Tapestry on Central LLC v. Tapestry on Central Condominium Association

Superior Court HOA Case

The court held that assessment duties arose from the CC&Rs, not an alleged parking agreement, and a jury later awarded both unpaid assessments to the association and larger implied-covenant damages to the commercial owner.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Tapestry on Central LLC v. Tapestry on Central Condominium Association, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2014-090103.

Scope note: This page covers Tapestry on Central LLC v. Tapestry on Central Condominium Association (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2014-090103) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA and condominium case guide. It is built from the court’s filed minute entries, especially the March 2 and March 24, 2015 assessment-lien rulings, the May 6 and June 13, 2016 summary-judgment rulings, the September 1, 2017 verdict entry, the November 8, 2017 post-trial ruling, and the November 21, 2017 final judgment entry. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The court treated the commercial owner’s assessment obligation as a CC&R duty governed by A.R.S. § 33-1256, not as a duty excused by an alleged parking-space agreement. The association still had to prove the lien amount, and a later jury awarded the association unpaid assessments while awarding the owner much larger damages for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Tapestry on Central LLC (Plaintiff and counterdefendant)
    Commercial condominium owner that sued the condominium association and defended against the assessment-lien counterclaim.
  • Ryan J. Lorenz (Counsel)
    Counsel appearing for Tapestry on Central LLC in the later trial and judgment entries.

Respondent Side

  • Tapestry on Central Condominium Association (Defendant and counterclaimant)
    Condominium association that defended the owner claims and sought unpaid assessments and foreclosure on its counterclaim.
  • Kenneth Cheuvront (Defendant)
    Individual defendant associated with the condominium-association side of the dispute.
  • Jim Ehinger (Defendant)
    Individual defendant associated with the condominium-association side of the dispute.
  • Emery Jensen (Defendant)
    Individual defendant associated with the condominium-association side of the dispute.
  • Steve Denning (Defendant)
    Individual defendant associated with the condominium-association side of the dispute.
  • Kevin P. Nelson (Counsel)
    Counsel appearing for the condominium association in many substantive entries.

Neutral Parties

  • David M. Talamante (Judge)
    Superior Court judge who handled the later summary-judgment, trial, verdict, post-trial, judgment, and bond/garnishment entries.
  • Mark F. Aceto (Judge)
    Superior Court judge who issued early assessment-lien and pleading rulings.

What happened

Tapestry on Central LLC, a commercial condominium owner, sued the condominium association and related individual defendants. The association counterclaimed for unpaid assessments and foreclosure of its assessment lien. The collected record describes disputes over CC&R assessment duties, parking-space allegations, common-area repairs and maintenance, A.R.S. § 33-420 lien allegations, discovery, expert disclosures, and trial damages.

The March 2, 2015 ruling is the clearest assessment-lien ruling. The court found it undisputed that the owner held commercial condominium interests, that the CC&Rs required condominium owners to pay assessments, that the association had levied assessments, that the owner had not paid those assessments, and that A.R.S. § 33-1256 generally gives an association the right to foreclose absent a viable defense. The court denied summary judgment on the amount of the lien because the association had not established the claimed amount as a matter of law.

The same ruling rejected the owner’s parking-space theory as a defense to the assessment obligation. The court reasoned that the association’s assessment claim was based on the CC&Rs, not the alleged parking-space agreement, so an alleged breach of that parking agreement was a red herring for the owner’s duty to pay assessments. The court asked for supplemental briefing on whether equitable defenses such as laches and unclean hands could be asserted against the CC&R/statutory foreclosure claim.

The case later narrowed through summary judgment. In May 2016, the court granted judgment to defendants on the A.R.S. § 33-420 claim after finding the disputed facts did not meet the statutory requirements. In June 2016, the court denied summary judgment on claims involving repairs made at the association’s direction and maintenance of common areas, but granted judgment on an alleged oral-contract claim.

After a multi-day jury trial, the September 1, 2017 verdict awarded the association $156,509 on its counterclaim for principal and interest. The jury also found for the owner against the association on breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and awarded $1,190,400. A later nunc pro tunc entry clarified that the court had directed verdict on the alleged failure-to-tow CC&R theory because there was insufficient factual support for that damages claim.

The court denied the association’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and motion for new trial. It found adequate factual support for the implied-covenant verdict. The November 21, 2017 judgment entry awarded judgment in the owner’s proposed form, plus $581,420 in attorney fees and $15,874.54 in costs, while recognizing that the association had prevailed on unpaid assessments.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Tapestry on Central LLC v. Tapestry on Central Condominium Association (CV2014-090103 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). CC&R assessment duties survived a parking-agreement defense, but the owner won a larger implied-covenant verdict. 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 Tapestry on Central LLC v. Tapestry on Central Condominium 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 2015-03-02 Ruling finds A.R.S. § 33-1256 applies and the CC&Rs require assessments, but denies summary judgment on the lien amount and requests supplemental briefing on defenses.
Step 2015-03-24 The court denies the owner’s summary-judgment motion on the assessment-lien foreclosure counterclaim.
Step 2016-05-06 The court grants summary judgment on the A.R.S. § 33-420 claim and part of the tortious-interference claim, and takes other claims under advisement.
Step 2016-06-13 The court denies summary judgment on common-area repair and maintenance claims, but grants judgment on the alleged oral-contract claim.
Step 2017-01-19 The court allows the owner’s replacement damages expert and reopens limited discovery.
Step 2017-09-01 The jury awards the association $156,509 on its counterclaim and awards the owner $1,190,400 against the association for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Step 2017-09-20 The court clarifies that directed verdict was granted on the alleged failure-to-tow theory.
Step 2017-11-08 The court denies the association’s judgment-as-a-matter-of-law and new-trial motions.
Step 2017-11-21 Final judgment is entered with attorney fees and costs awarded to the owner.
Step 2018-04-12 The court addresses supersedeas-bond issues while the judgment is on appeal.

Complete uploaded source-document index

This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/tapestry-on-central-llc-v-tapestry-on-central-condominium-association/raw/: 88 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.

Source 1 2014-03-06

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 2 2014-03-24

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 3 2014-05-29

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 4 2014-05-29

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 5 2014-05-29

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 6 2014-08-01

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 7 2014-08-06

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 8 2014-10-28

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 9 2014-11-26

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 10 2015-01-14

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 11 2015-03-02

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

Ruling finding A.R.S. § 33-1256 applicable, rejecting the owner’s parking-agreement material-breach defense as a red herring to CC&R-based assessments, and requesting supplemental briefing on foreclosure defenses.

Download source file
Source 12 2015-03-10

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 13 2015-03-24

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

Ruling denying the owner’s summary-judgment motion on the association’s assessment-lien foreclosure counterclaim.

Download source file
Source 14 2015-04-14

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 15 2015-04-29

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

Ruling granting leave to file the second amended complaint, dismissing residential plaintiffs with prejudice, and denying fees and costs without prejudice.

Download source file
Source 16 2015-05-06

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 17 2015-05-19

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 18 2015-05-19

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 19 2015-05-19

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 20 2015-05-28

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 21 2015-05-29

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 22 2015-06-08

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 23 2015-07-01

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 24 2015-07-02

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 25 2015-07-10

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 26 2015-07-16

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 27 2015-07-16

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 28 2015-07-17

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 29 2015-08-10

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 30 2015-08-20

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 31 2015-09-08

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 32 2015-09-11

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 33 2015-09-15

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 34 2015-10-13

Oral Argument

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
Source 35 2015-10-23

Under Advisement Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

Under-advisement ruling resolving discovery disputes, allowing a deposition of Cynthia Futter, denying sanctions and fee requests, and admonishing counsel to avoid hyperbole.

Source 36 2015-10-27

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 37 2015-11-17

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 38 2015-11-19

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 39 2015-12-08

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 40 2016-01-11

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 41 2016-01-15

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 42 2016-02-08

Oral Argument

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
Source 43 2016-02-26

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 44 2016-03-10

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 45 2016-04-07

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 46 2016-05-02

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 47 2016-05-06

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

Summary-judgment hearing entry granting judgment on the A.R.S. § 33-420 claim because the lien facts did not meet the statute, granting part of the tortious-interference motion, and taking other claims under advisement.

Download source file
Source 48 2016-06-13

Under Advisement Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

Under-advisement ruling denying summary judgment on common-area repair and maintenance claims, but granting summary judgment on the alleged oral-contract claim.

Source 49 2016-06-14

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 50 2016-07-29

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 51 2016-08-26

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 52 2016-09-09

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 53 2016-09-27

Oral Argument

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
Source 54 2016-09-30

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 55 2016-11-14

Oral Argument

Type: Court/source PDF

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

Download source file
Source 56 2016-11-18

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 57 2016-12-16

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 58 2017-01-19

Under Advisement Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

Under-advisement ruling finding good cause to allow the owner’s replacement damages expert and reopening limited discovery for that expert issue.

Source 59 2017-03-24

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 60 2017-06-08

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 61 2017-07-28

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 62 2017-08-02

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 63 2017-08-11

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 64 2017-08-21

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 65 2017-08-22

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 66 2017-08-23

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 67 2017-08-24

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 68 2017-08-28

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 69 2017-08-29

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 70 2017-08-30

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 71 2017-08-31

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 72 2017-09-01

Verdict

Type: Court/source PDF

Jury-verdict minute entry awarding the association $156,509 on its counterclaim and awarding the owner $1,190,400 against the association for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Download source file
Source 73 2017-09-20

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

Nunc pro tunc ruling clarifying that directed verdict was granted on the alleged failure-to-tow theory because there was insufficient factual basis for a CC&R breach or damages on that issue.

Download source file
Source 74 2017-10-23

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

Ruling on the association’s motion to clarify trial minute entries, including correction of the September 1 verdict entry to identify the implied-covenant claim.

Download source file
Source 75 2017-11-08

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

Ruling denying the association’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and motion for new trial because the record contained an adequate factual basis for the implied-covenant verdict.

Download source file
Source 76 2017-11-21

Judgment Entered

Type: Decision or judgment

Final judgment entry awarding judgment on the jury verdict, $581,420 in attorney fees, and $15,874.54 in costs to the owner, while recognizing the association’s assessment-counterclaim verdict.

Source 77 2017-11-30

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 78 2017-12-06

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 79 2017-12-11

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 80 2018-01-18

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

Garnishment ruling holding that execution and enforcement of the judgment were stayed while supersedeas-bond issues were pending and limiting new garnishment activity.

Download source file
Source 81 2018-01-30

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 82 2018-02-22

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 83 2018-03-16

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 84 2018-03-16

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 85 2018-03-21

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 86 2018-03-21

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file
Source 87 2018-04-12

Ruling

Type: Court order/minute entry

Supersedeas-bond hearing entry addressing the owner’s requested bond, post-judgment asset-transfer concerns, and the bond needed to stay judgment enforcement pending appeal.

Download source file
Source 88 2018-05-18

Minute Entry

Type: Court order/minute entry

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

Download source file

FAQ

What did the court say about unpaid assessments?

The March 2015 ruling said the CC&Rs mandated assessments, the owner had not paid assessments, and A.R.S. § 33-1256 generally gives an association a foreclosure remedy absent a viable defense. The association still had to prove the amount of the lien.

Did an alleged parking-space agreement excuse assessments?

No, not on the reasoning in the March 2015 ruling. The court said the assessment claim was based on the CC&Rs, not the alleged parking agreement, so the alleged parking breach was a red herring to the CC&R assessment duty.

Who won at trial?

Both sides won something. The association won $156,509 on its counterclaim for principal and interest, but the owner won $1,190,400 against the association on breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Did the court overturn the jury verdict?

No. The court denied the association’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and motion for new trial, finding an adequate factual basis for the verdicts.

Why is this case marked must-read?

The case includes substantive superior-court analysis of CC&R assessment duties, A.R.S. § 33-1256 foreclosure, statutory lien claims under A.R.S. § 33-420, common-area duties, and the implied covenant in a condominium-association dispute.

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 / citationCV2014-090103 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateNovember 21, 2017
Judge / panelHon. Mark F. Aceto, Hon. David M. Talamante
PartiesTapestry on Central LLC (Plaintiff and counterdefendant, commercial condominium owner) v. Tapestry on Central Condominium Association and individual defendants (Defendants and counterclaimants)
Governing law
Topics
assessmentsliensforeclosurecc-and-rsgood-faith-and-fair-dealingboard-governanceattorneys-feesprocedure
Outcome / holding

The court held that the CC&Rs, not an alleged parking-space agreement, supplied the owner’s assessment duty and that A.R.S. § 33-1256 generally authorized condominium assessment-lien foreclosure absent a viable defense. After trial, the court entered judgment on a verdict awarding the association unpaid assessments while awarding the owner larger implied-covenant damages against the association.

Primary public sourceView source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Uploaded source package88 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap10 roadmap entries
Video overviewTapestry on Central LLC v. Tapestry on Central Condominium Association
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Curated download aliases1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Tapestry on Central LLC sued its condominium association and related individual defendants, and the association counterclaimed for unpaid assessments and assessment-lien foreclosure. Early rulings treated the owner’s assessment obligation as arising from the CC&Rs and A.R.S. § 33-1256, not from an alleged parking-space agreement, while leaving the lien amount and defenses for later proof. The case proceeded through summary-judgment rulings and a multi-day jury trial. The jury awarded the association $156,509 on its counterclaim but awarded the owner $1,190,400 against the association for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and the court later entered judgment with a large fee award for the owner.

Key Issues & Findings

The March 2, 2015 ruling began with the assessment counterclaim. The court found that the owner held commercial condominium interests, the CC&Rs mandated assessment payments, the association had levied assessments, the owner had not paid, and A.R.S. § 33-1256 generally gives an association foreclosure rights in this setting absent a viable defense. The court still denied summary judgment on the amount of the assessment lien because the association had not proved the claimed amount as a matter of law.

The court rejected the owner’s attempt to use an alleged parking-space agreement as a material-breach defense to assessments. The court reasoned that the association’s assessment claim was not based on that alleged agreement; it was based on the CC&Rs. It therefore described the parking-agreement theory as a red herring in the context of the owner’s CC&R assessment obligation, while asking for additional briefing on equitable defenses such as laches and unclean hands.

Later summary-judgment rulings narrowed the case. The May 6, 2016 entry granted judgment to defendants on the A.R.S. § 33-420 claim because the disputed facts did not meet the statutory requirements. The June 13, 2016 under-advisement ruling denied judgment on common-area repair and maintenance claims but granted judgment on the alleged oral-contract claim.

At trial, the jury awarded the association $156,509 on its counterclaim and awarded the owner $1,190,400 on breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court denied the association’s post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law and new trial, finding the record contained an adequate factual basis for the verdicts. The final judgment entry awarded the owner attorney fees and costs while recognizing the assessment-counterclaim award.

Why It Matters

This is one of the more useful superior-court records for mixed-use or commercial condominium disputes because it separates the CC&R assessment duty from side agreements. The court treated the alleged parking-space bargain as irrelevant to the basic CC&R-based duty to pay assessments, while still requiring the association to prove the lien amount and face viable defenses.

The case also shows how a condominium dispute can produce split results. The association recovered unpaid assessments, but the owner obtained a much larger implied-covenant verdict and fee award. For readers, the lesson is that assessment foreclosure and governance conduct can travel together: winning on delinquent assessments does not necessarily defeat claims that the association handled the broader relationship in bad faith.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Facebook Comments Box