Suzanne Sallus v. Sunrise Desert Vistas P.O.A.: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on July 2, 2026 by [email protected]

Records & Fees | A.R.S. § 12-341.01 | CV2013-004301

In this Maricopa County Superior Court case, a POA document dispute survived an early motion to dismiss but did not produce a merits judgment for the owner. After related litigation and an appeal concluded, the owner moved to dismiss; the court dismissed the case with prejudice and awarded defendants fees and costs under A.R.S. § 12-341.01.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Suzanne Sallus v. Sunrise Desert Vistas P.O.A., Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2013-004301.

Download fee ruling

Scope note: This page covers Suzanne Sallus v. Sunrise Desert Vistas P.O.A. (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2013-004301) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA/POA case guide. It is built from the court’s filed minute entries, including the April 8, 2013 status-conference ruling, the August 15, 2014 under-advisement stay ruling, the July 7, 2016 dismissal entry, and the August 8, 2016 fee ruling; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: the collected entries end with the August 8, 2016 fee-and-cost ruling. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

A POA document dispute can become fee-exposed even when it survives an early motion to dismiss. Here, the court denied the association’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion, but after the plaintiff reported receiving the documents at issue, the case was stayed pending related litigation, later dismissed with prejudice, and defendants were awarded $8,185.75 in attorneys’ fees and $351 in costs under A.R.S. § 12-341.01.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Suzanne Sallus (Plaintiff)
Plaintiff in the POA document dispute. The minute entries show she initially appeared for herself and later appeared through counsel.
James Robert Eckley (Counsel)
Attorney listed for Sallus in the court minutes and party table.
John Duke Harris (Counsel)
Attorney who appeared for Sallus at the July 29, 2014 argument and whose appearance for James Eckley was noted at the July 7, 2016 status conference.

Respondent Side

Sunrise Desert Vistas P.O.A. (Defendant)
Property owners association defendant that opposed the document-related claims, obtained dismissal with prejudice, and received a fee-and-cost award.
Gary S. Layton (Defendant)
Defendant listed in the case-party table as self-represented.
Guy W. Bluff (Counsel)
Counsel for Sunrise Desert Vistas P.O.A. in the court minutes and party table.

Neutral Parties

Mark H. Brain (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court judge who handled the early case, denied the motion to dismiss, denied the plaintiff’s judgment-on-the-pleadings motion, and issued the stay ruling.
Roger E. Brodman (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court judge who handled the 2016 status conference, dismissal with prejudice, and fee ruling.

What happened

Suzanne Sallus filed this Maricopa County Superior Court case against Sunrise Desert Vistas P.O.A. and Gary S. Layton in January 2013. The minute entries identify a document dispute connected to LC2013-000042, which the superior court described as the case that gave rise to this litigation.

The association moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). On March 15, 2013, Judge Mark H. Brain denied the motion because it referred to matters outside the pleadings and because the complaint stated a claim for relief if its material allegations were true.

At an April 8, 2013 telephonic hearing, Sallus told the court she had received the documents at issue. The court denied her motion for entry of judgment on the pleadings, denied her application for fees and verified statement of costs as premature, and stayed the case pending resolution of LC2013-000042.

The case remained tied to that related matter. After status conferences and settlement-conference scheduling, Sunrise Desert Vistas P.O.A. moved to stay proceedings during the appeal. Judge Brain granted the stay in an August 15, 2014 under-advisement ruling, explaining that the viability of the superior-court case hinged on the related appeal and that a brief trial might be needed to decide whether Sallus received the documents before filing suit.

The case returned to court in June and July 2016 after the court of appeals decision. At the July 7, 2016 status conference, counsel for Sallus orally moved to dismiss the matter with each side bearing its own fees and costs. Counsel for the POA objected. The court dismissed the case with prejudice but reserved the remaining issue of defendants’ attorneys’ fees and costs.

On August 8, 2016, Judge Brodman ruled on the fee request. Applying A.R.S. § 12-341.01 and the Associated Indemnity factors, the court found defendants’ efforts were necessary, defendants prevailed on all relief sought, and the litigation was not reasonable or necessary. It awarded $8,185.75 in attorneys’ fees, $351 in costs, and denied defendants’ motion to strike.

Procedural timeline

Step 2013-01-25 Sallus files the superior-court case against Sunrise Desert Vistas P.O.A. and Gary S. Layton.

Step 2013-03-15 The court denies the POA’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss because the complaint states a claim if its material allegations are true.

Step 2013-04-08 After Sallus reports that she has received the documents at issue, the court denies her judgment-on-the-pleadings motion, denies her fee application as premature, and stays the case pending LC2013-000042.

Step 2014-01-23 The court discusses case status after the special-action matter and refers the parties to a settlement conference.

Step 2014-07-29 The court hears argument on the POA’s motion to stay proceedings during appeal and takes the motion under advisement.

Step 2014-08-15 Under-advisement ruling grants the POA’s motion to stay proceedings during the appeal in the related case.

Step 2016-06-14 After the court of appeals decision, the court sets a July 2016 status conference to determine the case’s status.

Type: Court order/minute entry

Ruling awarding defendants $8,185.75 in attorneys’ fees and $351 in costs and denying defendants’ motion to strike.

Download source file

2016-08-08_016_ruling.pdf

FAQ

Was this a merits ruling on Arizona HOA records statutes?

No. The minute entries identify a dispute over documents, but the court did not issue a broad Title 33 records-access interpretation. It denied early motions, stayed the case pending a related matter, later dismissed the case with prejudice by stipulation, and then decided fees and costs.

Why did the plaintiff not receive judgment on the pleadings?

At the April 8, 2013 hearing, Sallus told the court she had received the documents at issue. The court denied her motion for entry of judgment on the pleadings and denied her fee request as premature, then stayed the superior-court case pending LC2013-000042.

Why was the case stayed?

The August 15, 2014 under-advisement ruling says the viability of this case hinged on LC2013-000042, which was on appeal. The court also noted that a brief trial might be needed to determine whether Sallus had received the documents before she filed suit, which would affect her fee claim.

How did the case end?

At the July 7, 2016 status conference, counsel for Sallus orally moved to dismiss the case with each party bearing its own fees and costs. The POA objected. The court dismissed the case with prejudice and reserved defendants’ fee-and-cost request.

Why did defendants receive attorneys’ fees?

The court applied A.R.S. § 12-341.01 and the Associated Indemnity factors. It found defendants prevailed on all relief sought, their defense efforts were necessary, the claims were not meritorious, and the litigation was an overly aggressive response to a small-dollar dispute.

Is this decision binding on other Arizona HOA disputes?

No. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This case is most useful as a fee-risk example for association document disputes, not as a published rule on records access.

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	CV2013-004301 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunal	Superior Court
Decision / key date	August 8, 2016
Judge / panel	Hon. Mark H. Brain, Hon. Roger E. Brodman
Parties	Suzanne Sallus (Plaintiff) v. Sunrise Desert Vistas P.O.A. and Gary S. Layton (Defendants)
Governing law	A.R.S. § 12-341.01
Topics	Records RequestsProcedureAttorney FeesBoard Governance
Outcome / holding	The superior court ultimately dismissed the plaintiff’s case with prejudice by stipulation and awarded defendants $8,185.75 in attorneys’ fees plus $351 in costs, finding under A.R.S. § 12-341.01 and the Associated Indemnity factors that defendants prevailed on all relief sought, that the plaintiff’s claims were not meritorious, and that the litigation was an overly aggressive response to a $550 dispute.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package	16 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	9 roadmap entries
Video overview	No video embed currently configured
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	6 questions
Curated download aliases	1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Suzanne Sallus sued Sunrise Desert Vistas P.O.A. in Maricopa County Superior Court after a related limited-jurisdiction case, with the minute entries identifying the dispute as involving documents at issue between Sallus and the property owners association. Early in the case, the court denied the association’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion because the complaint stated a claim if its material allegations were true, but it also denied Sallus’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and her fee request as premature after she told the court she had received the documents at issue. The superior court stayed the case while LC2013-000042 and its appeal proceeded, later granted the association’s motion to stay proceedings during appeal, and after the appellate decision the plaintiff moved to dismiss. On July 7, 2016, the case was dismissed with prejudice by stipulation, leaving only the association’s fee-and-cost request. On August 8, 2016, the court awarded defendants $8,185.75 in attorneys’ fees and $351 in costs under A.R.S. § 12-341.01.

Key Issues & Findings

The court first let the case survive a motion to dismiss because the complaint stated a claim for relief if its material allegations were true, but the same early status conference record cut against immediate judgment for the plaintiff: Sallus told the court she had received the documents at issue, so the court denied her motion for judgment on the pleadings, denied her fee application as premature, and stayed the superior-court action pending the related LC2013-000042 matter.

When the association later asked to stay the case during the appeal in the related case, Judge Mark H. Brain granted the request. The under-advisement ruling explained that the viability of the superior-court case depended on the outcome of LC2013-000042, and that a brief trial might be needed to determine whether Sallus had received the documents before filing suit, which would affect her fee claim. The court concluded that waiting for the appeal was the best use of resources.

After the appellate decision, Judge Roger E. Brodman held a status conference at which plaintiff’s counsel orally moved to dismiss the case, each side to bear its own fees and costs. The association objected, and the court dismissed the case with prejudice while reserving the association’s fee-and-cost application. In the later fee ruling, the court found defendants were the successful parties in a contested action arising out of contract, that the plaintiff’s claims were not meritorious, and that the fee award would not discourage tenable claims because this litigation was unreasonable and unnecessary.

Why It Matters

This is a cautionary superior-court example for small-dollar POA document disputes. The minute entries show that even where an owner survives an initial Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a case can become fee-exposed if the documents at issue have already been received and the remaining litigation depends on another case or appeal.

The decision is also useful because it separates the merits posture from the fee posture. The court did not publish broad Title 33 analysis or create precedent on association records rights; instead, after a stipulated dismissal with prejudice, it applied A.R.S. § 12-341.01 and the Associated Indemnity factors to award fees to the association side. As a superior-court ruling, it binds only the parties.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Pat Mah v. Canterra at Squaw Peak Condominium Association, Inc.: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on July 1, 2026 by [email protected]

Assessments & Records | A.R.S. §§ 33-1255, 33-1258 | CV2021-018876

In this Maricopa County Superior Court case, a condominium owner whose unit has no balcony argued she could not be assessed for balcony repairs and that the association mishandled her records requests. The court held the recorded Declaration—not the Condominium Act’s default rule—controls how limited-common-element costs are allocated, found the 2020 balcony work was repair rather than structural alteration, and rejected the records claim because A.R.S. § 33-1258 creates no private right of action and no specific withheld document was identified.

Last updated July 1, 2026. Case: Pat Mah v. Canterra at Squaw Peak Condominium Association, Inc., Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2021-018876.

Download summary-judgment ruling

Scope note: This page covers Pat Mah v. Canterra at Squaw Peak Condominium Association, Inc. (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2021-018876) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s own filed minute entries, including the September 26, 2022 under-advisement ruling and the December 29, 2025 summary-judgment ruling; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: final judgment was entered April 30, 2026 and the homeowner’s appeal was pending when this page was last updated — the outcome could change on appeal. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The superior court granted the Association summary judgment on every remaining claim. It held that the recorded Declaration makes maintenance, repair, and replacement of limited common elements such as balconies a Common Expense shared equally by all unit owners — a permissible deviation from the default allocation in A.R.S. § 33-1255(C) — and that the 2020 balcony work was repair rather than a structural alteration requiring a special assessment. The homeowner’s records claim failed because A.R.S. § 33-1258 does not create a private right of action and, in any event, most requested documents had already been disclosed and no specific improperly withheld document was identified.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Pat Mah (Plaintiff)
Condominium owner in the Canterra at Squaw Peak community whose unit has patios rather than a balcony; represented by counsel for most of the case and self-represented by the time of the 2025 summary-judgment ruling.
John Sud (Counsel)
Counsel for Plaintiff Pat Mah in the early phase of the case, including the 2022 motion-to-dismiss briefing and argument.
Andrew B. Turk (Counsel)
Counsel appearing for Plaintiff Pat Mah at the September 26, 2022 oral argument.
Jonathan A. Dessaules (Counsel)
Dessaules Law Group
Counsel of record for Plaintiff Pat Mah during the 2024 amended-complaint phase.

Respondent Side

Canterra at Squaw Peak Condominium Association, Inc. (Defendant)
Phoenix condominium association that assessed the 2020 balcony repair work to all unit owners as a Common Expense and prevailed on every claim.
Henry Nickolas Eicher (Counsel)
Counsel of record for the Association through the motion-to-dismiss and amended-complaint phases.
Jonathan D. Ebertshauser (Counsel)
Counsel appearing for the Association, including at the September 26, 2022 oral argument.
Kyle Banfield (Counsel)
Counsel for the Association in the summary-judgment and post-judgment phase, including the fee application.

Neutral Parties

Scott A. Blaney (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court judge who issued the September 2022 under-advisement ruling, the December 2025 summary-judgment ruling, and the post-judgment rulings.
Margaret R. Mahoney (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court judge assigned earlier in the case; set the 2022 oral argument on the partial motion to dismiss.

What happened

Canterra at Squaw Peak is a Phoenix condominium community governed by a recorded Declaration (CC&Rs). Some units have balconies and walk decks, which the Declaration classifies as limited common elements serving a single unit; other units, including Pat Mah’s, have patios instead. Under Section 4.2 of the Declaration, the Association is responsible for maintaining, repairing, and replacing the limited common elements as part of the community’s Common Expenses, and under Section 6.7 all regular assessments are fixed at an equal amount for every unit.

In 2020 the Association performed repair work on certain balconies and walk decks and assessed the cost against all unit owners. Mah sued the Association in late 2021. She sought a declaratory judgment that she could not be assessed for balcony repairs — arguing that a 1996 amendment to the CC&Rs limited those costs to the owners who actually benefit from the balconies — and that the work should have been funded through a special assessment on the benefited owners.

The Association moved to dismiss. After full briefing and an oral argument at which the court struck improper attachments from both sides, Judge Scott Blaney issued an under-advisement ruling on September 26, 2022. The court found that the Declaration allocates limited-common-element repair costs to all owners as a Common Expense, and that this deviation from the default allocation in A.R.S. § 33-1255(C) — which would assign such costs to the benefited units — is expressly permitted by the statute’s opening qualifier, “[u]nless otherwise provided for in the declaration.” The court dismissed the 1996-amendment claim and ordered the parties to meet and confer or mediate.

In February 2024 the court granted Mah leave to file a first amended complaint, but only in part: the dismissed 1996-amendment claim could not be revived. The amended complaint asserted declaratory relief, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and a claim that the Association violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 by failing to allow reasonable access to association records. The claims rested on allegations that the Association paid for balcony repairs without authority, owed her reimbursement for window and door maintenance, and used improper budgeting to create a “slush fund.”

The Association moved for summary judgment on all remaining claims. After an October 29, 2025 oral argument, the court granted the motion in a December 29, 2025 under-advisement ruling. It found the 2020 balcony work was “repair, maintenance, and/or replacement” rather than a structural alteration or addition, so the Association was authorized to pay for it with regular assessments; the contract and good-faith claims failed for the same reasons, and the slush-fund arguments were “confusing and unsupported by the record.” On the records claim, the court held that A.R.S. § 33-1258 does not create a private right of action, that most of the requested documents had already been disclosed before and during the litigation, and that Mah identified no specific document the Association improperly withheld.

The endgame ran through spring 2026. The court denied Mah’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion for relief in January, rejected her attempt to supplement it in February, and on April 30, 2026 entered a formal judgment against her that included the Association’s attorneys’ fees and costs. In May 2026 the court denied her motion for a stay pending appeal and to set a bond, and her appeal remained pending when this page was last updated.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Pat Mah v. Canterra at Squaw Peak Condominium Association, Inc. (CV2021-018876 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). Declaration made limited-common-element balcony repairs a common expense shared by all condo owners. 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 Pat Mah v. Canterra at Squaw Peak Condominium Association, Inc.. 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 2020 The Association performs repair work on certain balconies and walk decks and assesses the cost to all unit owners as a Common Expense.

Step 2021 (late) Pat Mah sues the Association in Maricopa County Superior Court (CV2021-018876), seeking a declaratory judgment on the balcony-repair assessments.

Step 2022-01-26 The Association files a partial motion to dismiss.

Step 2022-09-26 After oral argument, the court issues an under-advisement ruling: the Declaration controls the allocation of limited-common-element costs, the 1996-amendment claim is dismissed, and the parties are ordered to meet and confer or mediate.

Step 2024-02-13 The court grants Mah leave to file a first amended complaint in part; the dismissed 1996-amendment claim may not be revived.

Step 2025-10-29 Oral argument on the Association’s motion for summary judgment.

Step 2025-12-29 Under-advisement ruling grants the Association summary judgment on all remaining claims, including the A.R.S. § 33-1258 records claim, and orders Rule 54(c) judgment procedures.

Step 2026-01-20 The court denies Mah’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion for relief; her later motion to supplement it is rejected in February.

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file

2026-05-18_024_ruling.pdf

FAQ

Why did a unit owner without a balcony have to help pay for balcony repairs?

Because the community’s recorded Declaration says so. The Declaration classifies balconies and walk decks as limited common elements, makes their maintenance, repair, and replacement a Common Expense of the Association, and fixes regular assessments at an equal amount for every unit. The court held that this allocation is a permissible deviation from A.R.S. § 33-1255(C), whose default rule assigning limited-common-element costs to the benefited units applies only “[u]nless otherwise provided for in the declaration.”

What is the difference between a regular assessment and a special assessment in this case?

Under the Declaration, ordinary maintenance, repair, and replacement of common and limited common elements is funded through equal regular assessments on all units. Structural alterations or additions to a building require prior approval by a majority of owners and first mortgagees and are funded through a special assessment allocated by ownership interest. The case turned in part on this line: the court found the 2020 balcony work was repair, maintenance, and/or replacement — not a structural alteration — so regular assessments were the proper funding mechanism.

Why did the records claim under A.R.S. § 33-1258 fail?

Two independent reasons. First, the court held the statute does not create a private right of action for an allegedly aggrieved party. Second, the Association showed through the record that most of the documents Mah sought had already been disclosed to her before and during the litigation, and her remaining requests were vague, broad categories; she identified no specific document that was improperly withheld.

What is an under-advisement ruling?

When an Arizona superior-court judge takes a motion “under advisement” after briefing or argument, the later written decision is filed as an under-advisement ruling in the court’s minute entries. These rulings are the trial court’s substantive written decisions — the September 2022 and December 2025 rulings in this case each set out findings, legal analysis, and orders — and they are public records available through the Clerk of the Superior Court.

Did the homeowner recover anything?

No. The court dismissed her core declaratory theory in 2022, granted the Association summary judgment on every remaining claim in December 2025, denied her Rule 60(b)(6) motion, and in April 2026 entered judgment against her that included the Association’s attorneys’ fees and costs. In May 2026 the court also denied her request for a stay pending appeal.

Is this decision binding on other Arizona HOA disputes?

No. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties to the case and are not precedent. The case is still useful reading: it shows how courts apply a condominium declaration’s cost-allocation provisions over the Condominium Act’s defaults, and what a records-access claim under A.R.S. § 33-1258 needs to survive. Note that an appeal was pending when this page was last updated, so the outcome could still change.

Case Dossier

Case Summary

Case ID / citation	CV2021-018876 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunal	Superior Court
Decision / key date	December 29, 2025
Judge / panel	Hon. Scott A. Blaney, Hon. Margaret R. Mahoney
Parties	Pat Mah (Plaintiff, condominium owner) v. Canterra at Squaw Peak Condominium Association, Inc. (Defendant)
Governing law	A.R.S. § 33-1255 A.R.S. § 33-1258
Topics	AssessmentsCC&RsRecords RequestsProcedureAttorney Fees
Outcome / holding	The superior court granted the association summary judgment on all remaining claims, holding that the Declaration permissibly allocates limited-common-element repair costs to all unit owners as an equal Common Expense notwithstanding A.R.S. § 33-1255(C)’s default rule, that the 2020 balcony work was repair rather than a structural alteration requiring a special assessment, and that the A.R.S. § 33-1258 records claim failed both because the statute creates no private right of action and because no specific improperly withheld document was identified.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package	24 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	10 roadmap entries
Video overview	Pat Mah v. Canterra at Squaw Peak Condominium Association, Inc.
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	6 questions
Curated download aliases	1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

A Phoenix condominium owner whose unit has patios rather than a balcony sued her association after it assessed 2020 balcony and walk-deck repair costs against all unit owners. She sought a declaratory judgment that a 1996 CC&R amendment limited those costs to the owners who benefit from the balconies, and later added claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant, and denial of records access under A.R.S. § 33-1258. In a September 2022 under-advisement ruling the court dismissed the core declaratory theory, holding that the recorded Declaration makes limited-common-element repairs a Common Expense shared equally by all units and that this deviation from A.R.S. § 33-1255(C)’s default allocation is expressly permitted by the statute. In a December 2025 under-advisement ruling the court granted the association summary judgment on all remaining claims, finding the 2020 balcony work was repair rather than structural alteration and that the records claim failed because the statute creates no private right of action and no specific withheld document was identified. Judgment with attorneys’ fees and costs was entered against the owner in April 2026; her appeal is pending.

Key Issues & Findings

On the assessment question, the court’s September 2022 under-advisement ruling walked through the Declaration: Section 3.5 classifies balconies and walk decks as limited common elements; Section 4.2 makes their maintenance, repair, and replacement part of the Common Expenses the association bears; and Section 6.7 fixes all regular assessments at an equal amount for every unit. The court acknowledged that the Arizona Condominium Act’s default rule, A.R.S. § 33-1255(C), would allocate limited-common-element expenses to the units that benefit from their exclusive use, but held the Declaration’s different allocation controls because the statute applies only “[u]nless otherwise provided for in the declaration.” On that basis the court dismissed the claim that a 1996 amendment restricted balcony-repair costs to benefited owners, adopting the association’s interpretation of the Declaration and declining to reach its res judicata and collateral estoppel defenses.

At summary judgment in December 2025, the court found the association had established through competent record evidence — and the court’s own earlier rulings — that the 2020 balcony work was repair, maintenance, and/or replacement rather than a structural alteration or addition, so the association was authorized to fund it through regular assessments rather than the special-assessment mechanism reserved for structural changes. The declaratory, breach-of-contract, and implied-covenant claims all failed on that same footing, and the court found the plaintiff’s “slush fund” budgeting arguments confusing and unsupported by the record.

On the records claim, the court gave two independent grounds: A.R.S. § 33-1258 does not create a private right of action for an allegedly aggrieved party, and the record showed most of the requested documents had already been disclosed before and during the litigation while the remaining requests were vague, broad categories. Because the plaintiff identified no specific document improperly withheld, summary judgment was warranted. The court then denied her Rule 60(b)(6) motion for lack of good cause, entered judgment including the association’s attorneys’ fees and costs in April 2026, and denied a stay pending appeal in May 2026.

Why It Matters

This case is a clear, recent illustration of two recurring Arizona condominium fights. First, cost allocation: owners often assume the Condominium Act guarantees that only the units that benefit from a limited common element — a balcony, a walk deck — pay for its upkeep. The ruling shows that A.R.S. § 33-1255(C) is only a default; a recorded declaration that spreads those costs equally across all units controls, even for owners whose units lack the element entirely.

Second, records access: the court held A.R.S. § 33-1258 creates no private right of action and that a records plaintiff must point to specific documents actually withheld — broad categorical demands, or requests for material already produced, will not survive summary judgment. The decision also shows the financial risk of pressing weak claims: the owner ended the case with a judgment against her for the association’s attorneys’ fees and costs. As a superior-court decision it binds only the parties, and an appeal was pending as of mid-2026.

← Back to Superior Court cases

AZNH Revocable Trust v. Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association: HOA Court Case Guide

Posted on July 1, 2026 by [email protected]

Open Meetings | A.R.S. § 33-1804 | 1 CA-CV 25-0424

An Arizona homeowner challenged a Sunland Springs HOA board that voted on budgets, spending, age-waivers, and foreclosures behind closed doors. Division One held that boards may deliberate but not vote in closed session, and that closed-meeting agendas must meaningfully describe what will be addressed.

Arizona Court of Appeals | 1 CA-CV 25-0424 | Decided 2026-04-28

Download the ruling PDF FAQ

Scope note: This educational page summarizes AZNH Revocable Trust v. Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association, a Arizona Court of Appeals HOA-related authority. It is not legal advice.

This is a published Arizona open-meetings landmark for planned-community board action under A.R.S. section 33-1804.

The takeaway

Under A.R.S. § 33-1804, a planned-community association must take all votes and formal actions at open meetings; a board may discuss or deliberate on the subsection (A) topics during a closed (executive) portion but may not vote or decide there, because ‘consideration’ means thought and discussion, not voting. The statute’s open-meeting policy in subsection (F) applies to all meetings, so a meeting agenda—including for a closed portion—must contain information reasonably necessary to apprise members of the matters to be addressed; merely citing the subsection (A) paragraph that justifies closure is insufficient, though associations need not disclose personally identifying or attorney-client privileged information. A board may delegate its subsection (C) duty to identify the reason for closing a meeting. The court affirmed that the association’s notices complied with the statute, reversed as to the agendas, and remanded for factual development on whether the board properly delegated the closure-reason duty. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded; costs awarded to neither party.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

AZNH Revocable Trust (Plaintiff)
Plaintiff/Appellant/Cross-Appellee; referred to in the opinion as ‘Homeowner.’ Holds residential property in the Sunland Springs Village planned community and brought the declaratory-judgment action alleging open-meeting violations.
John F. Sullivan (Counsel)
Law Offices of John F. Sullivan (Chandler)
Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant/Cross-Appellee AZNH Revocable Trust (the Homeowner); listed in the opinion as John Sullivan, Chandler.

Respondent Side

Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association (Defendant)
Defendant/Appellee/Cross-Appellant; the homeowners association governing the Sunland Springs Village planned community, subject to A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 16.
Lisa M. Lampkin (Counsel)
Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP (Scottsdale)
Co-counsel for Defendant/Appellee/Cross-Appellant Sunland Springs Village HOA.
Megan E. Ritenour (Counsel)
Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP (Scottsdale)
Co-counsel for Defendant/Appellee/Cross-Appellant Sunland Springs Village HOA.
Chad M. Gallacher (Counsel)
Maxwell & Morgan, P.C. (Mesa)
Co-counsel for Defendant/Appellee/Cross-Appellant Sunland Springs Village HOA; Maxwell & Morgan is an Arizona community-association law firm.

Neutral Parties

James B. Morse Jr. (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Authored the opinion of the court.
Andrew M. Jacobs (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Presiding Judge; joined the opinion.
Brian Y. Furuya (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Judge; joined the opinion.
Hon. Rodrick J. Coffey (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court
Trial judge who granted summary judgment in part and denied it in part in No. CV2023-096192.

What happened

Sunland Springs Village is a planned community in Maricopa County, Arizona, subject to Arizona’s Planned Community Act (A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 16, §§ 33-1801 to 33-1820). The community is governed by a homeowners association that conducts its business through board of directors’ meetings, some of which are closed to residents. The homeowner in this case owns residential property in the community and holds it through the AZNH Revocable Trust.

According to the opinion, Sunland Springs did not permit residents to attend its closed meetings except by invitation, and its board president determined what business would be addressed in closed sessions. Before a closed meeting, the association gave members notice of the date, time, and place and quoted the language of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) that allows meetings to be closed. Its closed-meeting agendas identified matters only by the paragraph of Section 33-1804(A) corresponding to the topic.

The opinion states that Sunland Springs conducted formal business and voting during its closed meetings. Among other things, the board approved a $917,000 budget item, granted the community manager up to $7,000 in discretionary spending authority, addressed 13 waivers of the community’s minimum-age requirement for residents, and authorized foreclosures against two homeowners—all in closed session.

In December 2023, the homeowner filed a declaratory-judgment action in Maricopa County Superior Court (No. CV2023-096192), alleging that Sunland Springs failed to conduct its meetings in compliance with Section 33-1804. After initial discovery, the homeowner moved for summary judgment on three points: that the board improperly voted and took formal action in closed meetings; that it had to designate closed-meeting agenda items by formal action at open meetings; and that its notices and agendas for closed meetings were deficient.

The superior court, the Honorable Rodrick J. Coffey presiding, granted summary judgment in part and denied it in part. It agreed that Section 33-1804 required votes to occur in open session, but held that the statute did not require the board to select closed-meeting agenda items by formal action at an open meeting, and did not require notices or agendas to describe closed-meeting topics beyond citing the applicable paragraph of Section 33-1804(A). The parties agreed the ruling resolved all claims, the court entered a final judgment under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 54(c), and both sides appealed.

On April 28, 2026, Division One of the Arizona Court of Appeals issued a published opinion authored by Judge James B. Morse Jr. and joined by Presiding Judge Andrew M. Jacobs and Judge Brian Y. Furuya. The court affirmed that all votes and formal actions must occur at open meetings and that the content of the association’s notices complied with the statute. It reversed on the agenda issue, holding that closed-meeting agendas must reasonably describe the matters to be addressed, and it remanded for factual development on whether the board properly delegated to its president the duty to identify the reason for closing a meeting.

Because both parties prevailed in part, the court declined to award costs on appeal to either side and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. As of the opinion’s issuance, a petition for review was pending before the Arizona Supreme Court (No. CV-26-0167-PR), so the decision’s ultimate status could change.

This is a landmark 2026 interpretation of Arizona’s HOA open-meeting statute, A.R.S. § 33-1804, and it draws a bright line for planned-community and condominium boards: they may deliberate on sensitive matters such as legal advice, litigation, personnel, and member appeals behind closed doors, but they may not vote or take formal action there. Approving budgets, granting spending authority, ruling on waivers, or authorizing foreclosures must happen at an open meeting where members can be present and can speak before the vote. Boards that have historically finalized business in executive session will need to move those votes into open session. The decision also reshapes how boards must describe closed-session business. An agenda—even for a closed portion of a meeting—must give members information reasonably necessary to understand what will be addressed, not merely a citation to the statutory paragraph that authorizes closing the meeting, while still protecting personally identifying and privileged information. For homeowners, the ruling strengthens the right to meaningful notice and participation; for associations and managers, it signals a need to revise meeting notices, agendas, and closure procedures, including how the authority to state the reason for a closed meeting is delegated. Because the opinion is published it is binding Arizona precedent, but a petition for review is pending in the Arizona Supreme Court (No. CV-26-0167-PR), so its status could change.

Filed by: Court record

Part of the record summarized for homeowners, boards, and counsel.

Download source

2026-07-01_001_opinion.pdf

Complete uploaded source-document index

This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/aznh-revocable-trust-v-sunland-springs-village-hoa/raw/: 1 PDF. Files are ordered by the date/sequence embedded in the normalized filename; AI-generated review materials are labeled separately and should not be treated as court filings.

Source 1 2026-07-01

Opinion

Type: Decision or judgment

Opinion holding that HOA votes and formal actions must occur in open meetings with agenda notice of the action to be taken.

Download source file

2026-07-01_001_opinion.pdf

FAQ

Is AZNH Revocable Trust v. Sunland Springs Village HOA binding precedent in Arizona?

Yes. It is a published opinion of the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, filed April 28, 2026, so it is binding precedent in Arizona. However, a petition for review is pending in the Arizona Supreme Court (No. CV-26-0167-PR), which means the decision could be affected if the higher court agrees to review it.

Can an Arizona HOA board vote or take formal action during a closed (executive) session?

No. The court held that A.R.S. § 33-1804 allows a board to close a portion of a meeting only to ‘consider’—that is, to think about and discuss—certain sensitive topics such as legal advice, litigation, personnel, and member appeals. Voting and other formal actions are decisions, not consideration, and must take place at an open meeting.

What must a closed-meeting agenda include under this decision?

The court held that an agenda, even for a closed portion of a meeting, must contain information reasonably necessary to apprise members of the matters to be addressed. Simply citing the paragraph of Section 33-1804(A) that justifies closing the meeting is not enough. Associations still do not have to reveal personally identifying information or attorney-client privileged information.

Does Arizona’s HOA open-meeting policy apply to closed meetings too?

Yes. The court held that the legislative policy statement in A.R.S. § 33-1804(F) refers back to ‘all meetings’ of an association, so it applies to closed meetings as well as open ones. Courts must construe the open-meeting provisions in favor of open meetings.

Who decides the reason for closing an HOA meeting—the full board or the president?

The court held that A.R.S. § 33-1804(C) does not require the full board to identify the reason for a closed meeting by formal action at an open meeting; under A.R.S. § 10-3801(B), a nonprofit board may delegate that duty, for example to its president. Because the record was unclear on whether Sunland Springs had formally delegated the duty, the court remanded that question to the trial court.

What was the outcome of the appeal?

The Court of Appeals affirmed in part (votes and formal actions must occur at open meetings, and the association’s notice content complied with the statute), reversed in part (closed-meeting agendas must reasonably describe the matters to be addressed), and remanded for factual development on the delegation issue. Because both sides prevailed in part, the court awarded appellate costs to neither party.

Case Dossier

Case Summary

Case ID / citation	1 CA-CV 25-0424
Court / tribunal	Court of Appeals
Decision / key date	April 28, 2026
Judge / panel	Hon. James B. Morse Jr. (author), Hon. Andrew M. Jacobs (Presiding Judge), Hon. Brian Y. Furuya
Parties	AZNH Revocable Trust (Plaintiff/Appellant/Cross-Appellee; the ‘Homeowner’) v. Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association (Defendant/Appellee/Cross-Appellant)
Governing law	A.R.S. § 33-1804 (Planned Community Act — open meetings; subsections (A), (C), (D), (F)) A.R.S. § 33-1805(B) (association books and records) A.R.S. § 10-3801(B) (Nonprofit Corporation Act — board authority and delegation) A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(1) (appellate jurisdiction)
Topics	Open MeetingsProcedureMembershipRecords Requests
Outcome / holding	Under A.R.S. § 33-1804, a planned-community association must take all votes and formal actions at open meetings; a board may discuss or deliberate on the subsection (A) topics during a closed (executive) portion but may not vote or decide there, because ‘consideration’ means thought and discussion, not voting. The statute’s open-meeting policy in subsection (F) applies to all meetings, so a meeting agenda—including for a closed portion—must contain information reasonably necessary to apprise members of the matters to be addressed; merely citing the subsection (A) paragraph that justifies closure is insufficient, though associations need not disclose personally identifying or attorney-client privileged information. A board may delegate its subsection (C) duty to identify the reason for closing a meeting. The court affirmed that the association’s notices complied with the statute, reversed as to the agendas, and remanded for factual development on whether the board properly delegated the closure-reason duty. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded; costs awarded to neither party.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package	1 PDF
Step-by-step docket roadmap	6 roadmap entries
Video overview	No video embed currently configured
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	6 questions
Curated download aliases	1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

AZNH Revocable Trust v. Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association is a published 2026 opinion of the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, interpreting the open-meeting requirements of the Planned Community Act, A.R.S. § 33-1804. A homeowner in the Sunland Springs Village planned community, acting through the AZNH Revocable Trust, filed a declaratory-judgment action contending that the association’s board did not provide statutorily compliant meeting notices and agendas and improperly conducted formal business—including votes—during closed (executive) sessions. The superior court granted summary judgment in part to each side, and both parties appealed. Writing for a unanimous panel, Judge James B. Morse Jr. reached three conclusions. First, Section 33-1804 lets a board ‘consider’ certain sensitive topics during a closed portion of a meeting, but ‘consideration’ means thought and discussion, not voting, so all votes and formal actions must occur at open meetings. Second, the statute’s policy of open governance in subsection (F) applies to all meetings, and a meeting agenda—even for a closed portion—must contain information reasonably necessary to apprise members of the matters to be addressed, though it need not disclose personally identifying or attorney-client privileged information; merely citing the subsection (A) paragraph that justifies closure is not enough. Third, a board may delegate its subsection (C) duty to identify the reason for closing a meeting, so the court remanded for factual development on whether the board properly delegated that duty to its president. The court affirmed that the association’s notices complied with the statute, reversed on the agenda issue, and remanded. Because both sides prevailed in part, it awarded costs to neither. A petition for review is pending in the Arizona Supreme Court.

Key Issues & Findings

Reviewing the questions of statutory interpretation de novo, the court read Section 33-1804 according to the plain meaning of its words in their broader statutory context and gave weight to the legislative policy statement in subsection (F), which directs that the section’s provisions be construed in favor of open meetings. On voting, subsection (A) allows a portion of a meeting to be closed only for ‘consideration’ of enumerated sensitive topics. The court held that ‘consideration’—though undefined and, as the association conceded at oral argument, ambiguous—denotes thought, reflection, and discussion that precede a decision, not the formal act of voting. Reading it otherwise would nullify the statutory guarantee that a member may speak after the board discusses an agenda item but before it takes formal action, and would conflict with subsection (F)’s open-meeting mandate.

The court rejected the association’s argument that requiring open votes would clash with A.R.S. § 33-1805(B), which permits withholding minutes of a closed session. Minutes are not kept solely to record votes; a board may take minutes of a meeting even when it takes no formal action, much as public bodies may keep minutes of an executive session despite being barred from voting there. Section 33-1805 therefore does not authorize closed-session voting and does not conflict with Section 33-1804.

On notices and agendas, the court held that subsection (F)’s reference to ‘those meetings’ relates back to ‘all meetings,’ so the open-meeting policy reaches closed meetings too. The association’s notices—containing the date, time, and place plus the subsection (A) paragraph justifying closure—satisfied the specific notice requirements of subsections (C) and (D). But because the statute does not detail what an agenda must contain, the court looked to subsection (F) and held that an agenda must reasonably advise members of the items to be addressed, even for a closed meeting, so that members can speak meaningfully before formal action; a bare citation to the subsection (A) paragraph is not enough, though personally identifying and attorney-client privileged information need not be disclosed. Finally, because Section 33-1804(C) does not dictate how a board must identify the reason for closing a meeting, and A.R.S. § 10-3801(B) allows a nonprofit board to act through delegation, the board could delegate that duty; the record was unclear whether Sunland Springs had formally delegated it to the president, requiring remand.

Why It Matters

This is a landmark 2026 interpretation of Arizona’s HOA open-meeting statute, A.R.S. § 33-1804, and it draws a bright line for planned-community and condominium boards: they may deliberate on sensitive matters such as legal advice, litigation, personnel, and member appeals behind closed doors, but they may not vote or take formal action there. Approving budgets, granting spending authority, ruling on waivers, or authorizing foreclosures must happen at an open meeting where members can be present and can speak before the vote. Boards that have historically finalized business in executive session will need to move those votes into open session.

The decision also reshapes how boards must describe closed-session business. An agenda—even for a closed portion of a meeting—must give members information reasonably necessary to understand what will be addressed, not merely a citation to the statutory paragraph that authorizes closing the meeting, while still protecting personally identifying and privileged information. For homeowners, the ruling strengthens the right to meaningful notice and participation; for associations and managers, it signals a need to revise meeting notices, agendas, and closure procedures, including how the authority to state the reason for a closed meeting is delegated. Because the opinion is published it is binding Arizona precedent, but a petition for review is pending in the Arizona Supreme Court (No. CV-26-0167-PR), so its status could change.

← Back to Court of Appeals 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

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 ruling

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 ruling

An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the court’s reasoning and disposition in Sandra Rodriguez v. Gardens-Gilbert Community Association, et al.. 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 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

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

Uploaded 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
Curated download aliases	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

Zwicky v. Premiere Vacation Collection: Arizona Timeshare Owners’ Right to Inspect Records

Posted on June 19, 2026 by [email protected]

Arizona Timeshare & HOA Records | A.R.S. § 33-2209 | 1 CA-CV 16-0659

Zwicky is the leading published Arizona decision on a timeshare member’s statutory right to inspect association financial books and records. The Court of Appeals affirmed an order compelling production, adopted a member-friendly ‘proper purpose’ standard, and held the business judgment rule cannot defeat the statutory right — while protecting genuinely confidential financial data and barring litigation-recruitment notices.

Last updated June 19, 2026. Case: Norman Zwicky v. Premiere Vacation Collection Owners Association, Arizona Court of Appeals No. 1 CA-CV 16-0659, 244 Ariz. 309, 418 P.3d 1108 (App. 2018); Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2015-051911.

Download appellate opinion Download final judgment Source-file index FAQ

Scope note: This page covers the published Court of Appeals opinion (1 CA-CV 16-0659) and the uploaded trial and appellate record. The complete source-document index below is generated from the local raw source folder. This page is an educational summary, not legal advice.

The rule

A timeshare owner who follows the statutory request procedure and has a ‘proper purpose’ — a desire to obtain information that reasonably relates to protecting the owner’s interest as a member — may compel inspection of the association’s financial and other records under A.R.S. § 33-2209, and the board’s discretion and the business judgment rule are no defense. But an association cannot be ordered under A.R.S. § 33-2210 to circulate member notices whose real purpose is recruiting plaintiffs rather than legitimate association business, and genuinely confidential or proprietary financial data may be protected by a properly supported protective order.

What happened

Norman Zwicky paid about $26,000 for his timeshare interest in 2004 and watched his annual assessments climb to roughly $2,162 by 2015. Suspecting that the developer-affiliated manager (tied to Diamond Resorts) was shifting hotel-operation and unsold-inventory costs onto members, he made a written statutory request to inspect the association’s financial books and records so he could investigate whether assessments were calculated in good faith.

The association refused. The trial court (Judge John R. Hannah, Jr.) granted Zwicky summary judgment compelling production of twelve categories of financial records. The association appealed. On January 23, 2018, the Court of Appeals affirmed the core inspection right, vacated a member-notice order and a protective-order modification, and remanded; the parties then entered a stipulated final order on remand keeping certain documents confidential.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Norman Zwicky v. Premiere Vacation Collection Owners Association (244 Ariz. 309, 418 P.3d 1108 (App. 2018), 1 CA-CV 16-0659). A timeshare owner who follows the statutory request procedure and has a ‘proper purpose’ — a desire to obtain… 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 Norman Zwicky v. Premiere Vacation Collection Owners 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 2015-05-13 Zwicky files verified complaint to compel records inspection (CV2015-051911)

Step 2016-03-11 Superior court grants Zwicky summary judgment; denies association’s cross-motion

Step 2016-09-16 Final judgment ordering production; attorneys’ fees denied (not an action ‘arising out of contract’)

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file

2018-08-21_076_stipulated-order.pdf

Source 77 2018-11-30

Notice Of Change Of Firm Address

Type: Procedural/service filing

Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.

Download source file

2018-11-30_077_notice-of-change-of-firm-address.pdf

Why it matters

Statutory records-inspection rights are court-enforceable.
No board permission needed.
‘Proper purpose’ is read in the member’s favor.

Board discretion and the business judgment rule do not defeat the statutory right.
Confidential or proprietary financials can still be protected by a proper protective order.

An association cannot be forced to mail member notices that really serve class-action recruitment.
Inspection still runs through the statutory request procedure.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Norman Zwicky (Plaintiff/Appellee)
Timeshare member who sought to inspect association records.
Jon L. Phelps (Counsel)
Law Offices Phelps & Moore PLLC
Counsel for Zwicky in the verified complaint.
Edward L. Barry (Co-Counsel)
Law Office of Edward L. Barry
Appeared as co-counsel for Zwicky.

Respondent Side

Premiere Vacation Collection Owners Association (Defendant/Appellant)
Association party defending the records-inspection case.
John E. DeWulf (Counsel)
Coppersmith Brockelman PLC
Counsel for Premiere Vacation Collection Owners Association.
Katherine DeStefano (Counsel)
Coppersmith Brockelman PLC
Counsel for PVCOA; later filings use Katherine Hyde.
Brandon T. Crossland (Counsel)
Baker Hostetler LLP
Associated pro hac vice as counsel for PVCOA.
Kathy Wheeler (Director/Declarant)
Premiere Vacation Collection Owners Association
PVCOA director who submitted a declaration about confidential records.

Neutral Parties

John R. Hannah Jr. (Judge)
Superior Court judge assigned to the case.
Patricia A. Orozco (Judge)
Authored the Court of Appeals opinion.
Kenton D. Jones (Presiding Judge)
Joined the Court of Appeals opinion.
Jon W. Thompson (Judge)
Joined the Court of Appeals opinion.

FAQ

Is Zwicky still good law?

Yes. It is a published Court of Appeals opinion (244 Ariz. 309) and was not further reviewed; it remains the leading Arizona authority on timeshare records inspection under A.R.S. § 33-2209.

Does it apply to ordinary HOAs and condos?

Zwicky construes the timeshare records statute (§ 33-2209). Its ‘proper purpose’ reasoning is frequently cited in disputes over member access to association financial records, but planned communities and condominiums have their own records statutes (A.R.S. §§ 33-1805 and 33-1258).

Did the owner get his attorneys’ fees?

No. The courts held the records-inspection action did not ‘arise out of contract’ under A.R.S. § 12-341.01, so fees were denied at both the trial and appellate levels.

Case Dossier

Case Summary

Case ID / citation	244 Ariz. 309, 418 P.3d 1108 (App. 2018), 1 CA-CV 16-0659
Court / tribunal	Court of Appeals
Decision / key date	January 23, 2018
Judge / panel	Judge Patricia A. Orozco, Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones, Judge Jon W. Thompson
Parties	A timeshare member sued his owners’ association to enforce his statutory right to inspect the association’s financial books and records after his annual assessments roughly tripled.
Governing law	A.R.S. § 33-2209 A.R.S. § 33-2210 A.R.S. § 12-341.01
Topics	Records RequestsTimeshareAssessmentsBoard GovernanceAttorney Fees
Outcome / holding	A timeshare owner who follows the statutory request procedure and has a ‘proper purpose’ — a desire to obtain information that reasonably relates to protecting his interest as a member — may compel inspection of the association’s financial records under A.R.S. § 33-2209, and the business judgment rule is no defense; but an association cannot be ordered under A.R.S. § 33-2210 to circulate member notices whose real purpose is recruiting plaintiffs rather than legitimate association business.

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package	77 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	5 roadmap entries
Video overview	Norman Zwicky v. Premiere Vacation Collection Owners Association
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	3 questions
Curated download aliases	4 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

This is the leading published Arizona opinion on a timeshare owner’s right to inspect association records under A.R.S. § 33-2209. Norman Zwicky paid about $26,000 for his interest in 2004 and watched his annual assessments climb to roughly $2,162 by 2015. Suspecting that the developer-affiliated manager (tied to Diamond Resorts) was shifting hotel-operation and unsold-inventory costs onto members, he made a statutory written request to inspect the association’s financial books and records so he could investigate whether assessments were calculated in good faith. The association refused, and Zwicky sued. The trial court granted him summary judgment compelling production, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the core inspection right. The court borrowed the ‘proper purpose’ standard from shareholder-inspection law and defined it broadly in the owner’s favor, while separately protecting the association’s genuinely confidential financial data through a protective order and striking a trial-court order that would have forced the association to mail a member notice serving the owner’s class-action recruitment.

Key Issues & Findings

The court treated the statutory inspection right as analogous to a shareholder’s right to inspect corporate books, adopting the rule that ‘proper purpose’ means a desire to derive information that will enable the owner to protect his interest and that reasonably relates to his membership. Investigating a tripling of assessments easily satisfied that test, and the records sought — ADRE filings, management agreements, profit-and-loss statements, budgets, and occupancy and revenue data — fell within ‘financial and other records’ directly related to the timeshare plan. The court rejected the association’s argument that the board’s discretion under § 33-2209(C) and the business judgment rule could defeat the statutory right; an owner may judicially challenge the board’s records determination.

The court then balanced that access against confidentiality. It vacated the trial court’s modification of the protective order because the court had loosened confidentiality protections without reviewing the documents or letting the association show why proprietary financial data should stay protected, and it remanded for that evaluation. It also vacated the order forcing the association to mail a § 33-2210 notice, holding that the notice did not advance ‘legitimate association business’ because its real purpose was to help the owner and his lawyer assemble a group of plaintiffs for a proposed class action.

Why It Matters

For Arizona homeowners and timeshare owners, Zwicky is a strong, citable precedent that statutory records-inspection rights are enforceable in court, that an owner does not need the board’s blessing, and that ‘proper purpose’ is read in the member’s favor. For associations and managers, it confirms two things at once: members cannot be stonewalled on financial records by invoking board discretion or the business judgment rule, but associations retain the ability to protect truly confidential or proprietary financial information through a properly supported protective order, and they cannot be conscripted into circulating litigation-recruitment notices. The decision is frequently cited in Arizona disputes over member access to association financial records.

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

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

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

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

The posture in one sentence

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

Case snapshot

Core dispute

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

Interim rulings

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

Current fight

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

Source packet

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

Case Dossier

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 uploaded public court-source file set. The June 2025 record denied preliminary injunctive relief, treated Marx’s association claims as member-right claims rather than derivative claims for that motion, and the July 2025 record dismissed individual board members. Tara’s May 27, 2026 motion for judgment on the pleadings was pending in the uploaded public court-source packet.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

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

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

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

Key Issues & Findings

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

Why It Matters

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

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.

What the court has already done

Preliminary injunction denied

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

Association derivative motion denied

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

Individual directors dismissed

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

Later derivative fight remains pending

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

The May 2026 direct-versus-derivative motion

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

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

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

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

What the June 2026 response packet adds

Rule 12(c) opposition

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

Colby discovery stay opposition

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

Claim organization exhibit

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

Proposed orders

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

June 2026 filings added to the record guide

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

Timeline highlights

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

Curated document roadmap

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

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

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

Document roadmap from uploaded AI CSV

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

How to read this case without overclaiming it

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

Practical lessons for condo disputes

For owners

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

For boards and counsel

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

Complete source set

Download the filing roadmap

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

Download roadmap CSV

FAQ

Is this case finally decided?

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

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

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

Were the individual board members kept in the case?

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

Why does insurance appear in an open-meeting case?

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

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file

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

Source 165 No docket date in filename

Source File Roadmap 2026 05 31

Type: Source roadmap CSV

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

Download source file

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

Primary sources

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

← Back to Superior Court cases

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

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-governanceprocedureattorneys-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	Gusich v. Sun City Grand: Arizona HOA Board Removal, Title 10, and Fee Exposure
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: HOA board recall, Title 10, and fee exposure

Watch this overview of Gusich v. Sun City Grand Community Association, a dispute over a board member’s recall, the validity of electronically signed recall petitions, and whether a director can challenge the association’s ‘Grand Standards’ code of conduct.

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

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	administrative-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	AZ HOA Election Records Fight: AZNH Revocable Trust v. Sunland Springs Village HOA
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.

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.

Video overview: administrative appeal, limited remand, and ALJ reassignment

This overview explains how the electronic-ballot records dispute moved from OAH into Superior Court, back to OAH on limited remand, and then into the separate ALJ-change special action.

The video is embedded here because LC2025-000025 is part of the same 24F-H047 procedural chain.

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

AZNH Revocable Trust v. Arizona Department of Real Estate: Peremptory ALJ Change Special Action

Posted on May 15, 2026 by

Arizona HOA Administrative Appeals | A.R.S. 41-1092.07(A) | Superior Court Special Action

This page organizes the Superior Court special-action record over whether AZNH could invoke the new statutory right to one peremptory change of administrative law judge in the Sunland Springs election-records OAH case.

Last updated May 16, 2026. Case: AZNH Revocable Trust v. Kay Abramsohn, et al., Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2025-036466; related OAH No. 24F-H047-REL-RMD; Hon. Scott A. Blaney.

Download Blaney ruling Download complaint Filing roadmap Related OAH page Homeowner guide Procedure checklist FAQ Primary sources

Scope note: This page is an educational guide to the uploaded court record. AI-generated briefing and media files in the upload were reviewed only as orientation; the published analysis relies on court filings, orders, and agency records.

The posture in one sentence

When a new procedural statute gave parties one peremptory change of ALJ, AZNH could invoke it in the pending OAH case, and later orders by the challenged ALJ were vacated.

Case snapshot

Core issue

Whether the revised A.R.S. 41-1092.07(A) gave AZNH one peremptory change of administrative law judge in an already-pending OAH case.

Administrative backdrop

The special action grew out of OAH No. 24F-H047-REL-RMD, part of the Sunland Springs electronic-ballot records dispute.

Superior Court result

Judge Blaney vacated OAH orders issued on or after September 26, 2025 and ordered reassignment to another ALJ.

Practical use

The case is a roadmap for preserving and reviewing procedural rights in HOA administrative hearings.

Case Dossier

Case Summary

Case ID / citation	CV2025-036466 / OAH 24F-H047-REL-RMD
Court / tribunal	Superior Court
Decision / key date	March 25, 2026
Judge / panel	Hon. Scott A. Blaney
Parties	AZNH sought special-action relief after an ALJ and OAH leadership refused to honor a peremptory change request filed minutes after A.R.S. 41-1092.07(A) became effective.
Governing law	A.R.S. 41-1092.07 A.R.S. 32-2199.01 A.R.S. 33-1812
Topics	Admin. AppealsProcedureRecords RequestsElections
Outcome / holding	The Superior Court granted special-action relief in part, vacated OAH orders issued on or after September 26, 2025, and ordered reassignment to a different administrative law judge.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package	26 PDFs, 3 other source files
Step-by-step docket roadmap	23 roadmap entries
Video overview	AZNH Revocable Trust v. Kay Abramsohn, Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, Arizona Department
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	4 questions
Curated download aliases	4 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 special action after the Office of Administrative Hearings refused to honor a peremptory change of administrative law judge filed minutes after the revised A.R.S. 41-1092.07(A) became effective. The dispute arose from the Sunland Springs electronic-ballot records case. Judge Scott A. Blaney ruled on March 25, 2026 that AZNH was entitled to exercise the new procedural right, that the challenged ALJ acted in excess of authority by issuing later rulings, and that OAH had to reassign the case to another ALJ.

Key Issues & Findings

The ruling treated A.R.S. 41-1092.07(A) as a procedural statute that could be applied to the pending administrative proceeding. Because the statutory right came into existence only hours before the scheduled hearing, AZNH could not have invoked it sooner. Once AZNH filed the peremptory change request, later rulings by the challenged ALJ were without effect.

Why It Matters

This case is useful for Arizona HOA administrative disputes because it shows how the new peremptory ALJ-change language can operate in a pending OAH case. It also gives homeowners and associations a concrete example of special-action review when an administrative tribunal refuses to honor a claimed procedural right.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

AZNH Revocable Trust (Plaintiff)
Trust party bringing the special action.
John F. Sullivan (Trustee/Counsel)
AZNH Revocable Trust
Trustee and counsel for the plaintiff trust.
Susan Sullivan (Trustee)
AZNH Revocable Trust
Trustee and real party in interest for the plaintiff trust.

Respondent Side

Arizona Department of Real Estate (Defendant/Agency)
Agency defendant in the special-action caption.
Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (Defendant/Agency)
Agency defendant in the special-action caption.
Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association (Defendant)
Association party named in the special-action caption.
Tammy Eigenheer (Official-Capacity Defendant)
Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
OAH official named as an official-capacity defendant in the special-action caption.
Deanie Reh (Counsel)
Arizona Attorney General’s Office
Assistant Attorney General listed for ADRE.
Raya Gardner (Counsel)
Arizona Attorney General’s Office
Assistant Attorney General listed for ADRE.
Kara Karlson (Counsel)
Arizona Attorney General’s Office
Counsel listed for Abramsohn and Eigenheer.
Chad Gallacher (Counsel)
Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association
Counsel listed for the HOA.

Neutral Parties

Kay Abramsohn (Administrative Law Judge)
Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
Named administrative law judge in the special-action caption.
Scott A. Blaney (Judge)
Superior Court judge who issued the special-action ruling.

What the record shows

The case turned on timing: A.R.S. 41-1092.07(A) became effective on September 26, 2025, and AZNH filed its peremptory-change request minutes later before the scheduled hearing.

The ALJ treated the request as a motion and denied it. The Superior Court later held that the Trust properly invoked the statutory right under the circumstances.

The uploaded folder contained the opening and briefing-stage Superior Court filings through December 29, 2025. The local OAH override set supplies the related March 25, 2026 under-advisement ruling, so this page includes the actual Superior Court outcome.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of AZNH Revocable Trust v. Kay Abramsohn, Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, Arizona Department of Real Estate, and Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association (CV2025-036466 / OAH 24F-H047-REL-RMD). The Superior Court granted special-action relief in part, vacated OAH orders issued on or after September 26, 2025… 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 AZNH Revocable Trust v. Kay Abramsohn, Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, Arizona Department of Real Estate, and Sunland Springs Village 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.

What Judge Blaney decided

1. The new ALJ-change statute applied procedurally

The ruling treated A.R.S. 41-1092.07(A) as a procedural statute that could be applied to the still-pending OAH matter.

2. Timing mattered

The statutory right became effective on September 26, 2025, and AZNH filed its request that same morning before the scheduled hearing.

3. Later ALJ orders were vacated

Orders entered by the challenged ALJ on or after September 26, 2025 were vacated because the peremptory-change request should have been honored.

4. Reassignment was required

The Superior Court ordered the administrative case reassigned to a different ALJ for the remaining OAH proceedings.

What this ruling does not decide

The special-action ruling does not decide the merits of the underlying electronic-ballot records dispute. It decides who may preside over the remaining administrative proceedings after the statutory peremptory-change request.

It also does not mean every disagreement with an ALJ becomes an immediate special action. The useful lesson is narrower: preserve the procedural right promptly, build a clear record of the request and denial, and identify why ordinary appeal would not give adequate relief.

For homeowners: how to use this procedural ruling

If an Arizona HOA dispute is already in ADRE/OAH and a procedural right becomes available, timing and documentation are everything. A homeowner should preserve the request in writing, identify the statute, keep the filing timestamp, and ask for a clear order if the request is denied.

The ruling is especially useful as a record-building example. AZNH did not ask the Superior Court to retry the records case. It isolated the procedural issue, tied it to A.R.S. 41-1092.07(A), and asked for reassignment before the challenged ALJ could continue issuing orders.

Suggested administrative-procedure workflow

Identify the procedural right. Write down the exact statute or rule you are invoking, such as A.R.S. 41-1092.07(A).
File before the contested event when possible. The cleaner record is a request filed before the hearing, ruling, or deadline the request affects.
Keep proof of filing and service. Preserve the timestamp, email confirmation, portal receipt, and service list.
Ask for an order, not informal silence. A written denial makes the issue easier to review than an oral or unexplained refusal.
Separate procedure from merits. Do not bury the procedural issue inside every factual dispute about the HOA. Keep the review question focused.

Procedure checklist for ADRE/OAH disputes

Do this

Track effective dates of new procedural statutes or rule changes.
File requests in writing and cite the specific authority.
Preserve every OAH order entered after the disputed procedural request.
Keep the Superior Court request limited to the procedural relief needed.

Avoid this

Do not wait until after the hearing if the right can be invoked before it.
Do not rely on an oral objection without a filed document.
Do not mix the ALJ-change issue with every disagreement about evidence or discovery.
Do not assume reassignment decides the underlying HOA records claim.

Timeline highlights

Date	Event	Why it mattered
2025-09-26	A.R.S. 41-1092.07(A) became effective and AZNH requested a peremptory ALJ change.	This created the timing issue that drove the special action.
2025-10-08	AZNH filed the special-action complaint.	The Superior Court case focused on whether OAH had to honor the peremptory-change request.
2025-12-21	AZNH filed a motion for judgment on the case filings.	The case moved toward decision on the written record.
2026-03-25	Judge Blaney issued the under-advisement ruling.	The court vacated later ALJ orders and required reassignment.

Frequently asked questions

Did this case decide who wins the electronic-ballot records dispute?

No. The ruling addressed the peremptory ALJ-change issue and reassignment, not the final merits of the underlying records petition.

Why is September 26, 2025 important?

That is the effective date of the revised A.R.S. 41-1092.07(A), and the request was filed that morning before the scheduled OAH hearing.

What practical lesson should homeowners take from it?

Preserve procedural rights immediately, file them clearly, keep proof of timing, and separate the procedural review issue from the broader HOA dispute.

Why are the source PDFs still included?

The page is designed as a source-document guide. The filing roadmap lets readers check the court record rather than relying on a summary alone.

Review note and disclaimer

Plaintiff argues the HOA failed to timely answer and that statutory changes for peremptory ALJ removal apply to the case. Original upload name: 50982a51-7fba-46b3-ae73-210bb07af9e5.pdf.

Download source

2025-12-29_022_reply-untimely-answer-statute-application.pdf

Step 23 2026-03-25

Under Advisement Ruling

Filed by: Record filing

Judge Scott A. Blaney grants special-action relief in part, vacates OAH orders issued on or after September 26, 2025, and orders reassignment to a different administrative law judge. Original upload name: m11714084.pdf.

Type: AI-generated media review asset

AI-generated review material from the upload. Use it only for orientation; verify any legal claim against the linked court filings and orders.

Download source file

ai-audio-the-midnight-ambush-over-hoa-ballots.m4a

Source 29 No docket date in filename

AI Legal Briefing AZNH V Abramsohn

Type: AI-generated review PDF

AI-generated review material from the upload. Use it only for orientation; verify any legal claim against the linked court filings and orders.

Download source file

ai-legal-briefing-aznh-v-abramsohn.pdf

Additional uploaded court PDFs

These court PDFs were present in the upload but were not separate rows in the AI-generated chronology. They are preserved in the raw source folder for completeness.

Date	Download	Note
2025-12-22	`2025-12-22_018b_unlisted-response.pdf`	Additional December 22, 2025 response PDF present in the upload but not listed in the chronology CSV.

Primary sources

← Back to Superior Court cases

William M. Brown v. Terravita Country Club: When an Arizona HOA Records Win Moves to Superior Court

Posted on May 15, 2026 by

Arizona HOA Records • A.R.S. § 33-1805 • Superior Court Enforcement

Brown shows what can happen after a homeowner wins an Arizona HOA records case at ADRE/OAH and then asks the Superior Court to enforce the order: the court can narrow the dispute to exactly what remains missing, treat later production as compliance, and still deny the association fees.

Last updated May 16, 2026. Case: William M. Brown v. Terravita Country Club, Inc., et al., Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2017-055475; final minute entry June 4, 2018; Hon. John R. Hannah Jr.

Download final minute entry Download verified complaint How the case got there Related OAH records Filing roadmap + 50 PDFs Primary sources Homeowner guide Association guide FAQ

Scope note: This page covers a Maricopa County Superior Court enforcement case tied to Arizona planned-community records requests under A.R.S. § 33-1805. It is a trial-court record, not a published appellate precedent. It is educational and is not legal advice.

The rule in one sentence

Winning an Arizona HOA records order at ADRE/OAH may create a path to Superior Court enforcement, but the court can require a precise missing-records showing and may dismiss the enforcement request if later productions satisfy the administrative order.

Case snapshot

Case name

William M. Brown v. Terravita Country Club, Inc., et al.

Court and docket

Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2017-055475.

Final order

June 4, 2018 minute entry by Hon. John R. Hannah Jr.

Core statute

A.R.S. § 33-1805, Arizona planned-community association records.

Case Dossier

Case Summary

Case ID / citation	CV2017-055475
Court / tribunal	Superior Court
Decision / key date	June 4, 2018
Judge / panel	Hon. John R. Hannah Jr.
Parties	A homeowner asked the Maricopa County Superior Court to enforce an ADRE/OAH records-order win against Terravita Country Club, Inc. and related defendants.
Governing law	A.R.S. § 33-1805 A.R.S. § 33-1803 A.R.S. § 12-341 A.R.S. § 12-341.01
Topics	Records RequestsProcedureBoard GovernanceAttorney Fees
Outcome / holding	The superior court found Terravita had complied with the administrative records order, dismissed the application for an order to show cause with prejudice, and denied the defendants’ request for fees and costs.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package	51 PDFs, 3 other source files
Step-by-step docket roadmap	21 roadmap entries
Video overview	William M. Brown v. Terravita Country Club, Inc.
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	5 questions
Curated download aliases	3 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

William M. Brown filed a Maricopa County Superior Court action after winning an administrative records-request order against Terravita Country Club, Inc. The case asked the court to force compliance with an ADRE/OAH order arising from A.R.S. § 33-1805. The court first required Brown to identify exactly what remained unproduced, then reviewed the later production history. On January 31, 2018, the court dismissed the individual board-director defendants and the attorney defendants, and denied transfer of a related civil case. On June 4, 2018, the court found Terravita had complied with the administrative order, dismissed the order-to-show-cause application with prejudice, and denied defendants’ fees and costs.

Key Issues & Findings

Judge Hannah focused the enforcement case on what the administrative order required and what remained missing. After the October 27, 2017 status conference, Brown was ordered to specify precisely which records he still claimed had not been produced and why the omission violated the administrative law judge’s order. The court later concluded that the October 27 production, earlier production at the time of the July ALJ order, and information forwarded through Terravita’s attorney together supplied a complete and coherent response. The court also ruled that the director defendants did not owe fiduciary duties directly to Brown individually, and that the attorney defendants were not liable where the complaint did not allege wrongdoing or a duty to Brown as an opposing party.

Why It Matters

The case is a practical example of both the power and limits of taking an Arizona HOA records win from ADRE/OAH into superior court. A homeowner can seek judicial enforcement after an association loses an A.R.S. § 33-1805 records case, but the court may require a precise missing-records showing and may treat later production as compliance. The case also warns against overnaming individual directors and opposing counsel unless the pleadings identify a viable duty and conduct. For boards, the fee ruling is also notable: even after dismissal, the court declined fees because some responsive documents may have been produced only after suit was filed.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

William M. Brown (Plaintiff)
Homeowner who sought Superior Court enforcement of the records order.

Respondent Side

Terravita Country Club, Inc. (Defendant)
Association party in Brown’s Superior Court enforcement action.
Joshua M. Bolen (Counsel)
Terravita Country Club
Appeared for Terravita at the order-to-show-cause hearing.

Neutral Parties

John R. Hannah Jr. (Judge)
Superior Court judge presiding over the enforcement case.

Why this case matters

Brown is useful because it shows the second stage of an Arizona HOA records fight. The homeowner had already won administrative relief in an ADRE/OAH records case. The Superior Court case was about enforcing that win after Brown alleged Terravita had not fully complied.

The case did not end with new penalties against the association. It ended with a compliance finding for Terravita, dismissal of the order-to-show-cause application with prejudice, and denial of the defendants’ request for fees and costs.

That mix is the practical lesson. A records requester may be able to use court enforcement, but the court will focus on the exact production gap, the actual production history, and whether later disclosure cured the alleged noncompliance.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of William M. Brown v. Terravita Country Club, Inc. (CV2017-055475). HOA compliance with an administrative records order defeated contempt and private enforcement relief. 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 William M. Brown v. Terravita Country Club, Inc.. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

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

What Judge Hannah decided

1. Terravita complied with the administrative order

The court found the October 27, 2017 production, earlier production around the July ALJ order, and information forwarded through defense counsel together provided a complete and coherent response.

2. The order-to-show-cause application was dismissed

The court dismissed Brown’s application for an order to show cause with prejudice and entered judgment under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 54(c).

3. Director defendants were dismissed

The court ruled that fiduciary duties of HOA directors are owed to the HOA, not directly to an individual member such as Brown.

4. Attorney defendants were dismissed

The court ruled the complaint did not state a claim against the law firm or lawyers, and noted that lawyers ordinarily owe no duty to an opposing party.

5. Transfer of a related case was denied

The court denied Brown’s request to transfer related civil case CV2017-013317 to Judge Hannah.

6. Defendants did not recover fees

Even though the case was dismissed, the court denied fees and costs, noting the association arguably did not produce some responsive documents until after suit was filed.

For homeowners: using a records-order win in court

Brown shows that a homeowner can move from an ADRE/OAH records win into Superior Court enforcement, but the court may narrow the case to a document-by-document compliance question.

The strongest enforcement record identifies the administrative order, lists each still-missing record, explains why the order required that record, and tracks later production. Broad frustration with the association is less useful than a precise missing-records chart.

Suggested records-enforcement workflow

Start with the ADRE/OAH order. Identify exactly what the administrative decision required the association to produce or do.
Build a missing-records chart. List each requested record, what was produced, what remains missing, and why it matters under A.R.S. § 33-1805.
Track later production. If the association produces records after suit is filed, update the chart rather than relying on the original gap alone.
Name defendants carefully. Brown shows risk in naming individual directors or opposing counsel without a viable duty and conduct theory.

For associations and managers: compliance proof matters

Do this

Track each records request against each production batch.
Document when records were sent, by whom, and in what form.
Preserve explanations when a requested record does not exist or is withheld under a claimed exception.
Resolve compliance gaps early instead of waiting for an enforcement hearing.

Avoid this

Do not rely on general statements that all records were produced.
Do not ignore an ADRE/OAH records order after a homeowner wins administratively.
Do not assume late production eliminates all fee or litigation risk.
Do not let attorney communications obscure the basic production timeline.

How the case got to Superior Court

The Superior Court case grew out of Brown’s earlier ADRE/OAH records disputes against Terravita. In 17F-H1716005-REL, the administrative tribunal found Terravita failed to timely fulfill a records request under A.R.S. § 33-1805 and ordered compliance plus a $500 filing-fee refund. In 17F-H1717032-REL, Brown won another records-access ruling after Terravita argued the pending-litigation exception barred disclosure.

Brown then filed this Superior Court case to enforce the administrative order. The complaint named Terravita, several directors, the association law firm, and individual lawyers. The case quickly narrowed into two tracks: whether Terravita had complied with the records order, and whether the individual defendants belonged in the case at all.

At the October 27, 2017 status conference, Judge Hannah required Brown to specify precisely what records were still missing and why the failure to produce them violated the administrative order. That order became the organizing point for the rest of the case.

Related ADRE/OAH records

These administrative cases supply the background for the Superior Court enforcement fight. The first two are the records-request wins tied to the court case; the third shows the separate penalty/notice dispute pending in the same general Terravita conflict.

Administrative matter	Date	Result	Why it matters here
17F-H1716005-REL	July 10, 2017	Homeowner win under A.R.S. § 33-1805; compliance ordered and $500 filing-fee refund.	This is the administrative records order Brown sought to enforce in Superior Court.
17F-H1717032-REL	July 14, 2017	Homeowner win under A.R.S. § 33-1805; pending-litigation exception rejected on the available record.	Shows the broader records-access dispute between Brown and Terravita.
18F-H1717041-REL	October 11, 2017	Association win on A.R.S. § 33-1803(B) notice/penalty issue.	Separate administrative matter involving penalties and notice, not the final enforcement ruling in CV2017-055475.

The records issue the court narrowed

By late October 2017, the court was no longer treating the dispute as a broad grievance about Terravita’s conduct. Judge Hannah required a document-by-document showing of what remained missing from the administrative order.

The later briefing focused on specific insurance and billing-related information tied to prior litigation, including whether certain legal fees and related expenses were covered by insurance and whether insurer communications or payments existed. Terravita responded that the responsive documents and information had been provided through the October 27 production, prior production, and counsel communications.

The final minute entry accepted Terravita’s compliance position. The court did not make a broad finding that every earlier response had been ideal; instead, it found Brown had not made a colorable showing that additional responsive information was likely to exist.

Practical lessons from the case

For homeowners enforcing records orders

Preserve the administrative order. The court will want to know exactly what the ALJ or agency ordered the association to produce.
Build a missing-records chart. Track each requested record, what was produced, when it was produced, and why anything still missing falls within the order.
Expect later production to matter. If the association produces records after suit is filed, the court may treat that production as compliance even if the timing was disputed.
Be cautious about individual defendants. Claims against directors or opposing counsel need a specific duty and specific conduct, not just their involvement in the association dispute.

For boards, managers, and counsel

Respond within the A.R.S. § 33-1805 deadline. The statute gives ten business days to fulfill examination requests and ten business days to provide requested copies.
Document every production. Keep a clean production log showing date, records produced, withheld categories, redactions, and transmission method.
Do not rely on vague compliance claims. A later court may need to see how each records category was answered.
Fee recovery is not automatic. Even after dismissal, the court denied fees where some production arguably came only after the lawsuit began.

What this case does not mean

Brown does not eliminate the administrative records remedy. The related OAH cases still show that a homeowner can prevail when an association fails to timely provide records under A.R.S. § 33-1805.

It also does not say an association may wait until a lawsuit is filed to produce records without consequence. The court denied Terravita’s fee request partly because some responsive documents arguably came after suit was filed. The narrower point is that by the time of the final ruling, the court believed the administrative order had been satisfied.

Finally, this is not a published appellate rule. It is a useful trial-court roadmap for how one Superior Court judge handled enforcement of an HOA records order on a developed production record.

Filing roadmap and PDF downloads

The raw docket package below was renamed from opaque court-download filenames into date-and-title filenames. Duplicate docket downloads are preserved and labeled rather than deleted.

Step 1 September 5, 2017

Complaint and opening order-to-show-cause package

Filed by: William M. Brown

Brown opened the superior-court enforcement case, asking the court to enforce the ADRE/OAH records order.

Download 5 sources

2017-09-05_001_verified-complaint-application-order-show-cause.pdf
2017-09-05_002_request-to-schedule-order-to-show-cause-hearing.pdf
2017-09-05_003_civil-cover-sheet.pdf
2017-09-05_004_certificate-of-compulsory-arbitration.pdf
2017-09-05_005_order-to-appear-september-15-hearing.pdf

Step 2 September 6, 2017

Change of judge request

Filed by: William M. Brown

The early file includes duplicate copies of the Rule 42.1 change-of-judge paperwork.

Download 2 sources

2017-09-06_006_rule-42-1-change-of-judge.pdf
2017-09-06_006b_rule-42-1-change-of-judge-duplicate.pdf

Step 3 September 8, 2017

Case reassigned to Judge Hannah

Filed by: Court

The civil presiding judge reassigned the matter to Hon. John R. Hannah Jr.

Download 3 sources

2017-09-08_007_case-reassignment-to-judge-hannah.pdf
2017-09-08_007b_case-reassignment-to-judge-hannah-duplicate.pdf
2017-09-08_007c_case-reassignment-to-judge-hannah-duplicate.pdf

Step 4 October 2, 2017

Application for provisional remedy with notice

Filed by: William M. Brown

Brown renewed the request for court action after the opening filing package.

Download 2 sources

2017-10-02_008_application-for-provisional-remedy-with-notice.pdf
2017-10-02_008b_application-for-provisional-remedy-with-notice-duplicate.pdf

Step 5 October 6-16, 2017

Service and non-service returns

Filed by: William M. Brown / Process server

The docket shows extensive service activity on Terravita, directors, and attorney defendants.

Download 8 sources

2017-10-06_009_return-of-service-sterling-laaveg.pdf
2017-10-06_009b_return-of-service-sterling-laaveg-duplicate.pdf
2017-10-06_010_return-of-service-paul-tolk.pdf
2017-10-06_011_return-of-service-william-greig.pdf
2017-10-11_012_return-of-service-terravita-registered-agent.pdf
2017-10-11_013_return-of-service-carpenter-hazlewood-delgado-bolen.pdf
2017-10-11_014_return-of-service-anjali-patel.pdf
2017-10-16_015_return-of-non-service-michael-ellington.pdf

Step 6 October 11, 2017

Motion to transfer related civil case

Filed by: William M. Brown

Brown asked to move a related civil case to the same judge; that request was later denied.

Download source

2017-10-11_016_motion-to-transfer-related-civil-case.pdf

Step 7 October 13, 2017

Motion to dismiss board-director defendants

Filed by: Board-director defendants

The individual directors challenged whether Brown had stated claims against them personally.

Download source

2017-10-13_017_motion-to-dismiss-board-director-defendants.pdf

Step 8 October 16, 2017

Attorney-defendant dismissal motion and filing-fee memo

Filed by: Attorney defendants / Clerk

The attorney defendants challenged personal liability, and the docket recorded the appearance-fee issue.

Download 2 sources

2017-10-16_018_first-appearance-filing-fee-credit-memo.pdf
2017-10-16_019_motion-to-dismiss-attorney-defendants.pdf

Step 9 October 18, 2017

Return hearing and status conference order

Filed by: Court

The court told Brown to advise if Terravita had satisfied the administrative order, otherwise further proceedings would be set.

Download 3 sources

2017-10-18_020_order-to-appear-october-18-hearing.pdf
2017-10-18_020b_order-to-appear-october-18-hearing-duplicate.pdf
2017-10-18_021_status-conference-minute-entry.pdf

Step 10 October 26-27, 2017

Answer and order narrowing the records issue

Filed by: Terravita / Court

The court ordered Brown to identify precisely what remained missing and why that violated the ALJ order.

Download 2 sources

2017-10-26_022_terravita-answer-to-complaint.pdf
2017-10-27_023_order-entered-status-conference.pdf

Step 11 October 30-November 1, 2017

Transfer-motion briefing

Filed by: Defendants / William M. Brown

The parties briefed whether a related case should be moved to Judge Hannah.

Download 2 sources

2017-10-30_024_defendants-objection-to-transfer-related-case.pdf
2017-11-01_025_plaintiff-response-to-objection-transfer-related-case.pdf

Step 12 November 6-8, 2017

Extension request, objection, and denial

Filed by: William M. Brown / Defendants / Court

The court denied Brown’s request for more time to respond to the dismissal motions.

Download 3 sources

2017-11-06_026_plaintiff-motion-for-extension-of-time.pdf
2017-11-08_027_defendants-objection-to-extension-of-time.pdf
2017-11-07_028_ruling-denying-extension-of-time.pdf

Step 13 November 9, 2017

Supplement to the order-to-show-cause application

Filed by: William M. Brown

Brown identified what he believed remained unproduced after the administrative order and later productions.

Download source

2017-11-09_029_plaintiff-supplement-to-order-to-show-cause.pdf

Step 14 November 13, 2017

Responses to dismissal motions

Filed by: William M. Brown

Brown opposed dismissal of the individual director and attorney defendants.

Download 2 sources

2017-11-13_030_plaintiff-response-to-board-director-dismissal-motion.pdf
2017-11-13_031_plaintiff-response-to-attorney-defendant-dismissal-motion.pdf

Step 15 November 22, 2017

Response to supplement and dismissal replies

Filed by: Defendants

Terravita argued it had produced the responsive records or information, while individual defendants pressed for dismissal.

Download 3 sources

2017-11-22_032_defendants-response-to-order-to-show-cause-supplement.pdf
2017-11-22_033_reply-support-motion-dismiss-attorney-defendants.pdf
2017-11-22_034_reply-support-motion-dismiss-board-directors.pdf

Step 16 November 27, 2017

Reply on the order-to-show-cause supplement

Filed by: William M. Brown

Brown replied on whether the administrative records order had been fully satisfied.

Download source

2017-11-27_035_plaintiff-reply-to-defendants-response-to-osc-supplement.pdf

Step 17 December 11-20, 2017

Continuance, address, and motion-to-strike filings

Filed by: William M. Brown / Defendants

The file shifted into continuance and stay-related requests before the final compliance ruling.

Download 5 sources

2017-12-13_036_notice-of-address-change.pdf
2017-12-13_037_plaintiff-motion-to-continue-multi-case.pdf
2017-12-11_037b_plaintiff-motion-to-continue-multi-case-duplicate.pdf
2017-12-11_038_plaintiff-motion-to-continue.pdf
2017-12-20_039_defendants-motion-to-strike-motion-to-continue.pdf

Step 18 January 31, 2018

Board-director defendants dismissed

Filed by: Court

The court ruled HOA directors fiduciary duties are owed to the HOA, not directly to an individual member such as Brown.

Download source

2018-01-31_040_partial-dismissal-board-director-defendants.pdf

Step 19 January 31, 2018

Attorney defendants dismissed

Filed by: Court

The court ruled the complaint did not state a claim against the law firm or lawyers and noted lawyers ordinarily owe no duty to an opposing party.

Download source

2018-01-31_041_partial-dismissal-attorney-defendants.pdf

Step 20 January 31, 2018

Related-case transfer denied

Filed by: Court

Judge Hannah denied transfer of the related civil case.

Download source

2018-01-31_042_ruling-denying-transfer-related-case.pdf

Step 21 June 4, 2018

Final minute entry: order-to-show-cause application dismissed

Filed by: Court

The court found Terravita had complied with the administrative order, dismissed the application with prejudice, denied fees and costs, and entered Rule 54(c) judgment.

Type: Source image/graphic

AI-generated review material from the upload. Use it only for orientation; verify any legal claim against the linked court filings and orders.

Download source file

ai-generated-case-timeline-graphic.png

Frequently asked questions

Did Brown win this Superior Court case?

No. The June 4, 2018 minute entry found Terravita had complied with the administrative order and dismissed the application for an order to show cause with prejudice.

Did Brown win the related administrative records cases?

Yes. The related OAH/ADRE records matters 17F-H1716005-REL and 17F-H1717032-REL were homeowner wins under A.R.S. § 33-1805.

Why were the individual directors dismissed?

The court ruled that fiduciary duties of HOA directors are owed to the HOA, not directly to an individual member such as Brown.

Why were the attorney defendants dismissed?

The court ruled the complaint did not state a claim against the law firm or lawyers and noted that lawyers ordinarily owe no duty to an opposing party.

Did the association recover attorney fees?

No. The court denied the defendants’ request for attorney fees and costs even though it dismissed the application, noting the timing of some responsive document production.

Primary sources

← Back to Superior Court cases