Unopposed Summary Judgment | Redemption Period | CV2014-094502
This is a thin-record Maricopa County Superior Court HOA case. The collected minutes show scheduling orders, an unopposed summary-judgment ruling for Tanglewood HOA, and a later application to prevent waste before expiration of a redemption period. They do not provide the complaint, the requested judgment language, the amount at issue, or a written analysis of any HOA statute or CC&R provision, so this guide sticks to the procedural facts that appear in the minute entries.
Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Tanglewood HOA v. James E. Goode, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2014-094502.
Scope note: This page covers Tanglewood HOA v. James E. Goode (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2014-094502) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s own filed minute entries, including the January 25, 2016 ruling granting the HOA’s unopposed summary-judgment motion and the September 1, 2017 order on the HOA’s redemption-period waste application; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: the last collected minute entry is the September 1, 2017 order requiring a response to the application to prevent waste; the collected records do not include the proposed judgment, any final signed judgment, or any later ruling on that application. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The takeaway
The court granted Tanglewood HOA summary judgment after the homeowner filed no response. The ruling relied on Rule 7.1(b), treated the unexplained nonresponse as consent to granting the motion, and separately stated that the HOA’s motion and the case record established entitlement to the relief sought as a matter of law. Because the collected minute entry does not identify the claim details or analyze an HOA statute or CC&R provision, the case is best read as a procedural example of unopposed summary judgment in a thin-record HOA matter, not as a substantive HOA-law ruling.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Tanglewood HOA (Plaintiff)
Homeowners association that obtained the January 2016 unopposed summary-judgment ruling and later filed an application to prevent waste before expiration of the redemption period. - James Portman Webster (Counsel)
Counsel listed for Tanglewood HOA in the 2015 scheduling and trial-setting minute entries. - Lashawn D. Jenkins (Counsel)
Counsel listed for Tanglewood HOA in the September 2017 order on the application to prevent waste.
Respondent Side
- James E. Goode (Defendant)
Homeowner defendant who appeared on his own behalf at the November 2015 status conference and did not file a response to the HOA’s summary-judgment motion by the time the January 2016 ruling issued.
Neutral Parties
- Mark F. Aceto (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court judge who issued the May 2015 scheduling order before reassignment. - Robert H. Oberbillig (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court judge who set the bench trial and later granted the HOA’s unopposed motion for summary judgment. - Joshua D. Rogers (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court judge who issued the September 2017 order requiring a response to the HOA’s application to prevent waste.
What happened
Tanglewood HOA sued James E. Goode in Maricopa County Superior Court. The collected minute entries do not include the complaint, the amount sought, or the specific covenants or statutes relied on. The May 19, 2015 scheduling order set discovery, disclosure, settlement-conference, dispositive-motion, and status-conference deadlines, and removed the case from the dismissal calendar.
At a November 23, 2015 telephonic status conference, counsel James Portman Webster appeared for the HOA and Goode appeared for himself. The court set a two-hour bench trial for March 3, 2016 and ordered a joint pretrial statement by February 25, 2016. The same minute entry also corrected Goode’s address in the court system; this public guide omits the address under the project’s privacy rule.
Before trial, the HOA moved for summary judgment. On January 25, 2016, Judge Robert H. Oberbillig ruled that Goode had failed to respond to the motion in any manner and that the response deadline under Rule 7.1(a) had expired. Citing Rule 7.1(b), the court found the unexplained inaction should be deemed consent to granting the motion.
The ruling did not stop at the nonresponse. It also stated that the HOA’s motion and the record established that Tanglewood HOA was entitled as a matter of law to the relief it sought. The court granted the summary-judgment motion, ordered the HOA’s counsel to submit an appropriate form of judgment and any fee-and-cost application by February 15, 2016, and vacated the March 2016 bench trial.
The last collected minute entry is from September 1, 2017. It says the court had before it Tanglewood HOA’s application to prevent waste prior to expiration of the redemption period. Judge Joshua D. Rogers ordered Goode to respond by September 11, 2017 and warned that if no response was filed, the application would be granted. The collected records do not show the final judgment terms or the final outcome of that application.
Procedural timeline
Complete uploaded source-document index
This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/tanglewood-hoa-v-goode/raw/: 4 PDFs. 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.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Status Conference
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling granting Tanglewood HOA’s unopposed motion for summary judgment, ordering counsel to submit a proposed judgment and fee application, and vacating the scheduled bench trial.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Order requiring James E. Goode to respond to Tanglewood HOA’s application to prevent waste before expiration of the redemption period or have the application granted.
FAQ
What did the court decide in the summary-judgment ruling?
The court granted Tanglewood HOA’s motion for summary judgment. It found that Goode had not responded by the Rule 7.1 deadline, treated that unexplained inaction as consent under Rule 7.1(b), and also stated that the HOA’s motion and the case record established entitlement to the relief sought as a matter of law.
Does the minute entry explain the underlying HOA dispute?
No. The collected minute entries do not include the complaint, the requested judgment terms, any assessment amount, or the CC&R provisions at issue. This page therefore does not add unsourced detail about the underlying claim.
Why is this still treated as an HOA case?
The named plaintiff is Tanglewood HOA, and the last collected order refers to an application to prevent waste before expiration of a redemption period. Those facts indicate an HOA enforcement or foreclosure posture, even though the written minutes do not provide the full claim details.
Was there a trial?
No trial appears in the collected records. The court set a bench trial for March 3, 2016, then vacated that trial after granting the HOA summary judgment on January 25, 2016.
What happened after the summary-judgment ruling?
The January 2016 ruling ordered the HOA’s counsel to submit a proposed judgment and any fee-and-cost application. The collected minutes do not include that judgment, but a September 2017 order later required Goode to respond to the HOA’s application to prevent waste before expiration of the redemption period.
Is this ruling precedent for other HOA disputes?
No. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This thin-record case is most useful as a procedural example: an unopposed summary-judgment motion can still require the court to determine that the moving party is entitled to judgment on the record.
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 | CV2014-094502 (Maricopa County Superior Court) |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Superior Court |
| Decision / key date | January 25, 2016 |
| Judge / panel | Hon. Robert H. Oberbillig, Hon. Mark F. Aceto, Hon. Joshua D. Rogers |
| Parties | Tanglewood HOA (Plaintiff) v. James E. Goode (Defendant) |
| Topics | procedureforeclosurecc-and-rs |
| Outcome / holding | The superior court granted Tanglewood HOA’s unopposed motion for summary judgment, finding that the homeowner’s failure to respond should be deemed consent under Rule 7.1(b) and that the HOA’s motion and the case record established entitlement to the relief sought as a matter of law. |
| Primary public source | View source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Uploaded source package | 4 PDFs |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 4 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
Tanglewood HOA sued James E. Goode in Maricopa County Superior Court. The collected minute entries do not include the complaint or the requested judgment terms, but they show the court set the case for a bench trial and later granted the HOA’s unopposed motion for summary judgment after Goode filed no response. The court relied on Rule 7.1(b), found the nonresponse should be treated as consent, and also stated that the motion and record established the HOA’s entitlement to relief as a matter of law. A later order required Goode to respond to the HOA’s application to prevent waste before expiration of the redemption period.
The court’s written reasoning was procedural and brief. It noted that Goode, who was not represented by counsel, had failed to respond in any manner to Tanglewood HOA’s summary-judgment motion and that the response deadline under Rule 7.1(a) had expired. Under Rule 7.1(b), the court treated the unexplained nonresponse as consent to granting the motion.
The court also made the required merits statement: the HOA’s motion and the case record established that the HOA was entitled as a matter of law to the relief it was seeking. On that basis, the court granted summary judgment, ordered a proposed judgment and any fee-and-cost application, and vacated the scheduled bench trial. The collected records do not provide a substantive analysis of an HOA statute or CC&R provision.
The case is a thin-record example of how an HOA can obtain summary judgment when the homeowner does not respond, but it should not be read as a substantive interpretation of Arizona HOA law. The ruling states both parts of the analysis: the nonresponse could be deemed consent under Rule 7.1(b), and the court still found the motion and record established entitlement to relief as a matter of law.
The later redemption-period waste order suggests a post-judgment enforcement or foreclosure posture, but the collected minutes do not include the final judgment or the details of the underlying claim. For readers, the useful lesson is procedural and practical rather than doctrinal.