HOA Stipulated Judgment | CV2023-092215
The court approved a stipulation to judgment for Val Vista Lakes Community Association.
Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: The Val Vista Lakes Community Association v. Casey Wade Russell, et al., Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2023-092215.
Current-status note: Allegations, settlements, procedural dismissals, and notices are not findings of liability unless a cited court order expressly makes that finding.
Scope note: This page covers The Val Vista Lakes Community Association v. Casey Wade Russell, et al. (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2023-092215) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from one collected minute entry: the July 18, 2023 order-signed entry approving the parties’ stipulation to judgment. Currency caveat: the formal written order, judgment amount, payment terms, satisfaction history, and any enforcement history are not included in the collected minute entries. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The takeaway
The only sourced disposition is that the court approved and granted a stipulation to judgment. The collected entry does not state the amount, terms, lien rights, or legal analysis.
Case Participants
Neutral Parties
- The Val Vista Lakes Community Association (Plaintiff)
Association that obtained the stipulated judgment. - Casey Wade Russell (Defendant)
Named defendant in the stipulation-to-judgment record. - Danielle Marie Russell (Defendant)
Named defendant in the stipulation-to-judgment record. - Charles B. Sellers (Counsel)
Counsel listed for the association in the minute entry. - Hon. Adam D. Driggs (Judge)
Judge who signed the order-signed minute entry.
What happened
The association filed an action against Casey Wade Russell and Danielle Marie Russell. The collected record does not include the complaint, so this page does not infer the amount or full theory of the association’s claim.
The parties filed a stipulation to judgment on July 10, 2023. The court later received that stipulation and approved it.
The minute entry states that the court approved and granted the stipulation to judgment in accordance with the formal written order signed on July 14, 2023 and filed on July 18, 2023.
The collected minute entry does not state the amount, payment terms, whether lien or foreclosure relief was included, or any reasoning about governing documents or statutes.
Video overview of the ruling
An AI-generated video overview of Val Vista Lakes Community Association v. Russell (CV2023-092215 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). Val Vista Lakes obtained a stipulated judgment, with no amount or merits analysis in the minute entry. 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 Val Vista Lakes Community Association v. Russell. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.
Procedural timeline
The parties file a stipulation to judgment, according to the court’s minute entry.
The court signs the formal written order approving the stipulation to judgment.
The clerk files the order, and the minute entry reports that the stipulation to judgment is approved and granted.
Complete source-document index
This index contains 1 PDF from the reviewed public source packet. Byte-identical copies are listed once. Files are ordered by the date and sequence in the public filename, and party filings or research materials are labeled separately from court rulings.
Judgment Entered
Type: Decision or judgment
Judgment-entry minute entry approving and granting the parties’ Stipulation to Judgment in favor of Val Vista Lakes Community Association under a formal written order.
FAQ
What did the court approve?
The court approved and granted the parties’ Stipulation to Judgment.
Does the collected entry state the judgment amount?
No. The minute entry does not state the amount or payment terms.
Does the entry say whether this was a foreclosure judgment?
No. The collected entry says only that a stipulation to judgment was approved and granted.
Did the court interpret the CC&Rs or statutes?
No. The entry contains no legal analysis of governing documents or statutes.
Is this case precedential?
No. It is a superior-court stipulated judgment entry and is not precedent.
Why is this case classified as standard?
It is a thin stipulated-judgment record with no substantive HOA-law analysis.
Case Dossier
This dossier combines the case metadata, linked court sources, and the explanatory sections below. It distinguishes court rulings from party filings, allegations, and requested relief.
Case Summary
| Case ID / citation | CV2023-092215 (Maricopa County Superior Court) |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Superior Court |
| Decision / key date | July 18, 2023 |
| Judge / panel | Hon. Adam D. Driggs |
| Parties | The Val Vista Lakes Community Association (Plaintiff) v. Casey Wade Russell and Danielle Marie Russell (Defendants) |
| Topics | AssessmentsLiensProcedure |
| Outcome / holding | The court approved and granted the parties’ Stipulation to Judgment in accordance with the formal written order signed on July 14, 2023 and filed on July 18, 2023. |
| Primary public source | View source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Reviewed source package | 1 PDF |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 3 roadmap entries |
| Video overview | Val Vista Lakes Community Association v. Russell |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 6 questions |
| Featured download links | 1 download link |
Key Issues & Findings
The superior court approved and granted the parties’ stipulation to judgment in favor of The Val Vista Lakes Community Association. The collected minute entry does not state the judgment amount, terms, or legal basis.
The only collected minute entry states that the court received the parties’ Stipulation to Judgment filed on July 10, 2023. The court approved and granted the stipulation through a formal written order signed on July 14 and filed on July 18.
The entry does not state the judgment amount, identify the claims resolved, describe any lien or foreclosure relief, or analyze the association’s governing documents or Arizona statutes.
This is a narrow procedural record of a stipulated judgment involving an HOA. Because the collected entry contains no legal analysis or financial terms, it should not be read as authority on assessment validity, lien priority, or CC&R enforcement.