors and reinforces that board process must track real authority, not political convenience.

For directors and members, the case supports the idea that elected office in an HOA carries enforceable participation rights unless the association follows the proper path to remove or discipline the director.

Why this case matters

McNally is one of the strongest Arizona HOA board-governance cases because it treats board service as a real office with enforceable participation rights. The board had confidentiality concerns, but the court held that excluding an elected director from every executive session prevented her from performing director duties.

The opinion does not say a director may disclose confidential information. It says the remedy for confidentiality concerns must come from lawful tools such as recusal in a particular conflict, judicial removal, or an injunction tailored to confidentiality, not a blanket board-created exclusion.

Video overview: elected HOA directors and executive sessions

Watch this overview for McNally v. Sun Lakes HOA, where the Court of Appeals held that a board majority could not use confidentiality concerns to impose a blanket executive-session ban on a duly elected director.

Homeowner study guide: director rights and executive sessions

Homeowner or director question	Study-guide answer	Practical lesson
What topics may an Arizona planned-community board discuss in executive session?	A.R.S. 33-1804 allows closed discussion for limited subjects such as legal advice, pending or contemplated litigation, personal or financial information, employee matters, and member appeals.	Executive session is limited-purpose; it is not a general substitute for open board governance.
Can a board exclude an elected director from all executive sessions because it distrusts that director?	No. McNally held the board lacked statutory or bylaw authority to impose that blanket exclusion.	A board majority cannot use self-help to strip an elected director of core management participation rights.
Can a board create a committee of everyone except the targeted director?	Not as a workaround to eliminate the director’s management role.	Committee authority cannot be used to make the director-participation statutes meaningless.
What lawful remedies exist if a director may disclose confidential information?	The association can seek tailored injunctive relief, conflict-specific recusal, or judicial removal where statutory grounds exist.	The remedy has to match lawful authority; it cannot be an invented blanket ban.
Does McNally give directors permission to disclose confidential information?	No. The case addresses the board’s lack of authority for the exclusion, not a license to publish protected information.	Confidentiality duties and participation rights both matter.
Can a director be forced to sign a confidentiality oath as a condition of attending meetings?	McNally rejected conditioning participation on terms that effectively preserved the unauthorized exclusion.	Boards should use lawful, specific confidentiality tools rather than broad participation waivers.
What was the appellate outcome?	The Court of Appeals reversed the denial of preliminary injunctive relief and held the board had no authority to ban McNally from executive sessions.	The parties later settled after the appellate ruling.

Briefing notes from the review packet

Triggering dispute

The conflict began after former employee Jeannie Martens sent an email alleging staff misconduct, and McNally later attempted to read it during an open board meeting.

Board sanction

On September 20, 2013, the board approved screening McNally out of executive sessions for the balance of her term.

Conditioned re-entry

The briefing materials state the board offered readmission only if McNally acknowledged wrongdoing and signed a confidentiality pledge.

Association theory

The association framed the exclusion as a confidentiality and fiduciary-duty remedy, and argued it could operate as a special committee without McNally.

Director theory

McNally argued the board majority had no statutory or bylaw authority to strip an elected director of management participation rights.

Post-opinion status

After the appellate reversal, the parties filed a notice of settlement in November 2016, and McNally withdrew her fee application.

Director-rights analysis from the briefing

Legal point	Court’s treatment	Practical meaning
Director participation	A.R.S. 10-3801(B) requires directors to participate in managing the corporation.	A blanket executive-session exclusion interferes with core director duties.
Meeting notice	A.R.S. 10-3822(B) requires notice of meetings to directors.	A notice right is hollow if the board can invite a director but bar attendance.
Special committee theory	The court rejected use of A.R.S. 10-3825 to make the full board minus one director the functional decision-maker.	A committee statute cannot be used to nullify a director’s elected office.
Lawful alternatives	The opinion pointed to judicial removal, tailored injunctions, and conflict-specific recusal as available tools.	Boards need a real legal remedy, not self-help discipline.

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

Download source file

2017-01-03_000_asc-order-filed-01032017-re-dismiss.pdf

Source 137 Undated

Legal Case Source Document Inventory And Legal Significance Table 1

Type: Source roadmap CSV

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

Download source file

undated_900_legal-case-source-document-inventory-and-legal-significance-table-1.csv

For homeowners and directors

Use McNally when a board majority tries to silence or sideline an elected director without following removal procedures.
Separate confidentiality rules from participation rights. A director may have duties, but the board needs authority for the remedy it chooses.
Preserve meeting notices, executive-session exclusions, board minutes, and any conditions imposed on re-entry.

For boards and managers

Do not use a blanket executive-session ban as informal discipline against a director.
Use conflict-specific recusals, confidentiality orders, bylaws, or judicial remedies where legally supported.
Document the legal authority for any limit placed on a director before voting on it.

FAQ

Did McNally say directors can ignore confidentiality?

No. The opinion acknowledged confidentiality concerns but held the board lacked authority for a blanket exclusion from executive sessions.

Can a director ever be recused?

Yes. The opinion distinguished conflict-specific recusal from a blanket exclusion from all executive sessions.

Why is this case useful?

It gives directors and members a concrete Arizona authority for the idea that elected board service includes participation in board deliberations unless a lawful removal or restriction process is used.

← Back to Court of Appeals cases