HOA Fees on Appeal | A.R.S. § 33-1807(H) | LC2018-000421
The superior court vacated a later fee award to Paloma Paseo because the association did not timely include or amend those fees into the final judgment.
Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Paloma Paseo Homeowners Association v. David Falk, Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2018-000421.
Current-status note: This page is published as a litigation record based on the source files available through 2019-01-14. Later filings, appeals, mandates, settlements, or dismissal orders may change the posture; the linked court records control.
Scope note: This page covers Paloma Paseo Homeowners Association v. David Falk (Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2018-000421) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s collected minute entries through 2019-01-14; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: later filings, satisfaction history, appeals, and the formal written orders referenced by the minutes may not be included in these records. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The takeaway
HOA fee entitlement does not eliminate judgment-timing rules. A later fee application after final judgment can be waived or unsupported if the judgment did not reserve or include the amounts.
Case Participants
Respondent Side
- David Falk (DEFT/Appellant)
Opposing homeowner or property-side party identified in the case caption. Court party records list counsel as Gary Henman. - Melody Falk (DEFT/Appellant)
Listed in the court party records as deft/appellant. Court party records list counsel as Gary Henman. - Mcdowell Mountain Justice Court (Originating Court)
Listed in the court party records as originating court. - Paloma Paseo Homeowners Association (PLF/Appellee)
Association party in the HOA-related dispute. Court party records list counsel as Rodrigo Sauaia.
Neutral Parties
- Hon. Patricia Ann Starr (Judge)
Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries. - Hon. Patricia Starr For (Judge)
Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries. - Hon. Patricia A. Starr (Judge)
Judicial officer appearing in the collected minute entries.
What happened
Paloma Paseo sued the Falks in justice court for assessments and related collection amounts. The parties stipulated to principal, and the trial court entered judgment for attorneys’ fees and costs in January 2018.
Months later, the association filed another fee application. The Falks responded, but the trial court treated the response as moot and awarded additional fees and costs.
On record appeal, the superior court held the association waived additional pre-judgment fees by not including them before judgment and had no basis for post-judgment fees through a later order where the judgment did not reserve them.
The superior court vacated the justice-court award and remanded for further proceedings, while declining to sanction the association.
Video overview of the case record
An AI-generated video overview of Paloma Paseo Homeowners Association v. David Falk (LC2018-000421 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). A justice-court post-judgment fee award to an HOA was vacated as untimely after final judgment. This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own ruling controls.
Listen: audio deep dive on the case record
An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the court record and procedural posture in Paloma Paseo Homeowners Association v. David Falk. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked case records below.
Procedural timeline
Complete source-document index
This index contains 2 PDFs from the reviewed public source packet. Byte-identical copies are listed once. Files are ordered by the date and sequence in the public filename, and party filings or research materials are labeled separately from court rulings.
Oral Argument
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Record-appeal ruling vacating the justice-court post-judgment fee award to Paloma Paseo and remanding.
FAQ
What did the superior court decide?
It vacated the additional post-judgment fee-and-cost award and remanded.
Is this superior-court ruling precedent?
No. It binds the parties in this case but is useful only as a public record of how this dispute was handled.
Does the page summarize addresses or unit numbers?
No. Residential addresses and unit identifiers from the minute entries are intentionally omitted.
Who was the association party?
The association party identified in the collected court records was Paloma Paseo Homeowners Association.
Does this replace legal advice?
No. This is an educational case guide based on public minute entries, not legal advice.
Case Dossier
This dossier combines the case metadata, linked court sources, and the explanatory sections below. It distinguishes court rulings from party filings, allegations, and requested relief.
Case Summary
| Case ID / citation | LC2018-000421 (Maricopa County Superior Court) |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Superior Court |
| Decision / key date | January 14, 2019 |
| Judge / panel | Hon. Patricia Ann Starr, Hon. Patricia Starr For, Hon. Patricia A. Starr |
| Parties | David Falk and Melody Falk (Appellants) v. Paloma Paseo Homeowners Association (Appellee) |
| Governing law |
|
| Topics | Attorney FeesAssessmentsProcedureLiens |
| Outcome / holding | The superior court vacated the justice-court fee-and-cost award entered five months after final judgment and remanded, while declining sanctions against the association. |
| Primary public source | View source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Reviewed source package | 2 PDFs |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 2 roadmap entries |
| Video overview | Paloma Paseo Homeowners Association v. David Falk |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 5 questions |
| Featured download links | 1 download link |
Key Issues & Findings
On appeal from justice court, the superior court vacated a post-judgment attorneys’ fee and cost award to Paloma Paseo. It held the association waived additional pre-judgment fees by not including them before judgment and had no basis for later post-judgment fees where the final judgment did not reserve them, despite the HOA provisions and A.R.S. § 33-1807(H).
The superior court applied the justice-court fee timing rule and found the association filed its second fee application months after judgment. Because the association could have included all pre-judgment fees before the January 2018 judgment but did not, it waived those amounts.
The court also found the trial court erred by treating the homeowners’ timely opposition as moot. The opposition was not moot as to the new fee application filed months later.
For post-judgment fees, the court acknowledged the association’s reliance on HOA provisions and A.R.S. § 33-1807(H), but held those provisions supported fees for the prevailing party in a judgment and the association had already received such an award in the judgment. Because the later award was by order after final judgment and the association had not timely amended the judgment, there was no basis for it.
This is must-read for HOA collection fee practice because it vacates a later fee award and explains that an association must timely include fee claims in the judgment or amend the judgment, rather than seeking a new order months later.