procedure Archives - Page 15 of 18 - Arizona HOA Transparency Project

Multari v. Gress: Developer Private Deed Restrictions Held Invalid

Posted on June 29, 2026 by [email protected]

CC&Rs | A.R.S. §§ 12-2101, 12-120.21 | 1 CA-CV 06-0221

This case highlights the strict limits placed on residential developers in Arizona. It illustrates that uniform subdivision covenants cannot be selectively altered by recording non-uniform private deed restrictions on individual lots without a proper vote.

Last updated June 29, 2026. Case: Multari, Court of Appeals No. 1 CA-CV 06-0221; reversed and remanded.

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

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 the Arizona Court of Appeals decision declaring lot-specific private deed restrictions invalid when they selectively alter uniform subdivision covenants. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The Arizona Court of Appeals held that a developer cannot utilize private deed restrictions on multiple lots in a residential subdivision to alter uniform covenants and restrictions otherwise applicable to those lots without following the uniform declaration’s formal amendment procedures.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Dominick Multari (Plaintiff)
Husband of Lynn Multari, owner of lot 290 in the Ocotillo Hills subdivision, and successor-in-interest to the 1973 Private Deed Restrictions.
Lynn Multari (Plaintiff)
Wife of Dominick Multari, owner of lot 290 in the Ocotillo Hills subdivision, and successor-in-interest to the 1973 Private Deed Restrictions.
John Maston O’Neal (Counsel)
Quarles & Brady Streich Lang LLP
Counsel representing Plaintiffs/Appellees/Cross-Appellants Dominick and Lynn Multari.
David E. Funkhouser III (Counsel)
Quarles & Brady Streich Lang LLP
Counsel representing Plaintiffs/Appellees/Cross-Appellants Dominick and Lynn Multari.

Respondent Side

Richard D. Gress (Defendant)
Husband of Carmen Gress, trustee under agreement dated April 15, 1998, and owner of lot 285 in the Ocotillo Hills subdivision, subject to the contested 1976 Private Deed Restrictions.
Carmen Gress (Defendant)
Wife of Richard D. Gress, trustee under agreement dated April 15, 1998, and owner of lot 285 in the Ocotillo Hills subdivision, subject to the contested 1976 Private Deed Restrictions.
Timothy J. Thomason (Counsel)
Mariscal, Weeks, McIntyre & Friedlander, P.A.
Counsel representing Defendants/Appellants/Cross-Appellees Richard D. and Carmen Gress.
Charles H. Oldham (Counsel)
Mariscal, Weeks, McIntyre & Friedlander, P.A.
Counsel representing Defendants/Appellants/Cross-Appellees Richard D. and Carmen Gress.

Neutral Parties

Daniel A. Barker (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Authoring Appellate Judge on Department B who delivered the Court's opinion reversing the summary judgment.
Patricia K. Norris (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Presiding Appellate Judge for Department B on Department B.
Jon W. Thompson (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Appellate Judge for Department B.
Janet E. Barton (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court
Trial Court Judge who presided over the underlying case (Cause No. CV 2005-009405) and granted summary judgment in favor of the Multaris.
Philip G. Urry (Other)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Clerk of the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One.
Rachelle M. Resnick (Other)
Arizona Supreme Court
Clerk of the Arizona Supreme Court who received the transmittal of the Petition for Review.
Michael K. Jeanes (Other)
Maricopa County Superior Court
Clerk of the Maricopa County Superior Court.
Patricia Sanderman (Other)
Maricopa County Superior Court
Supervisor of the Appeals Section of the Maricopa County Superior Court.
Minnesota Title Company (Other)
Original developer and legal owner of lots 244 through 297, which recorded the uniform 1973 Declaration of Deed Restrictions and subsequent lot-specific private deed restrictions.

What happened

In April 1973, Minnesota Title Company, the original legal owner of lots 244 through 297 in the Ocotillo Hills subdivision, recorded a uniform ‘Declaration of Deed Restrictions’ permitting accessory structures of any size and requiring a two-thirds vote of lot owners to change the covenants. Subsequently, between 1973 and 1978, the developer recorded individual ‘private deed restrictions’ on thirty-two of the fifty-four lots as they were sold.

In 1976, Minnesota Title recorded private deed restrictions on lot 285 (later owned by the Gresses) prohibiting structures under 1,400 square feet or higher than 13 feet, with a clause allowing the owner of lot 290 (later owned by the Multaris) to sue for violations and recover attorneys’ fees. In 2005, the Gresses began building a small accessory building. The Multaris sued to stop construction and enforce the 1976 restrictions. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Multaris, which the Gresses appealed.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Multari v. Gress (1 CA-CV 06-0221). A developer cannot utilize private deed restrictions on multiple lots in a residential subdivision to alter uniform… 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 Multari v. Gress. 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

Step 1973-04-04 Minnesota Title Company records the uniform Declaration of Deed Restrictions (1973 Declaration) for the Ocotillo Hills subdivision.

Step 1973-04-17 Minnesota Title conveys Lot 290 and records the 1973 Private Deed Restrictions.

Step 1975-12-16 Minnesota Title sells Lot 285 to the Gresses' predecessors in interest.

Step 1976-01-06 Minnesota Title records the deed and the 1976 Private Deed Restrictions for Lot 285.

Step 2005-02-15 Richard and Carmen Gress begin construction of a small accessory building behind their home.

Step 2005-04-15 Dominick and Lynn Multari send a letter to the Gresses requesting that they cease construction.

Step 2005-06-08 The Multaris file a complaint in Maricopa County Superior Court to enforce the 1976 Private Deed Restrictions.

Step 2005-09-19 A trial court transcript of proceedings is recorded in the Maricopa County Superior Court.

Step 2006-04-11 Superior Court Clerk files the index of record, and the Court of Appeals, Division One docket assigns Case No. 1 CA-CV 06-0221.

Step 2006-04-14 The Gresses pay their appellant filing fee in the Court of Appeals.

Step 2006-05-02 Court of Appeals issues notice reminding of appellant's opening brief and appellee's fee deadlines.

Step 2006-08-02 Court of Appeals orders the Superior Court Clerk to transmit the trial court record on appeal.

Step 2006-08-09 The record inventory from the Maricopa County Superior Court is filed with the Court of Appeals.

Step 2007-01-16 Court of Appeals issues Notice of Oral Argument setting the hearing for February 27, 2007.

Step 2007-02-27 Oral argument is held before Department B of the Court of Appeals; the court takes the case under advisement.

Step 2007-04-24 Court of Appeals files its published Opinion reversing summary judgment and remanding the case.

Step 2007-05-09 The Multaris file a Motion for Reconsideration with the Court of Appeals.

Step 2007-05-25 Court of Appeals denies the Multaris' Motion for Reconsideration.

Step 2007-08-10 The Multaris file a Petition for Review with the Arizona Supreme Court.

Step 2007-08-13 Clerk of Court of Appeals transmits the Petition for Review and appellate record to the Arizona Supreme Court.

Type: Decision or judgment

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

Download source file

2008-01-31_012_0000-div-1-civil-mandate-package.pdf

Source 13 2008-01-31

0000 Div 1 Westmeadbureau Package Lette

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

2008-01-31_013_0000-div-1-westmeadbureau-package-lette.pdf

FAQ

Is the court's decision in Multari v. Gress precedential?

Yes. This is a published Arizona Court of Appeals opinion, which makes it binding legal precedent in Arizona. It can be cited as authoritative case law in disputes involving subdivision deed restrictions.

Can a developer record separate private restrictions on individual lots that conflict with uniform CC&Rs?

No. The court held that a developer cannot use lot-specific private deed restrictions to alter or restrict rights granted under a previously recorded uniform declaration of covenants without following the formal amendment procedures specified in that uniform declaration.

What happens if a developer tries to bypass formal CC&R amendment procedures?

Any lot-specific private restrictions recorded by a developer that effectively change or restrict the rights guaranteed under the uniform subdivision declaration will be declared invalid and unenforceable if they did not follow the uniform declaration’s formal amendment processes.

Why did the Multaris lose their lawsuit to enforce the 13-foot structure height limit against the Gresses?

Although the Multaris had a private restriction recorded on the Gresses’ lot in 1976 that limited accessory structures to 13 feet in height, the court ruled this restriction invalid because it conflicted with the 1973 subdivision-wide uniform declaration, which allowed accessory buildings of any dimension and required a two-thirds owner vote to amend.

Can a homeowner recover attorneys' fees if they sue based on an invalid private deed restriction?

No. Because the lot-specific private deed restriction was ruled invalid, the Multaris were not the successful party and could not recover attorneys’ fees or costs under either the statutory provision (A.R.S. § 12-341.01) or the invalid restriction itself.

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 / citation	1 CA-CV 06-0221
Court / tribunal	Court of Appeals
Decision / key date	April 24, 2007
Judge / panel	Hon. Daniel A. Barker, Hon. Patricia K. Norris, Hon. Jon W. Thompson
Parties	Dominick and Lynn Multari (Plaintiffs/Appellees/Cross-Appellants) vs. Richard D. and Carmen Gress, as trustees (Defendants/Appellants/Cross-Appellees)
Governing law	A.R.S. § 12-2101 A.R.S. § 12-120.21 A.R.S. § 12-341.01 A.R.S. § 12-341
Topics	CC&RsArchitectural ReviewProcedureAttorney Fees
Outcome / holding	The Arizona Court of Appeals held that a developer cannot utilize private deed restrictions on multiple lots in a residential subdivision to alter uniform covenants and restrictions otherwise applicable to those lots without following the uniform declaration's formal amendment procedures.

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package	13 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	22 roadmap entries
Video overview	Multari v. Gress
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	5 questions
Featured download links	3 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Dominick and Lynn Multari sued their neighbors, Richard and Carmen Gress, seeking to enforce private deed restrictions recorded by the subdivision's developer in 1976. The 1976 restrictions limited the size and height of accessory structures on the Gresses' lot. The Gresses argued that these restrictions were invalid because they conflicted with a 1973 Declaration of Deed Restrictions that applied uniformly to all lots in the subdivision and permitted accessory buildings of any dimension. The 1973 Declaration required a two-thirds vote of lot owners to change the covenants. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Multaris, enforcing the restrictions and awarding attorneys' fees. On appeal, the Arizona Court of Appeals reversed. The court held that the developer could not bypass the 1973 Declaration's amendment procedure by recording non-uniform private deed restrictions on individual lots. The private restrictions were declared invalid, and the case was remanded to enter judgment for the Gresses.

Key Issues & Findings

The Court of Appeals reasoned that the 1973 Declaration established uniform covenants and restrictions for the benefit of 'each and every' lot in the subdivision, which explicitly permitted accessory structures of any size. The subsequent 1976 Private Deed Restrictions placed by the developer on some but not all lots took away this right, which constituted an alteration or 'change in part' of the 1973 Declaration. Permitting developers to use private deed restrictions to bypass the formal amendment process would destroy the right of property owners to rely on restrictive covenants and completely upset the orderly plan of the subdivision.

Since the 1973 Declaration required a two-thirds vote of lot owners to change the covenants, and the developer's private restrictions did not comply with this exclusive procedure, the non-uniform private restrictions limiting structure dimensions were held to be an invalid amendment. The court noted that this decision does not address scenarios in which a subsequent private property owner, rather than the developer acting on multiple lots, records private restrictions different from the uniform ones.

Why It Matters

For Arizona HOAs and homeowners, this case establishes that a developer cannot selectively or unilaterally impose non-uniform private deed restrictions on individual lots that conflict with or alter rights granted under a previously recorded uniform declaration, unless they adhere strictly to the declaration's specified amendment procedures. This enforces the predictability and environmental stability of subdivisions by protecting the rights of lot owners to rely on the original uniform covenants.

For legal counsel and boards, the ruling serves as a warning that restrictive covenants must be uniform and amended only via the formal processes established in the original declarations. Unilateral developer carve-outs or non-uniform lot restrictions are highly vulnerable to being declared invalid. Furthermore, litigation to enforce such invalid restrictions will result in the loss of any contractual right to attorneys' fees and costs.

← Back to Court of Appeals cases

Trilogy at Power Ranch v. John Doe: An HOA’s Anonymous-Critic Suit Dies on Service

Posted on June 22, 2026 by [email protected]

Arizona HOA vs. Anonymous Critics | Maricopa County Superior Court CV2025-036877

An HOA sued 50 anonymous ‘John Doe’ email critics, got leave to take discovery to identify them, but never completed service. The court dismissed the case without prejudice.

Last updated June 22, 2026. Case: Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association v. John Doe #1-50, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2025-036877 (Hon. Michael J. Herrod).

Download dismissal order Download complaint

Current-status note: This page is published as a litigation record based on the source files available through 2026-03-04. 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 a Maricopa County Superior Court trial-court matter (CV2025-036877) that was dismissed without prejudice for lack of service — the court never reached the merits. The complaint contained allegations against unidentified defendants; none were proven. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The rule in one sentence

An association cannot keep an injunction case alive against unidentified ‘John Doe’ defendants it never serves; without personal service inside the court’s deadline, the case is dismissed.

Case snapshot

Case name

Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association v. John Doe #1-50.

Superior Court docket

Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2025-036877 (Hon. Michael J. Herrod).

Result

Dismissed without prejudice on March 4, 2026 for failure to serve the defendants within the court-ordered deadline.

Relationship to CV2025-036771

Companion case filed the same day; the association’s identified-defendant claims continued in CV2025-036771 (Berman), which was itself later dismissed and settled.

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 / citation	CV2025-036877
Court / tribunal	Superior Court
Decision / key date	March 4, 2026
Judge / panel	Hon. Michael J. Herrod
Parties	The companion suit Trilogy at Power Ranch filed the same day, targeting 50 unidentified 'John Doe' senders of the anonymous 'Trilogy News' emails and seeking to declare the emails unlawful and enjoin them.
Governing law	42 U.S.C. § 3601 (Fair Housing Act)
Topics	Board GovernanceFree SpeechProcedure
Outcome / holding	An association cannot keep an injunction case alive against unidentified 'John Doe' defendants it never serves; absent personal service within the court-ordered deadline, the case is dismissed without prejudice.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package	3 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	3 roadmap entries
Video overview	Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association v. John Doe #1-50
Study / briefing material	0 sections
FAQ / homeowner questions	0 questions
Featured download links	3 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Filed the same day as CV2025-036771, this companion case targeted 50 anonymous 'John Doe' defendants behind the 'Trilogy News' email campaign, again pleading tortious interference, injurious falsehood, and (as to one sender) hostile housing harassment. The court granted the association leave to take discovery to identify the senders and set a service deadline, but the association never completed personal service. Judge Michael Herrod vacated the order-to-show-cause hearing on November 14, 2025 and dismissed the case without prejudice on March 4, 2026 for failure to serve. The court never reached the merits.

Key Issues & Findings

Recognizing the defendants were anonymous, the court granted limited discovery to identify them and set a deadline for service. The association did not effect personal service within that window, and email service on anonymous accounts was inadequate. Under the civil rules governing failure to serve, the court dismissed the case without prejudice rather than reaching whether the emails were actually wrongful.

Why It Matters

The case shows how hard it is for an association to weaponize the courts against anonymous online criticism: identification, personal jurisdiction, and service are real procedural hurdles that frequently end a case before any judge evaluates whether the speech crossed a legal line. 'Without prejudice' means the claims were not decided on the merits, but as a practical matter the anonymous-critic suit ended here while the identified-defendant case (CV2025-036771) was itself later dismissed and settled.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association (Plaintiff)
Association party that sued unidentified John Doe defendants.
Scott B. Carpenter (Counsel)
Carpenter Law Firm
Counsel for Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association.
Keegan Klein (Counsel)
Carpenter Law Firm
Counsel for Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association.

Respondent Side

John Doe #1-50 (Defendants) (Defendants)
Unidentified anonymous defendants named in the complaint.

Neutral Parties

Michael J. Herrod (Judge)
Superior Court judge who dismissed the John Doe case without prejudice.

Why this case matters

On the same day in October 2025, Trilogy at Power Ranch filed two suits over the anonymous ‘Trilogy News’ email campaign criticizing its board, staff, and committees. This one, CV2025-036877, targeted 50 unnamed ‘John Doe’ defendants and asked the court to declare the emails unlawful and enjoin them. The association alleged tortious interference, injurious falsehood, and (as to one sender) hostile housing harassment under the Fair Housing Act.

The problem was procedural and basic: you cannot sue people you cannot identify and serve. The court granted the association leave to take discovery to unmask the senders and set a service deadline, but the association never completed personal service. Judge Michael Herrod vacated the show-cause hearing in November 2025 and dismissed the case without prejudice in March 2026.

For homeowners, the case illustrates how hard it is for an association to weaponize the courts against anonymous online criticism. Identification, jurisdiction, and service are real hurdles that often end a case before any judge weighs whether the speech was actually wrongful.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association v. John Doe #1-50 (CV2025-036877). An association cannot keep an injunction case alive against unidentified ‘John Doe’ defendants it never serves… 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 Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association v. John Doe #1-50. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

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

What the court decided

Discovery to identify, granted

The court let the association take limited discovery to try to identify the anonymous senders.

Service never completed

The association did not personally serve the defendants within the court-ordered window, and email service on anonymous accounts was inadequate.

Dismissed without prejudice

Under the civil rules, Judge Herrod dismissed the case for lack of service; ‘without prejudice’ means it could in theory be refiled.

Filing roadmap and PDF downloads

Step 1 Oct 9, 2025

Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against John Doe #1-50.

Filed by: Association

The association sued 50 unidentified email senders.

Download source

2025-10-09_001_complaint.pdf

Step 2 Nov 14, 2025

Order vacating the order-to-show-cause hearing; leave to take discovery to identify defendants.

Filed by: Superior Court

With no one served, the court called off the injunction hearing and allowed discovery to find the senders.

Download source

2025-11-14_002_order-vacating-show-cause-hearing.pdf

Step 3 Mar 4, 2026

Order dismissing the case without prejudice for lack of service.

Filed by: Superior Court

Because no defendant was served by the deadline, Judge Herrod dismissed the case.

Download source

2026-03-04_003_order-of-dismissal-without-prejudice.pdf

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 2025-10-09

Complaint

Type: Opening pleading

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

Download source file

2025-10-09_001_complaint.pdf

Source 2 2025-11-14

Order Vacating Show Cause Hearing

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file

2025-11-14_002_order-vacating-show-cause-hearing.pdf

Source 3 2026-03-04

Order Of Dismissal Without Prejudice

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file

2026-03-04_003_order-of-dismissal-without-prejudice.pdf

Primary sources

← Back to Superior Court cases

Trilogy at Power Ranch v. Berman: When an Arizona HOA Sues a Critic and Loses

Posted on June 22, 2026 by [email protected]

Arizona HOA vs. Critic | Maricopa County Superior Court CV2025-036771

A self-managed 2,035-home HOA sued a vocal resident over critical mass emails. The Superior Court dismissed the claims, and the case settled with each side paying its own fees.

Last updated June 22, 2026. Case: Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association v. Steve Berman, et al., Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2025-036771 (Hon. Greg S. Como).

Download dismissal ruling Download first amended complaint Download stipulation of dismissal

Current-status note: This page is published as a litigation record based on the source files available through 2026-06-18. Later filings, appeals, mandates, settlements, or dismissal orders may change the posture; the linked court records control.

Pipeline note: the public raw-source folder contains source files that were not in the last staged NotebookLM source set. The page remains a source-linked record, but generated media should be rebuilt or rechecked after the staged source manifest catches up.

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

Video/audio is held until the missing or conflicting source issue is resolved and release QA is rerun.

Scope note: This page covers a Maricopa County Superior Court trial-court matter (CV2025-036771) that was dismissed and then settled. The association’s complaint contained allegations against the defendants; those allegations were never proven, and the case ended without any finding that the defendants did anything unlawful. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The rule in one sentence

An Arizona HOA cannot turn a member’s critical emails about board spending, salaries, and governance into a lawsuit by labeling them ‘tortious interference with business operations’ — a tort Arizona does not recognize — or ‘hostile housing harassment’; criticism of how an association is run is generally protected, not actionable.

Case snapshot

Case name

Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association v. Steve Berman, et al. (originally filed against John Doe defendants).

Superior Court docket

Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2025-036771 (Hon. Greg S. Como).

Result

Motion to dismiss granted on June 1, 2026; the parties then stipulated to dismiss with prejudice, each side bearing its own fees, on June 18, 2026.

What was at stake

The association sought declaratory and injunctive relief to stop a resident’s mass ‘Trilogy News’ emails criticizing the board, staff, and committees.

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 / citation	CV2025-036771
Court / tribunal	Superior Court
Decision / key date	June 1, 2026
Judge / panel	Hon. Greg S. Como
Parties	A self-managed 2,035-home Gilbert HOA sued a vocal resident (former Gilbert mayor Steve Berman) and Marc Herbener over a campaign of anonymous, critical 'Trilogy News' mass emails, seeking to declare the emails unlawful and to enjoin them.
Governing law	42 U.S.C. § 3601 (Fair Housing Act)
Topics	Board GovernanceFree SpeechProcedure
Outcome / holding	An Arizona HOA cannot convert member criticism — even repeated, anonymous, and harsh mass emails about board spending, salaries, and governance — into a civil claim by labeling it 'tortious interference with business operations' (a tort Arizona does not recognize) or 'hostile housing harassment'; on the association's pleadings the court found no viable legal theory and dismissed.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package	15 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	15 roadmap entries
Video overview	Temporarily unavailable while the expanded case record is reviewed
Study / briefing material	0 sections
FAQ / homeowner questions	0 questions
Featured download links	4 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association — a self-managed, 2,035-home active-adult HOA in Gilbert — sued resident Steve Berman (a former Gilbert mayor) and Marc Herbener over a series of anonymous 'Trilogy News' mass emails criticizing the board's spending, executive and manager salaries, water management, contractor bidding, and committee appointments. The association sought declaratory relief and an injunction, pleading 'tortious interference with business operations,' injurious falsehood, and 'hostile housing harassment' under the Fair Housing Act, and amended its complaint three times. On June 1, 2026, Judge Greg Como granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, and on June 18, 2026 the parties stipulated to dismiss the remaining case with prejudice, each side bearing its own attorney fees and costs. The complaint's allegations were never proven.

Key Issues & Findings

The court concluded the operative complaint failed to identify a viable cause of action. Arizona does not recognize a freestanding tort of 'interference with business operations,' a core theory of the suit; the 'hostile housing harassment' framing under the Fair Housing Act did not fit what was, in substance, members criticizing how a nonprofit board governs and spends; and the gravamen of the case was protected commentary on association governance. The court therefore granted dismissal, after which the parties stipulated to a dismissal with prejudice with no fee award to either side. Because the case was resolved at the pleading stage and by stipulation, no factual findings were made about the truth of the emails.

Why It Matters

For Arizona homeowners and critics, the case is a clear marker that an association's displeasure with a critic is not, by itself, a cause of action: speech about how a board spends money, pays staff, and appoints volunteers is ordinary community participation, not a tort, and boards that sue over it risk a quick dismissal and the 'SLAPP' label that this community's own board raised when it voted to settle. For boards and managers, it is a caution that litigation is a costly and weak response to an unflattering email campaign. It does not immunize defamation — false statements of fact about identifiable people can still carry consequences — but the association here lost on the theories it chose.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association (Plaintiff)
Association party that sued Steve Berman and other defendants.
Adrian Gordon (Association Principal)
Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association
Listed as a Trilogy principal present at oral argument.
Lisa Gurtler (Association Principal)
Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association
Listed as a Trilogy principal present at oral argument.
Scott B. Carpenter (Counsel)
Carpenter Law Firm
Counsel for Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association.
Keegan Klein (Counsel)
Carpenter Law Firm
Counsel for Trilogy at Power Ranch Community Association.

Respondent Side

Geoffrey G. Collins (Counsel)
Childers, Hanlon & Hudson, PLC
Counsel of record for Steve Berman in later minute entries and the dismissal stipulation.
Steve Berman (Defendant)
Named defendant accused of sending critical emails.
Jane Doe Berman (Defendant)
Spouse defendant named in the second amended complaint.
Marc Herbener (Defendant)
Named defendant accused of authoring or sending Trilogy News emails.
Kevin R. Harper (Counsel)
Minute entries list him at the show-cause hearing for Steve Berman.

Neutral Parties

Greg S. Como (Judge)
Superior Court judge who granted the motion to dismiss.

Why this case matters

Trilogy at Power Ranch is a self-managed, 2,035-home active-adult community in Gilbert run by a volunteer board and its own staff. Beginning in 2025, residents received a stream of mass emails — branded as ‘Trilogy News’ and sent from a rotating set of anonymous accounts — that sharply criticized the board’s spending, executive and manager salaries, water management, contractor bidding, and committee appointments. The association attributed the campaign to former Gilbert mayor Steve Berman and resident Marc Herbener and took them to court.

Rather than answer the criticism through normal community channels, the association sued, asking a judge to declare the emails unlawful and to enjoin the defendants from sending more. It styled the claims as ‘tortious interference with business operations,’ ‘injurious falsehood,’ and even ‘hostile housing harassment’ under the Fair Housing Act. After three rounds of amended complaints, Judge Greg Como dismissed the case, and the parties settled with each side walking away and paying its own fees.

For homeowners, the case is a clean example of why an association’s displeasure with a critic is not, by itself, a lawsuit. When a board reaches for litigation to silence unflattering emails about governance, it risks a quick dismissal — and the ‘SLAPP’ label that the community itself raised when its board voted to settle.

What Judge Como decided

No 'interference with business operations' tort

The court found Arizona does not recognize a freestanding tort of interference with business operations — a core theory of the association’s complaint.

Harassment theory failed

The ‘hostile housing harassment’ framing did not fit a dispute that was, at bottom, members criticizing how a nonprofit board governs and spends.

Dismissed, then settled

After the dismissal, the parties stipulated to dismiss the remaining case with prejudice, waiving fees and costs on both sides.

For homeowners and critics

Speaking out about how an association spends money, pays staff, and picks committee members is ordinary community participation, not a tort. This case shows that even repeated, anonymous, and harsh email campaigns are difficult for an association to convert into civil liability — and that a board that sues over them may end up dismissed and labeled as bringing a SLAPP-style suit.

It is not a license to defame: false statements of fact about identifiable people can still carry consequences under defamation law. But the association here did not win on that ground; its chosen theories failed at the pleading stage.

For HOA boards and managers

Download source

2026-06-01_014_ruling-granting-motion-to-dismiss.pdf

Step 15 Jun 18, 2026

Stipulation to dismiss with prejudice, each side bearing its own fees.

Filed by: Parties

The parties agreed to end the case permanently, with no fee award to either side.

Type: Court order/minute entry

Ruling granting Steve Berman’s motion to dismiss and dismissing the association’s third amended complaint without prejudice.

Download source file

2026-06-01_014_ruling-granting-motion-to-dismiss.pdf

Source 15 2026-06-18

Stipulation Of Dismissal With Prejudice

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file

2026-06-18_015_stipulation-of-dismissal-with-prejudice.pdf

Primary sources

← Back to Superior Court cases

Rodriguez v. Gardens-Gilbert Community Association: CC&Rs as Contract, Negligence, and the Limits of HOA Tort Claims

Posted on June 19, 2026 by [email protected]

Arizona HOA Litigation | PENDING | A.R.S. § 33-1805 | CV2024-005940

Rodriguez is an active, heavily litigated case on remand from the Court of Appeals. The latest substantive ruling narrowed it to negligence and CC&R-based contract claims, dismissed the retaliation, discrimination, and conspiracy theories, and sanctioned the pro se plaintiff. No final judgment has been entered.

Last updated June 19, 2026. Case: Sandra Rodriguez v. Gardens-Gilbert Community Association, et al., Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2024-005940 (consolidated with CV2024-013806; Hon. Christopher Coury). Status: pending / not final.

Download omnibus ruling Download motion to dismiss Source-file index FAQ

Current-status note: This page is published as a litigation record based on the source files available through 2026-06-11. 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.

Status: PENDING / NOT FINAL (June 2026). This is an active Maricopa County Superior Court case on remand from the Court of Appeals; no final judgment has been entered and rulings may change. This page summarizes the uploaded record and is educational, not legal advice.

The takeaways so far

An HOA’s CC&Rs are the contract between owner and association, so breach-of-contract claims survive only against the association and only as to specific recorded CC&R terms — not against a management company that is not a party to that contract. Arizona recognizes no standalone tort of ‘retaliation,’ and the economic-loss doctrine can bar tort claims that merely restate CC&R breaches. But negligence and gross-negligence claims tied to common-area maintenance and management duties, and records-access claims under A.R.S. § 33-1805, can still proceed.

What the case is about

Sandra Rodriguez, a Gilbert homeowner appearing pro se, sued the Gardens-Gilbert Community Association, its management company (Focus HOA Management, LLC), and three individual agents, alleging they failed to maintain common areas and address health-and-safety hazards, obstructed remediation of water-intrusion damage at her property, denied her access to records and meetings under A.R.S. § 33-1805, and retaliated against her.

After the trial court dismissed several defendants, the Court of Appeals (1 CA-CV 24-0790/25-0040, August 2025 memorandum decision) reinstated her negligence, gross-negligence, and intentional-tort claims and remanded. On remand, Judge Coury’s May 27, 2026 omnibus ruling narrowed the case to surviving negligence and CC&R-based contract claims, dismissed the discrimination, retaliation, and conspiracy theories, sanctioned the plaintiff for a missed deposition, and imposed a filing restriction; a summary-judgment motion remains pending and a third appeal was filed June 1, 2026.

Video overview of the case record

An AI-generated video overview of Sandra Rodriguez v. Gardens-Gilbert Community Association, et al. (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2024-005940 (consolidated with CV2024-013806)). On the operative pleading, the court held that an HOA’s CC&Rs are the contract between owner and association, so… 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 Sandra Rodriguez v. Gardens-Gilbert Community Association, et al.. 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

Step 2024-03-21 Complaint filed (CV2024-005940)

Step 2025-08-12 Court of Appeals reinstates negligence/gross-negligence/intentional-tort claims; remands (1 CA-CV 24-0790/25-0040)

Step 2025-09-03 Cases CV2024-005940 and CV2024-013806 consolidated

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file

undated_218_summons.pdf

Source 219 Undated

Verified Answer

Type: Responsive pleading

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

Download source file

undated_219_verified-answer.pdf

Key holdings (so far)

Breach-of-contract claims run against the association, limited to recorded CC&R terms.
A management company is not a party to that contract.

Arizona recognizes no standalone HOA retaliation tort.
The economic-loss doctrine bars tort claims that merely restate CC&R breaches.

Negligence and gross negligence tied to common-area maintenance.
Records-access theory under A.R.S. § 33-1805.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Sandra Rodriguez (Plaintiff)
Self-represented homeowner plaintiff.

Respondent Side

Gardens-Gilbert Community Association (Defendant/Appellee)
Association party named in Rodriguez’s complaint and appeal.
Focus HOA Management, LLC (Defendant/Appellee)
Management-company defendant in the case record.
Harman Cadis (Defendant)
Focus HOA Management
Individual defendant named in the verified partial answer.
Brooke Sortor (Defendant)
Focus HOA Management
Individual defendant named in the verified partial answer.
Anna Schultz (Defendant)
Focus HOA Management
Individual defendant named in the verified partial answer.
Augustus H. Shaw IV (Counsel)
Counsel for defendants in the verified partial answer.
Dominick D. Detente (Counsel)
Counsel for defendants in the verified partial answer.

Neutral Parties

Rodrick Coffey (Judge)
Superior Court judge listed in one order.
David McDowell (Judge)
Superior Court judge assigned in later pleadings.
Christopher Coury (Judge)
Superior Court judge addressed in later notices.

FAQ

Is this case final?

No. It is active and pending on remand, with a summary-judgment motion outstanding and a third appeal filed June 1, 2026. Nothing here is a final ruling and the outcome may change.

Can I sue my HOA's management company for breach of contract?

Generally not on the CC&Rs alone. This ruling holds the CC&Rs are the contract between the owner and the association; a management company that is not a party to that contract is not liable for breach of it.

Does Arizona recognize an HOA 'retaliation' claim?

This ruling holds it does not as a standalone tort, and that the economic-loss doctrine can bar tort claims that simply restate CC&R breaches.

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 / citation	Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2024-005940 (consolidated with CV2024-013806)
Court / tribunal	Superior Court
Decision / key date	May 27, 2026
Judge / panel	Hon. Christopher Coury
Parties	A Gilbert homeowner, appearing pro se, sued her HOA, its management company, and three individual agents over common-area maintenance, records access, and alleged retaliation; the case is active on remand from the Court of Appeals.
Governing law	A.R.S. § 33-1805 A.R.S. § 12-1809
Topics	ProcedureCC&RsNegligenceRecords RequestsEconomic Loss DoctrinePro Se Litigant
Outcome / holding	On the operative pleading, the court held that an HOA's CC&Rs are the contract between owner and association, so breach-of-contract claims survive only against the association and only as to specific recorded CC&R terms (not against the non-contracting management company); the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing requires a contract; Arizona recognizes no standalone tort of 'retaliation' and the economic-loss doctrine bars tort claims that merely restate CC&R breaches; but the plaintiff's negligence and gross-negligence claims tied to common-area maintenance and management duties, and her § 33-1805 records theory, survive for further litigation.

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package	219 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	5 roadmap entries
Video overview	Sandra Rodriguez v. Gardens-Gilbert Community Association, et al.
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	3 questions
Featured download links	3 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

CURRENT STATUS (June 2026): NOT FINAL — this is an active, heavily litigated Maricopa County Superior Court case on remand from the Court of Appeals; no final judgment has been entered. Sandra Rodriguez, a homeowner in the Gardens-Gilbert community, sued the association, its management company (Focus HOA Management, LLC), and three individual agents, alleging the defendants failed to maintain common areas and address health-and-safety hazards, obstructed remediation of water-intrusion damage at her property, denied her access to records and meetings under A.R.S. § 33-1805, and retaliated against her. The trial court initially dismissed several defendants, but in August 2025 the Court of Appeals (1 CA-CV 24-0790/25-0040, memorandum decision) reinstated her negligence, gross-negligence, and intentional-tort claims and remanded. On remand, the latest substantive ruling is Judge Coury's May 27, 2026 omnibus order, which narrowed the case to surviving negligence and CC&R-based contract claims, dismissed the discrimination, retaliation, and conspiracy theories, sanctioned the plaintiff for a missed deposition, and imposed a filing restriction; a summary-judgment motion remains pending and a third appeal was filed June 1, 2026.

Key Issues & Findings

Taking the well-pleaded allegations as admitted, the court held that several counts failed as a matter of law: breach of contract requires a contract, so claims against the management entity and individuals failed and the association claim was limited to the recorded CC&Rs; the implied covenant cannot exist without a contract; Arizona does not recognize a tort of retaliation, and to the extent the retaliation theory rested on CC&R duties the economic-loss doctrine barred it; and the discrimination count failed for lack of any protected-characteristic facts. The court rejected the defendants' argument that the appellate remand was narrow, reviewing each claim de novo because the earlier dismissal had been without prejudice. Applying the four-factor injunction test, it denied the plaintiff's request for a temporary restraining order and harassment injunction, finding no likelihood of success or irreparable harm and noting the request appeared aimed at avoiding a deposition; it also denied her motion to declare defense counsel vexatious, imposed an intermediate sanction for the missed deposition, and restricted further motion practice pending decision on summary judgment.

Why It Matters

For Arizona HOA disputes, the case reinforces that CC&Rs are the contract between owner and association — breach-of-contract claims are confined to specific recorded CC&R terms and generally cannot be brought against a management company that is not a party to that contract. It confirms that Arizona recognizes no standalone tort of HOA 'retaliation' and that the economic-loss doctrine can bar tort claims that simply restate CC&R breaches, while showing that records-access claims under A.R.S. § 33-1805 and common-area maintenance failures can still proceed as negligence theories. It is also a cautionary example of how a sprawling pro se HOA case can draw sanctions, filing restrictions, and repeated appeals. Because the case is ongoing, nothing here is a final ruling.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Gayer v. Willo Neighborhood Association: Challenging an HOA Bylaw-Amendment Vote for Lack of Quorum

Posted on June 19, 2026 by [email protected]

Arizona HOA Bylaws & Quorum | A.R.S. §§ 10-3722, 10-11023 | CV2008-029900

Gayer is a practical, non-precedential illustration of a member challenging an Arizona nonprofit community association’s bylaw-amendment election for lack of statutory quorum and improper meeting notice. The court dismissed the claims against the association president individually but let the quorum claim against the association proceed past the pleading stage; the plaintiff then voluntarily dismissed the case.

Last updated June 19, 2026. Case: Richard Gayer v. Willo Neighborhood Association, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2008-029900 (Hon. A. Craig Blakey II).

Download dismissal ruling Download complaint Source-file index FAQ

Current-status note: Pipeline note: the public raw-source folder contains source files that were not in the last staged NotebookLM source set. The page remains a source-linked record, but generated media should be rebuilt or rechecked after the staged source manifest catches up.

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

Scope note: This is a trial-level matter that ended on the plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal without prejudice, so it set no binding precedent. This page summarizes the pleadings and the court’s motion-to-dismiss ruling from the uploaded record and is educational, not legal advice.

The takeaway

On a motion to dismiss, a member’s allegation that a bylaw-amendment election lacked the statutory quorum and was held at an improperly noticed meeting (A.R.S. §§ 10-3722 and 10-11023(A)) was legally sufficient to proceed against the association; claims against the association president individually were dismissed because the complaint alleged no personal wrongdoing by him and sought relief that ran against the corporation.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Richard Gayer (Plaintiff)
Self-represented member who challenged the bylaw vote.

Respondent Side

Willo Neighborhood Association (Defendant)
Association party defending the bylaw-amendment vote.
Jon D. Schneider (Counsel)
Schneider & Onofry, P.C.
Counsel for Willo Neighborhood Association and Bradley Brauer.
Luane Rosen (Counsel)
Schneider & Onofry, P.C.
Counsel for Willo Neighborhood Association and Bradley Brauer.
Bradley Brauer (Association President)
Willo Neighborhood Association
Individual defendant dismissed from the complaint.

Neutral Parties

A. Craig Blakey II (Judge)
Superior Court judge who ruled on the motion to dismiss.

What happened

In June 2008 the Willo Neighborhood Association held an election that amended its bylaws — redrawing the eastern service-area boundary and shifting from automatic membership to an opt-in model with a lower voting quorum. Richard Gayer, a member appearing pro se, alleged the meeting was improperly noticed as a ‘board meeting’ rather than the required membership meeting and that only about 143 votes were cast against a statutory minimum near 270. He sought a declaratory judgment invalidating the election and an injunction restoring the prior bylaws.

The association and its president moved to dismiss. On July 8, 2009, the court dismissed the claims against the president but denied dismissal of the quorum/notice claim against the association, observing it might not survive summary judgment but passed the motion-to-dismiss standard. Because Gayer had already filed a Rule 41(a)(1) voluntary dismissal without prejudice on June 19, 2009, the case ended without a merits decision.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Richard Gayer v. Willo Neighborhood Association (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2008-029900). On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the member’s bylaw-amendment quorum and notice claim against the association stated a… This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own ruling controls.

Listen: audio deep dive on the ruling

An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the court’s reasoning and disposition in Richard Gayer v. Willo Neighborhood Association. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

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

Procedural timeline

Step 2008-11-24 Gayer files complaint challenging the bylaw-amendment election (CV2008-029900)

Step 2009-03-13 Association and president move to dismiss

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

2009-07-16_016_letter-to-court.pdf

Source 17 Undated

Summons

Type: Procedural/service filing

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

Download source file

undated_017_summons.pdf

FAQ

Is this case binding precedent?

No. It is an unpublished trial-court matter that ended on the plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal without prejudice. It is useful as an illustration, not as controlling authority.

Can a member challenge a bylaw-amendment vote in Arizona?

Yes. This case shows such a challenge — based on lack of statutory quorum and improper meeting notice under A.R.S. §§ 10-3722 and 10-11023(A) — can survive a motion to dismiss against the association.

Why were the claims against the president dismissed?

The complaint alleged nothing the president personally did wrong and sought relief that ran against the corporation, so he was not a proper individual defendant.

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 / citation	Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2008-029900
Court / tribunal	Superior Court
Decision / key date	July 8, 2009
Judge / panel	Hon. A. Craig Blakey II
Parties	A neighborhood-association member, appearing pro se, sued the association and its president to invalidate a bylaw-amendment election he alleged was held without the statutory quorum and proper meeting notice.
Governing law	A.R.S. § 10-3722 A.R.S. § 10-11023
Topics	AmendmentsQuorumNonprofit CorporationProcedureBoard Governance
Outcome / holding	On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the member's bylaw-amendment quorum and notice claim against the association stated a claim and survived dismissal, while the claims against the association president individually were dismissed for failure to allege any wrongful conduct by him personally; the action ultimately terminated on the plaintiff's voluntary dismissal without prejudice, so no merits ruling was entered.

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package	17 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	4 roadmap entries
Video overview	Richard Gayer v. Willo Neighborhood Association
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	3 questions
Featured download links	3 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

This Maricopa County Superior Court matter is a useful, if non-precedential, illustration of how an Arizona nonprofit community-association member can challenge a bylaw-amendment vote for lack of quorum and improper meeting procedure. In June 2008 the Willo Neighborhood Association held an election that amended its bylaws — redrawing the eastern service-area boundary and shifting from automatic membership to an opt-in model with a lower voting quorum. Gayer, a member, alleged the meeting was improperly noticed as a 'board meeting' rather than the required membership meeting and that only about 143 votes were cast against a statutory minimum near 270 (ten percent of roughly 2,700 voting-age residents). He sought a declaratory judgment invalidating the election and an injunction restoring the prior bylaws. The association and its president moved to dismiss. The court dismissed the claims against the president individually but allowed the quorum/notice claim against the association to proceed past the pleading stage. Because Gayer had already filed a voluntary dismissal without prejudice, the case ended without a merits judgment.

Key Issues & Findings

Applying the motion-to-dismiss standard and accepting the well-pleaded allegations as true, the court concluded that Gayer's allegations under A.R.S. §§ 10-3722 and 10-11023(A) — that the amendment vote lacked the required quorum and was conducted at an improperly noticed meeting — were legally sufficient to state a claim against the corporation, even while observing that the claim might not survive summary judgment on a fuller record. As to the president, the court held the complaint alleged nothing he personally did wrong and sought relief that ran against the corporation rather than against him, so the individual claims were dismissed. Because a Rule 41(a)(1) voluntary dismissal without prejudice is effective on filing, the case ended without a decision on the merits, leaving the member free to refile.

Why It Matters

For homeowners and members of Arizona nonprofit community associations, the ruling illustrates that a member has standing to challenge a bylaw-amendment election for failure to meet statutory quorum and meeting-notice requirements, and that such a challenge can survive a motion to dismiss. For boards, it is a reminder that volunteer officers generally cannot be held individually liable for governance disputes absent specific personal wrongdoing — the proper defendant is the association. Because the case ended in a voluntary dismissal, it sets no binding precedent, but it remains a practical example of quorum-based bylaw-amendment challenges and officer-immunity pleading in the HOA context.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Village of Oakcreek v. Bonham: Kalway and Arizona HOA Short-Term Rental Amendments

Posted on June 2, 2026 by

Arizona HOA Rental Restrictions | Kalway | 1 CA-CV 22-0780

Bonham is a practical short-term-rental amendment case. The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of an HOA enforcement suit because the original declaration did not give fair notice that the HOA could later ban short-term rentals by majority amendment.

Last updated June 3, 2026. Case: Village of Oakcreek Association v. Lance E. Bonham, Arizona Court of Appeals No. 1 CA-CV 22-0780; Yavapai County Superior Court No. V1300CV202280081.

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

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 the nonprecedential Court of Appeals decision and the uploaded appellate/trial 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

A general business-use restriction in original CC&Rs does not necessarily give homeowners fair notice that the HOA may later ban short-term rentals by majority amendment.

Case snapshot

Court result

Dismissal for homeowner Bonham was affirmed.

Core doctrine

Kalway reasonable-and-foreseeable notice for CC&R amendments.

Rental issue

2016 and 2017 amendments banned short-term rentals.

Fee result

Bonham received appellate fees and costs subject to ARCAP 21.

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	1 CA-CV 22-0780
Court / tribunal	Court of Appeals
Decision / key date	October 3, 2023
Judge / panel	David D. Weinzweig, Michael S. Catlett, Maria Elena Cruz
Parties	A planned-community association sued a homeowner to stop short-term rentals after majority-approved CC&R amendments banned short-term rentals.
Governing law	A.R.S. § 12-120.21 A.R.S. § 12-2101 A.R.S. § 12-341 A.R.S. § 12-341.01
Topics	Rental RestrictionsCC&RsProcedureAttorney Fees
Outcome / holding	The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal for Bonham and held the challenged short-term-rental amendments were not enforceable against him because they were not reasonably foreseeable from the original declaration.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package	70 PDFs, 1 other source file
Step-by-step docket roadmap	5 roadmap entries
Video overview	Village of Oakcreek Association v. Lance E. Bonham
Study / briefing material	2 sections
FAQ / homeowner questions	3 questions
Curated download aliases	4 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Village of Oakcreek Association sued Lance Bonham to enforce 2016 and 2017 CC&R amendments that banned short-term rentals. Bonham moved to dismiss under Kalway, arguing the original declaration did not provide fair notice that a majority could later impose that kind of rental restriction. The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal. It rejected the association's argument that a generic no-business covenant made short-term-rental restrictions foreseeable, because the original declaration did not address residential rentals or lease duration.

Key Issues & Findings

The court applied Kalway and asked whether the original declaration gave objective notice of a future rental restriction. The declaration broadly barred business operations on lots, but it did not mention residential rentals. A business-use restriction was not enough to warn owners that a later majority amendment could ban short-term rentals. The court also treated Bonham as an owner with title before the relevant amendments based on the declaration's broad definition of ownership and his trustee status.

Why It Matters

Bonham is a practical short-term-rental amendment case for Arizona HOAs and homeowners. It shows that an association cannot rely on generic business-use language as a substitute for a real leasing covenant when trying to enforce a later rental ban. It also pairs well with Gross: both cases apply Kalway to rental amendments and both warn boards to tie new rental restrictions to language already present in the original CC&Rs.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Village of Oakcreek Association (Plaintiff/Appellant)
Association party seeking to enforce short-term-rental restrictions.
Alexis G. Firehawk (Counsel)
Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen, LLP
Counsel for Village of Oakcreek Association.
Tessa Knueppel (Counsel)
Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen, LLP
Counsel for Village of Oakcreek Association.

Respondent Side

Lance E. Bonham (Defendant/Appellee)
Homeowner defendant in the short-term-rental dispute.
Mark J. Bainbridge (Counsel)
The Bainbridge Law Firm, LLC
Counsel for Bonham.

Neutral Parties

Linda Wallace (Judge Pro Tempore)
Superior Court judge listed in the memorandum decision.
David D. Weinzweig (Presiding Judge)
Authored the Court of Appeals memorandum decision.
Michael S. Catlett (Judge)
Joined the Court of Appeals memorandum decision.
Maria Elena Cruz (Judge)
Joined the Court of Appeals memorandum decision.

Why this case matters

Bonham is useful because it applies Kalway to the most common HOA amendment fight: short-term rentals. The association argued the original declaration barred business activity, so a later rental ban was foreseeable. The Court of Appeals disagreed because the business-use covenant did not say anything about residential rentals.

The decision gives homeowners a concrete argument when an HOA tries to convert a general residential-use or business-use clause into a later rental prohibition. It also gives boards a drafting warning: if rental restrictions are intended, the original declaration needs a clearer tether than a broad no-business provision.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Village of Oakcreek Association v. Lance E. Bonham (1 CA-CV 22-0780). The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal for Bonham and held the challenged short-term-rental amendments were not… 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 Village of Oakcreek Association v. Lance E. Bonham. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

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

Homeowner study guide: short-term rental enforcement questions

Homeowner question	Study-guide answer	Bonham-specific caution
What did the amended Village of Oakcreek leasing restriction define as a lease?	The study materials describe a broad definition covering any agreement, contract, grant, or arrangement giving a non-owner access to or use of a lot or unit.	That rule was part of the association’s enforcement theory; the appellate issue was whether the later restriction was valid and foreseeable.
Did the amended rule require at least a 30-day lease term?	Yes, the association relied on Section 4.23 language requiring lease terms of at least 30 days.	Bonham affirmed dismissal because the original declaration did not give fair notice that this later short-term-rental ban could be imposed by amendment.
What owner obligations did the association allege for allowed leases?	The study guide identifies whole-lot leasing, single-family use, no subleasing, owner responsibility for occupants, and a tenant registration form within five days.	Those are enforcement allegations and governing-document requirements to verify against the current declaration before relying on them.
What progressive enforcement steps did the association use?	The record describes a courtesy notice, notices of non-compliance, monetary penalties, and then litigation for injunction and money judgment relief.	The association alleged ongoing Airbnb activity, but the legal result turned on amendment validity, not just whether short stays occurred.
What penalty balance did the complaint allege?	The study materials identify an alleged $16,500.00 monetary penalty balance as of February 28, 2022.	An alleged account balance is not the same as a final judgment; always check the ruling and judgment.
Is a hearing required before fines?	A.R.S. 33-1803(B) requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before monetary penalties are imposed.	Procedural fine compliance is a separate issue from whether the underlying amended rental restriction is enforceable.
Can unpaid fines become a lien?	The study guide flags a distinction between fines themselves and enforcement costs such as attorney fees under the declaration.	Do not assume every fine is lienable; check A.R.S. 33-1803, the declaration language, and the specific account charge.
What is the homeowner takeaway?	A later rental restriction needs both procedural adoption and substantive foreseeability under Kalway.	Bonham is strongest as a fair-notice case, not as a general permission slip to ignore every rental rule.

Briefing notes from the review packet

Subject property

The enforcement action concerned Lot 75 in the Cathedral View development in Sedona.

Amended restriction

The association relied on a leasing restriction adopted in 2016 and re-recorded in 2017 that barred leases shorter than 30 days.

Owner status

Bonham acquired title by quitclaim deed recorded in January 2017, which placed him inside the association’s enforcement theory.

Association allegations

The association alleged ongoing Airbnb rentals, including advertised and reviewed stays shorter than 30 days.

Fines alleged

The complaint sought to collect a penalty balance the association alleged had reached $16,500.00 by February 28, 2022.

Why allegations did not decide it

Even assuming the alleged rentals, the dispositive issue was whether the later rental ban was valid and foreseeable under Kalway.

Enforcement history summarized from the briefing

Date or period	Association action or allegation	Relevance
June 22, 2021	Courtesy notice reportedly warned Bonham about alleged short-term-rental violations.	Shows the beginning of the association’s progressive enforcement record.
October-November 2021	The association alleged Airbnb reviews and short stays, then issued notices of non-compliance and fines.	Documents the alleged factual basis for enforcement, separate from the legal validity of the amendment.
December 2021-February 2022	Additional notices and alleged rentals increased the claimed penalty balance.	Frames the monetary judgment request in the complaint.
April 2022	The association sued for injunction, personal judgment, and implied-covenant relief.	Moves the dispute into the court system where Kalway controlled the amendment-validity question.
October 3, 2023	The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal for Bonham.	The appellate court focused on the original declaration’s lack of fair notice for a short-term-rental ban.

Download source file

2023-11-28_000_order-awarding-attorneys-fees-and.pdf

Source 71 2024-04-24

Civil Mandate

Type: Decision or judgment

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

Download source file

2024-04-24_000_civil-mandate.pdf

For homeowners using this case

Compare the original declaration to the new rental restriction line by line.
Do not stop at the amendment-vote percentage; Kalway asks whether the new burden was fairly foreseeable.
Look for older language that actually mentions leasing, occupancy, rental duration, transient use, or business use.
Use Bonham with Gross to separate invalid rental bans from narrower occupancy refinements.

For boards and managers

A majority vote alone may not save an amendment that creates a new rental burden.
Generic no-business language is a weak foundation for a short-term-rental ban.
Before enforcement, audit the original CC&Rs and any earlier leasing provisions against Kalway, Gross, and Bonham.
Fee exposure can follow if the association litigates an amendment that lacks a clear covenant tether.

FAQ

Did the HOA win in Bonham?

No. The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of the association’s suit against Bonham.

Is Bonham published precedent?

No. It is a memorandum decision, but it is still useful as a practical Kalway example and was cited in the later published Gross opinion.

What was missing from the original declaration?

The court found the original declaration generally barred business operations but did not provide fair notice of a future short-term-rental restriction.

← Back to Court of Appeals cases

Bocchino v. Fountain Shadows HOA: Unawarded Attorney Fees and Assessments

Posted on June 2, 2026 by

Arizona HOA Attorney Fees | Assessments | 1 CA-CV 16-0710

Bocchino limits an HOA’s ability to put litigation attorney fees directly on a homeowner’s account. The Court of Appeals held the association could not assess fees from a justice-court harassment injunction when no court had awarded those fees.

Last updated June 3, 2026. Case: Patricia Bocchino v. Fountain Shadows Homeowners Association, Arizona Court of Appeals No. 1 CA-CV 16-0710; Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2015-012434.

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

Scope note: This page covers the Court of Appeals opinion and the uploaded superior/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 cannot simply assess a homeowner for attorney fees incurred in a judicial proceeding when the tribunal did not award those fees and the governing documents do not expressly authorize that unilateral charge.

Case snapshot

Court result

Summary judgment for Bocchino was affirmed.

Fee source

Fees came from a justice-court workplace-harassment injunction proceeding.

Key statute

A.R.S. 12-1810 requires court handling of harassment-injunction fee awards.

Practical use

Account charges for litigation fees need a real award or clear authority.

Case Dossier

Case Summary

Case ID / citation	1 CA-CV 16-0710
Court / tribunal	Court of Appeals
Decision / key date	April 3, 2018
Judge / panel	John C. Gemmill, Michael J. Brown, Maria Elena Cruz
Parties	A former homeowner challenged an HOA account charge for attorney fees the association incurred in a justice-court harassment-injunction proceeding but never obtained as a court award.
Governing law	A.R.S. § 12-1810 A.R.S. § 12-341.01 A.R.S. § 12-120.21 A.R.S. § 12-2101
Topics	Attorney FeesAssessmentsCC&RsProcedure
Outcome / holding	The Court of Appeals affirmed judgment for Bocchino and held the HOA improperly assessed attorney fees against her when no court had awarded those fees in the underlying injunction proceeding.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package	86 PDFs, 4 other source files
Step-by-step docket roadmap	6 roadmap entries
Video overview	Patricia Bocchino v. Fountain Shadows Homeowners Association
Study / briefing material	2 sections
FAQ / homeowner questions	3 questions
Curated download aliases	4 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Fountain Shadows obtained a workplace-harassment injunction against Patricia Bocchino in justice court but did not ask that court to award attorney fees. The association later charged those unawarded fees to Bocchino’s HOA account. Bocchino sued, and the Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment requiring repayment. The court held the association waived any fee claim in the injunction proceeding by not requesting fees there and that the declaration did not expressly allow the HOA to assess unawarded litigation fees directly against a homeowner.

Key Issues & Findings

A.R.S. § 12-1810 governs workplace-harassment injunctions and allows the court, after notice and hearing, to award costs and fees. Because the association did not request a fee award from the justice court, it could not later bypass that court by charging the fees directly to the owner. The declaration did not expressly authorize direct assessment of attorney fees incurred in judicial proceedings but not awarded by a tribunal.

Why It Matters

Bocchino is a practical limit on HOA fee accounting. It warns associations not to self-award litigation fees by placing them on an owner account after a separate court proceeding. For homeowners, it is a useful authority when an HOA account ledger includes attorney fees that were never awarded by the court or tribunal handling the underlying dispute.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Patricia Bocchino (Plaintiff/Appellee)
Former homeowner who challenged the fee assessment.

Respondent Side

Fountain Shadows Homeowners Association (Defendant/Appellant)
Association party challenging the fee ruling.
Chad P. Miesen (Counsel)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
Counsel for Fountain Shadows Homeowners Association.
Charlene Cruz (Counsel)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
Counsel for Fountain Shadows Homeowners Association.

Neutral Parties

Douglas Gerlach (Judge)
Superior Court judge listed in the appellate opinion.
John C. Gemmill (Judge)
Authored the Court of Appeals opinion.
Michael J. Brown (Presiding Judge)
Joined the Court of Appeals opinion.
Maria Elena Cruz (Judge)
Joined the Court of Appeals opinion.

Why this case matters

Bocchino is a practical fee-assessment case. The association obtained an injunction against Bocchino but did not ask the justice court to award fees. It later placed those attorney fees on her HOA account, and the Court of Appeals affirmed that the charge was improper.

The opinion matters because many governing documents contain broad enforcement-fee language. Bocchino shows that broad language does not automatically let an HOA bypass the court that handled the litigation and unilaterally convert unawarded fees into an owner-account debt.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Patricia Bocchino v. Fountain Shadows Homeowners Association (1 CA-CV 16-0710). The Court of Appeals affirmed judgment for Bocchino and held the HOA improperly assessed attorney fees against her… 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 Patricia Bocchino v. Fountain Shadows Homeowners Association. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

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

Homeowner study guide: escrow charges and fee recovery

Homeowner question	Study-guide answer	Why it matters
Can an HOA demand payment from escrow during a home sale?	An HOA may make a demand, but Bocchino shows the homeowner can sue to recover funds if the demand was not legally authorized.	The trial court awarded Bocchino the $3,887.28 collected from escrow.
Why did the escrow demand create practical pressure?	The homeowner argued she faced a Hobson’s choice: pay the disputed amount to close the sale or challenge the demand and risk the transaction.	Escrow timing can turn a disputed account charge into immediate leverage over a sale.
Can a homeowner recover attorney fees after successfully suing an HOA?	Potentially yes. A.R.S. 12-341.01 allows fee awards to a successful party in a contested action arising out of contract.	HOA disputes based on CC&Rs and assessment account rights often become contract-fee fights.
Can requested attorney fees exceed the disputed principal?	Yes. Bocchino’s fee application sought $22,937.50 after recovering $3,887.28.	Small account disputes can become expensive when an HOA refuses reimbursement and litigation proceeds through summary judgment and appeal.
What do courts consider when deciding whether to award fees?	Arizona courts may consider the Warner factors, including merits, avoidability, hardship, success, novelty, and deterrence.	The question is not just who won, but whether a fee award is appropriate under the circumstances.
How does the court evaluate whether a fee bill is reasonable?	Fee applications are tested under China Doll principles, including the work performed, rates, lawyer experience, difficulty, and result achieved.	A homeowner seeking fees should preserve detailed billing records and connect the work to the litigation result.
Does an HOA have to pay immediately if it appeals?	Not necessarily. The association may post a supersedeas bond to stay execution while the appeal is pending.	Fountain Shadows filed a bond for $4,149.67 during the appeal.

Briefing notes from the review packet

Escrow pressure point

The dispute arose during Bocchino’s property sale, when the association demanded payment through escrow and the homeowner completed the sale before suing to recover the funds.

Principal recovery

The Superior Court awarded Bocchino $3,887.28, the amount the court found had been wrongfully collected.

Trial-court fee request

After prevailing, Bocchino requested $22,937.50 in attorney fees under A.R.S. 12-341.01, supported by a China Doll-style billing submission.

Fee-application theory

The fee papers argued the association forced avoidable litigation by refusing to reimburse the charge before suit.

Supersedeas bond

During the appeal, the association filed a supersedeas bond for $4,149.67 to stay execution of the judgment while review was pending.

Appellate costs

After the appellate decision, the Court of Appeals awarded Bocchino $173.50 in costs.

Attorney-fee briefing context

Issue	Briefing position	Why it matters
Merits	Bocchino argued the association lacked a legal basis to self-assess fees that no tribunal had awarded.	This is the same practical point the appellate opinion later confirmed.
Avoidability	The fee application argued litigation could have been avoided if the association returned the escrowed funds before suit.	Shows why settlement posture became part of the fee dispute.
Degree of success	Bocchino sought to recover the full amount collected and obtained judgment for the principal recovery.	Explains why the requested fee award was much larger than the principal amount.
Deterrence	The briefing framed fee recovery as necessary for homeowners to challenge improper account charges.	Useful context for readers comparing litigation economics to the amount at stake.

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

Download source file

undated_900_bocchino-v-fountain-shadows-hoa-case-documents-summary-table-1.csv

For homeowners

Check whether the fees on your account were actually awarded by the court or tribunal that handled the proceeding.
Ask whether the invoice is for assessment collection, covenant enforcement, or a separate judicial proceeding.
Preserve closing statements, account ledgers, demand letters, and the order from the underlying proceeding.

For boards and managers

Ask the tribunal for fees when the statute or rules require a fee award there.
Do not assume a broad CC&R fee clause lets the association self-award litigation fees after the fact.
Separate ordinary assessment collection costs from fees incurred in separate court proceedings.

FAQ

Did the HOA have an injunction against Bocchino?

Yes, but the problem was that the justice court did not award the association attorney fees in that injunction proceeding.

Could the HOA rely on its declaration instead?

Not on this record. The Court of Appeals held the declaration did not expressly allow the association to assess unawarded litigation fees directly against Bocchino.

Does Bocchino ban all HOA fee recovery?

No. It addresses unilateral assessment of fees that were incurred in a judicial proceeding but not awarded by the court.

← Back to Court of Appeals cases

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 pending-case guide now includes the July 2026 partial-summary-judgment series, Tara’s response to the supplemental complaint, and the court’s order postponing the Colby discovery ruling until after the Rule 12(c) motion.

Last updated July 22, 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 July 16 order Download complaint July 2026 motions Document roadmap Source index FAQ

Current-status note: This pending litigation record is current through docket events posted July 22, 2026. Later filings or orders may change the posture; the linked court records control.

The July summary-judgment motions and supporting statements present plaintiff's positions. No ruling on those motions appears in the reviewed record.

Allegations, declarations, exhibit descriptions, proposed orders, procedural dismissals, and notices are not findings of liability unless a cited court order expressly makes that finding.

The earlier audio and video overview is temporarily unavailable because it predates the July 2026 filings.

Posture note: This is a pending Superior Court record guide, not a final merits summary. The July 2026 partial-summary-judgment papers state Marx’s allegations and requested relief. No ruling on those motions—and no final judgment resolving the case—appears in the reviewed record.

The posture in one sentence

Marx v. Tara remains pending: Tara’s Rule 12(c) direct-versus-derivative motion and Marx’s nine July 2026 partial-summary-judgment motions await decision, while the Colby discovery dispute has been postponed until after the Rule 12(c) ruling.

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 Rule 12(c) motion remains undecided. Marx then filed nine partial-summary-judgment motions addressing grouped governance, records, insurance, budget, spending, and amendment claims.

Source packet

The reviewed public packet now contains 214 deduplicated PDFs plus a filing roadmap. Loose discovery exhibits and unsigned July proposed orders remain outside the public index pending privacy and source-status review.

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 / 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 & RecordsBoard GovernanceCC&RsRecords RequestsProcedureAttorney Fees
Outcome / holding	No final merits ruling appears in the reviewed public court-source set. The June 2025 record denied preliminary injunctive relief and, for the motion then before it, treated Marx's claims against the association as member-right claims rather than derivative claims. The July 2025 record dismissed the individual board-member defendants. A July 16, 2026 minute entry granted Tara's request to postpone the Colby Management discovery ruling until after the court resolves Tara's still-pending Rule 12(c) motion.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package	214 PDFs, 1 other source file
Step-by-step docket roadmap	No separate litigation roadmap table on this page
Video overview	Temporarily unavailable while the expanded case record is reviewed
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	7 questions
Featured download links	24 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 case remains pending. The court denied preliminary injunctive relief in June 2025, denied Tara's first partial derivative-claims dismissal motion as to the association, dismissed the individual board-member defendants, and in July 2026 postponed a Colby Management discovery ruling until after Tara's unresolved Rule 12(c) motion. Marx filed nine partial-summary-judgment motions in July 2026; those motions state her allegations and requested relief, not court findings.

Key Issues & Findings

The June 2025 preliminary-injunction ruling found no irreparable harm warranting emergency relief on that record. The June 26, 2025 derivative-claims ruling treated the claims then framed 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 association obligations from personal-liability claims against individual directors. The July 16, 2026 discovery-stay ruling found that deciding the Rule 12(c) motion first could promote efficiency and might make the disputed discovery unnecessary.

Why It Matters

This pending condominium case collects Arizona open-meeting, records, insurance, common-element, amendment, budget, and direct-versus-derivative arguments in one record. The July 2026 motion series also shows how a self-represented owner divided a sprawling complaint into claim-specific partial-summary-judgment packages. None of those July motions has been granted in the reviewed record, so they are useful as litigation positions and source maps, not precedent or adjudicated fact.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Lisa Marx (Plaintiff)
Self-represented condominium owner plaintiff.

Respondent Side

Tara Condominiums Association, Inc. (Defendant)
Association party named in Marx’s condominium-governance claims.
Mark Gottmann (Defendant)
Tara Condominiums Association
Individual defendant named in the amended complaint.
Dennis Anderson (Defendant)
Tara Condominiums Association
Individual defendant named in the amended complaint.
Charles H. Oldham (Counsel)
CHDB Law LLP
Counsel served by Marx in the case filings.
Ari Bowhay (Counsel)
CHDB Law LLP
Counsel served by Marx in the case filings.

Neutral Parties

Randall H. Warner (Judge)
Superior Court judge listed in the amended complaint and orders.
Adele Ponce (Judge)
Later Superior Court judge listed in the case metadata.

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.

Tara’s March 30, 2026 response to the supplemental complaint acknowledges that the association approved declaration amendments, distributed written-consent forms, conducted a vote, and allowed the prior master property policy to expire, while denying Marx’s legal conclusions and asserting defenses. The response is a party pleading, not an admission that the process was unlawful.

Marx’s July 2026 motion series asks for partial summary judgment on grouped claims spanning declaration validity, corporate records, appointments, meeting procedure, insurance, budgets and ballots, roof and lien decisions, legal expenses, landscaping, and other association spending. On July 16, the court separately granted Tara’s request to postpone the Colby Management discovery ruling until after the Rule 12(c) motion. None of the nine summary-judgment motions is resolved in the reviewed record.

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.

Discovery ruling postponed; merits motions pending

The July 16, 2026 minute entry grants Tara’s request to postpone the Colby discovery ruling until after the still-pending Rule 12(c) motion. It does not decide Rule 12(c), the merits, or Marx’s July summary-judgment motions.

The Rule 12(c) motion and the Colby discovery stay

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 opposed Tara’s request to stay the pending Colby Management discovery dispute. Marx argued that the subpoenaed Colby materials go to direct claims already recognized by the June 26, 2025 ruling.

The court later granted Tara’s stay request in a July 16, 2026 minute entry, reasoning that deciding Rule 12(c) first could promote efficiency and might make the discovery request moot. The court said it would address Marx’s pending discovery issues after the Rule 12(c) ruling.

The June packet’s two proposed orders remain only proposed forms of relief. They are not signed rulings.

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 argued the court should not pause her motion to compel Colby Management records. The court later granted Tara’s stay request, leaving the discovery issues for after the Rule 12(c) ruling.

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 asked the court to deny Rule 12(c) and the discovery stay. They are not rulings; the July 16 minute entry instead granted the stay request.

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

Nine July 2026 partial-summary-judgment motions

The Maricopa County docket independently lists nine plaintiff partial-summary-judgment motions filed from July 5 through July 21, 2026. The reviewed packet includes each motion with a separate statement, declaration, and exhibit index. Together they divide the complaint into claim groups rather than asking the court to resolve the entire case in one motion.

Every theory in this section is attributed to Marx because the papers are advocacy filings. A motion, separate statement, declaration, exhibit index, or unsigned proposed order does not establish a fact or legal violation. No order granting or denying any of these nine motions appears in the reviewed record.

The exhibit notices and master index are public below. The 71 loose exhibit copies delivered with this update were reviewed for context but are not republished here because many are discovery or Bates-labeled materials containing private identifiers, and their status as public docket attachments was not independently established.

What each July motion asks the court to decide

Filed	Claim group	Plaintiff's theory	Evidence map in the packet	Motion
July 5	2025 declaration amendment	Marx argues the recorded amendment improperly shifted property-insurance duties, changed unit or common-element burdens without the required consent, used an invalid written-consent process, and imposed an unforeseeable covenant burden.	Original and recorded declarations, amendment materials, written-consent and vote communications, Tara’s March response, and insurance/cancellation records.	Amendment motion
July 10	Claims 120 and 121	Marx argues Tara failed to keep accurate June 2024 minutes and records of actions taken without a meeting, contrary to A.R.S. § 10-11601.	Meeting notice, minutes, audio/transcript, later minutes and emails, financial records, discovery responses, and the Marx declaration.	Corporate-records motion
July 11	Claims 46/91, 42/87/127, 98/126	Marx challenges a master-policy deductible increase, adoption of the 2025 budget and assessment by mail-only ballot, and ballot access or timing.	Governing documents, insurance renewals and minutes, budget records, ballots, vote results, owner communications, and objections.	Insurance, budget, and ballot motion
July 13	Claims 30/47/74/103/108, 48/92	Marx argues the chair negotiated roof-repair cost allocation before an authorized vote, shifted a common-element cost without owner culpability, and released a repair lien without full payment or proper approval.	Governing documents, roof-repair affidavit and communications, notices and minutes, financial records, lien documents, and executive-session materials.	Roof and lien motion
July 16	Claims 26/70, 27/71, 28/72, 29/73, 43/88	Marx challenges a reserve transfer, restrictions on correcting minutes, workers’ compensation coverage, Bermuda-grass spending, and a lighting reimbursement as actions lacking an open board vote.	Financials, notices, minutes and audio, policy records, seed invoices, vouchers, and the Marx declaration.	Reserve, minutes, policy, and spending motion
July 16	Claims 23/67, 24/68, 25/69, 33/34/77/78, 49/93	Marx challenges officer and director appointments, dissolution of a landscaping committee, and creation or enforcement of a two-minute owner-comment rule.	Bylaws, executive-session and open-meeting records, announcements, emails, admissions, audio/transcripts, and the Marx declaration.	Appointments and speaking-rule motion
July 19	Claims 32/76, 39/84, 83, 44/89	Marx challenges common-area work, a Home Depot purchase, creation and funding of a second bank account, and tree work outside the landscaping contract as actions taken without a majority vote in an open meeting.	Executive-session material, meetings, newsletters, affidavits/photos, records requests, vouchers, financials, bank records, and landscaping contracts.	Landscaping and spending motion
July 20	Claims 31/75, 35/79, 36/80, 37/81, 38/82, 45/90	Marx challenges sprinkler-trench work, retention and payment of association counsel, retroactive approval or preauthorization of work, and an association payment to Marx.	Work photos and affidavit, counsel engagement and invoices, financials, meeting records, demand/payment materials, and the Marx declaration.	Common-area work and legal-expense motion
July 21	Claims 40/85, 41/86, 51/95, 53/97	Marx challenges off-record budget development, the board chair’s role in budget-committee meetings and membership, and landscaping or maintenance work and spending without a vote.	Executive and budget-committee records, audio/transcripts, competing budgets, emails, agreements, vouchers, bank statements, photos, and 2026 budget materials.	Budget-committee and maintenance motion

How the July packet was incorporated

Docket-verified motion dates

The court’s current docket confirms the nine motion events, the filed separate statements shown there, the exhibit notices, and Tara’s March 30 response.

Party evidence is attributed

Separate statements and declarations explain what Marx says the evidence proves. The page does not convert those assertions into judicial findings.

Unsigned orders are not rulings

The intake contained nine distinct unsigned proposed orders, including an editable Count VII form. None is presented or indexed as an entered court order.

Loose exhibits remain off-page

The master index and filing notices show the exhibit structure. Loose discovery, financial, insurance, correspondence, affidavit, contract, and image copies remain outside the public download set pending privacy and public-status review.

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 30, 2026	Tara responded to Marx’s Rule 15(d) supplemental complaint.	The response acknowledges the amendment vote and expiration of the prior property policy while denying illegality and asserting defenses.
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.
July 5-21, 2026	Marx filed nine partial-summary-judgment motions on grouped claims.	The motions cover declaration validity, corporate records, appointments, meetings, insurance, budgets, ballots, roof and lien issues, legal expenses, landscaping, and spending. They remain unresolved in the reviewed record.
July 16, 2026 (filed July 20)	The court granted Tara’s request to postpone the Colby discovery ruling.	The court will address the discovery issues after deciding Rule 12(c); the order does not resolve Rule 12(c) or the merits.

Curated document roadmap

The complete source index below lists the reviewed public files. This earlier document-by-document roadmap preserves the chronology, document type, and stated case relevance supplied with the original packet so readers can understand how the pre-July materials fit together.

The separate July motion map above covers the new 2026 summary-judgment filings. This earlier roadmap intentionally excludes drafts that were not confirmed as part of the court record.

Reference numbers in the final column come from the supplied roadmap. They are not legal findings, and the linked court filings and orders remain the controlling sources.

Earlier document-by-document roadmap

Date	Document	Type	How it fits the case	Roadmap 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	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 updated filing roadmap

The reviewed public packet contains 214 deduplicated PDFs and this roadmap CSV. It cross-checks original names against normalized public filenames. Loose July exhibits and unsigned proposed orders are retained off-page pending privacy and public-status review.

Download July 22 roadmap CSV

FAQ

Is this case finally decided?

No. The reviewed record is current through docket events posted July 22, 2026. It includes important interim rulings and nine July partial-summary-judgment motions, but no 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.

Did Marx win the July 2026 summary-judgment motions?

Not in the reviewed record. The court docket confirms the motion events, but no order granting or denying any of the nine motions appears in the source set. The motions, statements, declarations, and proposed orders are party submissions—not findings or judgments.

Why are the loose July exhibits not all available for download?

The master index and filed notices identify the exhibit sets, and the materials were reviewed for this update. The loose copies include discovery, financial, insurance, correspondence, affidavit, contract, and image records with private identifiers, and their status as independently public docket attachments was not established. They remain outside the public source index pending that review.

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 215 No docket date in filename

Source File Roadmap 2026 07 22

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-2026-07-22.csv

Primary sources

Reviewed against the supplied filings and the Maricopa County docket through events posted July 22, 2026. Party allegations, separate statements, declarations, exhibit descriptions, and proposed orders are not treated as court findings. No July proposed order is signed or entered. This page is educational information for Arizona HOA and condominium governance research, not legal advice for any specific dispute.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Gusich v. Sun City Grand: Arizona HOA Board Removal, Title 10, and Fee Exposure

Posted on May 25, 2026 by

Arizona HOA Board Removal | Superior Court CV2025-002634 | Court of Appeals 1 CA-CV 25-0929

Gusich is a useful Arizona HOA governance case because it separates several issues that often get blended together: recall petitions under A.R.S. § 33-1813, nonprofit-corporation removal authority under Title 10, standing after a director has been removed, director indemnification, and how a court can slash an oversized fee request even after the HOA wins.

Last updated May 25, 2026. Case: Thomas J. Gusich v. Sun City Grand Community Association, Inc., Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2025-002634; Court of Appeals No. 1 CA-CV 25-0929; Hon. Jennifer Ryan-Touhill.

Download dismissal ruling Download fee judgment Appeal docket Homeowner guide Board guide Filing roadmap FAQ Primary sources

Current-status note: This page is published as a litigation record based on the source files available through 2025-11-21. 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 Superior Court rulings in CV2025-002634 and the pending Court of Appeals docket 1 CA-CV 25-0929. The Superior Court rulings are trial-court decisions and the appeal remains pending in the uploaded docket. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The rule in one sentence

An Arizona planned-community board-removal dispute may involve both Title 33 recall procedure and Title 10 nonprofit-corporation authority, but a removed director still must show a live justiciable controversy, and even a winning HOA must prove that requested attorney fees are reasonable and tied to the litigation.

Case snapshot

Case name

Thomas J. Gusich v. Sun City Grand Community Association, Inc.

Superior Court docket

Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2025-002634.

Trial-court result

Motion to dismiss granted; final judgment entered for the association with reduced fees and taxable costs.

Appeal status

Court of Appeals No. 1 CA-CV 25-0929 was pending in the uploaded May 22, 2026 docket, with reply/cross-answer briefing due June 30, 2026.

Case Dossier

Case Summary

Case ID / citation	CV2025-002634 / 1 CA-CV 25-0929
Court / tribunal	Superior Court
Decision / key date	September 23, 2025
Judge / panel	Hon. Jennifer Ryan-Touhill
Parties	A former Sun City Grand board member challenged his removal, the association’s board conduct standards, meeting exclusions, indemnification position, and later fee request.
Governing law	A.R.S. § 33-1813 A.R.S. § 10-3808 A.R.S. § 10-3810 A.R.S. § 12-1831 A.R.S. § 10-3851 A.R.S. § 10-3852 A.R.S. § 12-341.01 A.R.S. § 33-1805
Topics	Board GovernanceProcedureAttorney FeesRecords Requests
Outcome / holding	The Superior Court dismissed the claims, entered final judgment for Sun City Grand, awarded reduced attorney fees and costs, and the matter was pending on appeal in 1 CA-CV 25-0929 in the uploaded docket.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package	50 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	3 roadmap entries
Video overview	Thomas J. Gusich v. Sun City Grand Community Association, Inc.
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	4 questions
Curated download aliases	3 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

CURRENT STATUS (June 2026): NOT FINAL — this trial-court matter is on appeal (1 CA-CV 25-0929); both sides appealed and briefing is ongoing. Thomas J. Gusich sued Sun City Grand Community Association after a board-removal dispute involving conduct standards, a special membership meeting, recall/petition procedure, executive-session exclusion allegations, and indemnification. The Superior Court granted the association’s motion to dismiss, reasoning that A.R.S. § 33-1813 did not eliminate Title 10 and bylaw-based director-removal paths, that claims about board-only conduct standards lacked a live controversy after removal, and that indemnification did not require the HOA to fund a former director’s affirmative lawsuit against the association. The court later awarded fees and costs to the association but reduced a $353,388 fee request to $44,619 plus $355.85 in taxable costs. The uploaded Court of Appeals docket showed the appeal and cross-appeal pending as of May 22, 2026.

Key Issues & Findings

The court distinguished petition-based removal procedure under A.R.S. § 33-1813 from other removal mechanisms under Title 10 and the association’s bylaws. Because the bylaws allowed a special membership meeting and member vote after notice, the court did not need to issue advisory rulings on disputed petition format or electronic-signature questions. The court also held that Gusich lacked standing to challenge board-only standards after he was no longer a director, and that indemnification language protects directors against liability to others rather than funding a director’s own lawsuit against the association. On fees, the court found entitlement but reduced rates, duplicative work, pre-suit work, and work tied to statutory records issues.

Why It Matters

Gusich is a practical roadmap for Arizona HOA board-removal litigation. It warns homeowners and boards not to assume Title 33 is the only authority source, shows why declaratory claims need a live controversy, limits director-indemnification theories when a director sues the HOA, and demonstrates that even a prevailing HOA’s fee request can be aggressively reduced when the bills are not reasonable or properly tied to the litigation.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Thomas J. Gusich (Plaintiff/Appellant)
Former Sun City Grand board member who challenged his removal.
Jonathan A. Dessaules (Counsel)
Dessaules Law Group
Counsel for Gusich.
David E. Wood (Counsel)
Dessaules Law Group
Counsel for Gusich.
Joseph D. Halow (Counsel)
Dessaules Law Group
Appellate counsel listed for Gusich.

Respondent Side

Sun City Grand Community Association, Inc. (Defendant/Appellee)
Association party defending Gusich’s board-removal claims.
Lauren Elliott Stine (Counsel)
Quarles & Brady LLP
Counsel for Sun City Grand Community Association.
Daniel G. Roberts (Counsel)
Quarles & Brady LLP
Counsel for Sun City Grand Community Association.

Neutral Parties

Nancy M. Collins (Witness)
Filed a motion to quash a witness subpoena.
Jennifer Ryan-Touhill (Judge)
Superior Court judge assigned to the case.

Why this case matters

The dispute started after Thomas Gusich, an elected Sun City Grand board member, challenged the association’s board conduct standards, recall/removal process, meeting exclusions, and indemnification position. The Superior Court treated the case as a pleading-stage question: assuming the alleged facts, did the amended complaint state claims the court could decide?

The July 2025 ruling is important because it rejected a narrow reading of A.R.S. § 33-1813. The court reasoned that Title 33 recall-petition procedure did not eliminate other removal paths available under the association’s bylaws and Title 10 nonprofit-corporation statutes.

The September 2025 fee ruling is just as useful. The association won dismissal and was entitled to fees, but the court reduced a $353,388 request to $44,619 plus $355.85 in taxable costs after finding rates, duplicated work, pre-suit work, and record-request-related work were not fully shiftable.

Video overview of the case record

An AI-generated video overview of Thomas J. Gusich v. Sun City Grand Community Association, Inc. (CV2025-002634 / 1 CA-CV 25-0929). The Superior Court dismissed the claims, entered final judgment for Sun City Grand, awarded reduced attorney fees… 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 Thomas J. Gusich v. Sun City Grand Community Association, Inc.. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked case records below.

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

What Judge Ryan-Touhill decided

1. A.R.S. § 33-1813 did not displace Title 10

The court held that the HOA-removal statute governs petition-based removal procedure but does not eliminate other director-removal mechanisms available under Title 10 and the association bylaws.

2. The removal vote survived the motion to dismiss challenge

Because the bylaws allowed a special membership meeting and a member vote after notice, the court did not need to decide whether the disputed petition format or electronic signatures satisfied A.R.S. § 33-1813.

3. The Grand Standards claim lacked a live controversy

Once Gusich was no longer on the board, the court found he was not subject to the board-only conduct standards and therefore lacked standing for declaratory relief about those standards.

4. Indemnification did not fund a director’s lawsuit against the HOA

The court read the indemnification language as protection against liability to others, not as a promise that the association would finance a former director’s affirmative lawsuit against the association.

5. The HOA was entitled to fees

The court found fee entitlement under the governing documents, A.R.S. § 33-1813(A)(4)(f), and A.R.S. § 12-341.01, then moved to reasonableness.

6. The fee award was heavily reduced

The court reduced requested fees from $353,388 to $44,619, plus $355.85 in taxable costs, after reviewing rates, duplication, pre-suit work, record-request issues, and excessive staffing.

For homeowners and board members

If you are challenging a board removal, separate the removal mechanism from the political facts. This ruling turned on the governing documents and statutes, not on whether the recall campaign was wise, fair, or popular.

Do not assume A.R.S. § 33-1813 is the only removal statute in play. If the association is a nonprofit corporation, Title 10 and the bylaws may matter. A strong filing should explain why the specific statutory path used is exclusive, conflicting, or unavailable.

If you seek declaratory relief, preserve a live controversy. A claim about board-only conduct rules can become moot if you are no longer a director and cannot show a present legal effect.

Fee exposure is real, but this record also shows that a court may scrutinize HOA defense bills. The court declined to shift fees for statutory records issues, duplicative work, excessive rates, and work not clearly tied to the litigation.

For HOA boards and managers

This case supports a practical compliance point: before removing a director, identify every authority source being used. That means the declaration, bylaws, Title 10 nonprofit-corporation statutes, and A.R.S. § 33-1813 when removal by petition is involved.

Document notice, quorum, eligible voters, and the vote result. The court emphasized that the membership received notice and voted at a special meeting.

Do not assume every dollar of defense spend will be shifted to the opposing member. If the HOA hires multiple firms or high-rate counsel, a later fee application still has to show reasonable rates and reasonable work tied to recoverable claims.

Keep statutory records requests separate from litigation strategy. The fee ruling expressly noted that the court would not order the homeowner to pay fees related to records to which he was statutorily entitled.

Suggested workflow for similar disputes

Map the authority source. Identify whether the challenged action was taken under the bylaws, Title 10, A.R.S. § 33-1813, or a combination.
Preserve the meeting record. Keep the petition or request, notices, agenda, quorum proof, voting materials, minutes, and result certification together.
Define the live controversy. For declaratory relief, state exactly what current legal relationship the court needs to resolve.
Separate records rights from recall politics. A homeowner may have statutory records rights even when other claims fail.
Audit fee requests line by line. Compare rates, staffing, pre-suit work, duplicative work, and work tied to non-shiftable issues.

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

Download source file

undated_050_motion.pdf

Current posture

Superior Court

Dismissed in the association’s favor with final judgment entered September 26, 2025.

Court of Appeals

Appeal and cross-appeal pending as 1 CA-CV 25-0929 in the uploaded May 22, 2026 docket.

Next listed date

Reply/cross-answer brief due June 30, 2026, according to the uploaded docket snapshot.

FAQ

Is this a published appellate precedent?

No. The uploaded merits and fee rulings are Superior Court rulings. The Court of Appeals case was pending in the uploaded docket, so the final appellate result may change the practical significance.

Did the court decide that every electronic recall signature is valid?

No. The court said it did not need to decide the disputed petition-signature issue because the membership-removal path under the bylaws and Title 10 was enough for the motion-to-dismiss ruling.

Does this mean an HOA can recover all fees whenever it beats a board-removal lawsuit?

No. The court found fee entitlement, but then reduced the requested fees sharply after reviewing reasonableness, duplication, hourly rates, and work not properly shifted to the homeowner.

Why does indemnification matter here?

Gusich argued the bylaws required the association to fund or reimburse his own lawsuit. The court rejected that theory, reading indemnification as protection against liability to others, not affirmative financing for a director’s suit against the HOA.

Primary sources

← Back to Superior Court cases

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

Posted on May 21, 2026 by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The posture in one sentence

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

Case snapshot

Case number

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

Administrative source

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

Core Superior Court result

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

Later enforcement result

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

Case Dossier

Case Summary

Case ID / citation	LC2025-000025 / OAH 24F-H047-REL
Court / tribunal	Superior Court
Decision / key date	April 17, 2025
Judge / panel	Hon. Joseph P. Mikitish
Parties	AZNH sought Superior Court administrative review after the OAH/ADRE electronic-ballot records decision involving Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association.
Governing law	A.R.S. 33-1812 A.R.S. 32-2199.01
Topics	Admin. AppealsRecords RequestsElectionsProcedure
Outcome / holding	The Superior Court dismissed the broader administrative appeal, remanded for a limited evidentiary hearing on specified additional evidence, and later denied the requested enforcement/order-to-show-cause relief.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package	37 PDFs, 3 other source files
Step-by-step docket roadmap	18 roadmap entries
Video overview	AZNH Revocable Trust v. Arizona Department of Real Estate and Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Ass
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	4 questions
Curated download aliases	11 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

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

Key Issues & Findings

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

Why It Matters

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

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

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

Respondent Side

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

Neutral Parties

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

What the administrative appeal was about

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

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

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

Video overview of the case record

An AI-generated video overview of AZNH Revocable Trust v. Arizona Department of Real Estate and Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association (LC2025-000025 / OAH 24F-H047-REL). The Superior Court dismissed the broader administrative appeal, remanded for a limited evidentiary hearing on… This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own ruling controls.

Listen: audio deep dive on the case record

An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the court record and procedural posture in AZNH Revocable Trust v. Arizona Department of Real Estate and Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked case records below.

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

What the key court orders do

1. The appeal moved into judicial review

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

2. The remand was limited

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

3. The subpoena fight followed from remand scope

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

4. The enforcement motion did not expand relief

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

For homeowners: how to use this administrative-review record

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

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

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

Suggested judicial-review workflow

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

Procedure checklist for ADRE/OAH administrative appeals

Do this

Keep the OAH decision, rehearing order, notice of appeal, and administrative-review orders together.
Quote the remand language when asking OAH or the court for later action.
Preserve proof of what additional evidence the court was asked to consider.
Use a source-file roadmap so readers can follow the procedural chain without guessing.

Avoid this

Do not treat a limited remand as authority for unlimited discovery.
Do not bury a remand-scope issue inside a general merits argument.
Do not assume an enforcement motion will broaden the original remand order.
Do not merge the LC administrative appeal with later special actions when explaining the posture.

What LC2025-000025 does not decide

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

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

Timeline highlights

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

Filing roadmap and source PDFs

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

Step 10 June 27, 2025

Notice of hearing after remand

Filed by: ADRE

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

Step 11 August 13, 2025

Motion for subpoena duces tecum and OAH order

Filed by: AZNH Revocable Trust / OAH

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

Filed by: AZNH Revocable Trust / OAH

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

Download source

Related CV2025-036466 roadmap

Step 18 March 25, 2026

Special-action ruling on ALJ reassignment

Filed by: Superior Court

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

Type: Source roadmap CSV

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

Download source file

source-file-roadmap.csv

Complete source set

Oversized and roadmap files

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

Download roadmap CSV

Additional preserved source downloads

Oversized source PDF

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

Administrative Appeal Anatomy PDF

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

Frequently asked questions

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

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

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

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

Why is the September 17, 2025 minute entry important?

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

Why does this page link CV2025-036466?

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

Review note and disclaimer

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

Primary sources

← Back to Superior Court cases