Assessment Collection | Overturning Sheriff Sales | LC2014-000179
After an HOA obtained summary judgment and conducted a sheriff’s sale of a homeowner’s property over disputed dues, the owner appealed. Superior Court Commissioner Myra Harris reversed the summary judgment in part and remanded, after which the parties settled and stipulated to set aside the sheriff’s sale and dismiss with prejudice.
Last updated September 17, 2026. Case: Velda Rose Estates Home Owners Association v. Edith Poggi, Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2014-000179 (minute entries use LC2014-000179-001 DT); originating East Mesa Justice Court No. CC2012-132551; Comm. Myra Harris.
Scope note: This page covers Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2014-000179, an appeal from East Mesa Justice Court. Velda Rose Estates Home Owners Association sued Edith Poggi for delinquent assessments, obtained summary judgment, and executed a sheriff’s sale on her property. Represented by Kent Berk, Poggi appealed and argued that the HOA improperly assessed fees per unit rather than per lot, contrary to the CC&Rs.; Superior Court Commissioner Myra Harris issued a comprehensive 16-page ruling affirming in part and reversing in part the justice court’s judgment and remanding the case. Facing reversal and remand, the parties settled and filed a stipulation to vacate all prior judgments, set aside the sheriff’s sale, and dismiss the collection lawsuit with prejudice; the Superior Court took no action on the stipulation, holding it lacked jurisdiction after remand to the East Mesa Justice Court. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The takeaway
The Superior Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the justice court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the HOA, finding a triable issue of material fact regarding whether the HOA improperly calculated assessment debt on a per-unit basis rather than per-lot as the CC&Rs; required, and remanded the case; the parties later settled and stipulated to set aside the resulting sheriff’s execution sale.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Velda Rose Estates Home Owners Association (Plaintiff/Appellee)
Homeowners association in East Mesa that sued for assessments, obtained summary judgment, and initiated an execution sheriff sale. - Charles E. Maxwell (Counsel)
Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.
Counsel of record representing Velda Rose Estates Home Owners Association in trial and appellate proceedings. - Clint G. Goodman (Counsel)
Vial Fotheringham, LLP
Successor counsel who signed the final settlement stipulation setting aside the sheriff sale.
Respondent Side
- Edith Poggi (Defendant/Appellant)
Homeowner who successfully appealed, overturned summary judgment, and vacated the execution sheriff sale of her real property. - Kent S. Berk (Counsel)
Berk & Moskowitz, P.C.
Counsel of record representing homeowner Edith Poggi on appeal.
Neutral Parties
- Comm. Myra Harris (Commissioner)
Maricopa County Superior Court
Superior Court Commissioner who stayed execution and issued the ruling affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding the case to the East Mesa Justice Court.
What happened
Velda Rose Estates Home Owners Association sued Edith Poggi in East Mesa Justice Court for unpaid assessments.
The HOA obtained summary judgment and executed a sheriff’s sale on Poggi’s home.
Poggi retained appellate counsel, secured emergency stays in Superior Court, and appealed the denial of Rule 60(c) relief.
Commissioner Myra Harris issued a 16-page ruling affirming in part and reversing in part the justice court’s judgment, setting aside the summary judgment over a disputed per-unit versus per-lot assessment calculation, and remanding to the East Mesa Justice Court.
HOA counsel moved for reconsideration regarding judicial findings, resulting in an amended nunc pro tunc order.
On October 17, 2014, the parties filed a stipulation to vacate all judgments and dismiss with prejudice, agreeing the sheriff’s sale should be set aside. On October 30, 2014, Commissioner Harris declined to act on the stipulation, ruling the Superior Court no longer had jurisdiction because the case had already been remanded to the East Mesa Justice Court.
Video overview of the case record
An AI-generated video overview of Velda Rose Estates Home Owners Association v. Edith Poggi (Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2014-000179). Superior court reversed HOA summary judgment; sheriff’s sale vacated and collection dismissed with prejudice. This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own records control.
Listen: audio deep dive on the case record
An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the case record in Velda Rose Estates Home Owners Association v. Edith Poggi. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked records below.
Procedural timeline
Velda Rose Estates HOA files its collection Complaint (CC2012-132551) against Edith Poggi in East Mesa Justice Court.
Poggi answers and files a counterclaim; the case is briefly transferred to Superior Court (CV2012-096070) before returning to the Justice Court.
Superior Court enters emergency stay of sheriff's execution sale pending appeal (LC2014-000179).
Superior Court issues formal stay order upon confirmation of supersedeas bond.
Commissioner Myra Harris enters 16-page Record Appeal Ruling affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding to the East Mesa Justice Court.
Court enters nunc pro tunc order amending phrasing in prior ruling upon HOA motion for reconsideration.
Superior Court declines to act on the parties' stipulation to vacate judgments and set aside the sheriff's sale, ruling it lacks jurisdiction after remand to the Justice Court.
Complete source-document index
This index contains 14 PDFs from the reviewed public source packet. Byte-identical copies are listed once. Files are ordered by the date and sequence in the public filename, and party filings or research materials are labeled separately from court rulings.
Minute Entry Stay Of Execution
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Minute Entry Emergency Stay
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Nunc Pro Tunc Order Clarifying Stay
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Minute Entry Supersedeas Bond
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Minute Entry Stay Order Issued
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Minute Entry Procedural Orders
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Minute Entry Record Receipt
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Minute Entry Record Transmittal
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Minute Entry Record Appeal Assignment
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Record Appeal Ruling Reversing Summary Judgment
Type: Decision or judgment
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Minute Entry Reconsideration Schedule
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Minute Entry Granting Reconsideration In Part
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Nunc Pro Tunc Order Amending Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Minute Entry Vacating Judgment And Sheriff Sale
Type: Decision or judgment
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
FAQ
What led to the sheriff's sale in Velda Rose Estates v. Poggi?
Velda Rose Estates Home Owners Association, represented by Charles E. Maxwell of Maxwell & Morgan, sued homeowner Edith Poggi in East Mesa Justice Court for unpaid assessments. The HOA obtained summary judgment and proceeded to enforce the monetary judgment by executing a sheriff’s sale of her property.
Why did the homeowner appeal the judgment?
Represented by counsel Kent Berk of Berk & Moskowitz, Poggi appealed to Maricopa County Superior Court, arguing that the HOA had improperly assessed fees based on the number of units rather than the number of lots as the declaration required.
What did Commissioner Myra Harris rule?
Commissioner Harris issued a detailed 16-page ruling on June 10, 2014, affirming in part and reversing in part the justice court’s judgment and remanding the case. The court held that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the HOA assessed Poggi per unit rather than per lot as the CC&Rs; required, and set aside the summary judgment on that basis; it rejected her separate claims, including that the CC&Rs; were invalidly adopted and that she had not received the summary judgment motion. Because neither party prevailed, the court awarded no attorney fees.
What happened to the sheriff's execution sale?
Following the Superior Court’s reversal and remand, the parties reached a settlement and, on October 17, 2014, filed a stipulation to vacate all judgments, set aside the sheriff’s sale, and dismiss with prejudice. On October 30, 2014, the Superior Court took no action on that stipulation, holding it lacked jurisdiction because the case had already been remanded to the East Mesa Justice Court.
Why is this ruling significant for Arizona homeowners?
It serves as a powerful demonstration that HOA collection judgments and resulting execution sales can be challenged and overturned on appeal when based on defective notice, improper assessment math, or flawed CC&R; enforcement.
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 | Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2014-000179 |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Superior Court |
| Decision / key date | June 10, 2014 |
| Judge / panel | Comm. Myra Harris |
| Parties | Velda Rose Estates HOA (Appellee) v. Edith Poggi (Appellant) |
| Governing law |
|
| Topics | AssessmentsForeclosureProcedure |
| Outcome / holding | The Superior Court reversed the justice court's summary judgment for the HOA in part and remanded, finding a triable issue of material fact regarding whether the HOA calculated assessment debt on a per-unit basis contrary to the CC&Rs; the parties then stipulated to vacate the judgments, set aside the resulting sheriff's execution sale, and dismiss with prejudice, but the Superior Court declined to act on the stipulation for lack of jurisdiction after the remand. |
| Primary public source | View hosted source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Reviewed source package | 14 PDFs |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 7 roadmap entries |
| Video overview | Velda Rose Estates Home Owners Association v. Edith Poggi |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 5 questions |
| Featured download links | 3 download links |
Key Issues & Findings
Velda Rose Estates Home Owners Association, represented by Charles E. Maxwell of Maxwell & Morgan, initiated an assessment collection lawsuit against homeowner Edith Poggi in East Mesa Justice Court. The association obtained summary judgment and proceeded to execute a sheriff's sale on her real property. Poggi retained counsel Kent Berk and appealed to Maricopa County Superior Court (LC2014-000179), seeking an emergency stay of execution and moving to set aside the judgment. Poggi argued that the HOA's assessment calculations were flawed—that the HOA had billed assessments based on a 'per-unit' formula rather than 'per-lot' as the recorded CC&Rs required. Superior Court Commissioner Myra Harris entered emergency stay orders and issued a 16-page Record Appeal Ruling affirming in part and reversing in part the justice court's judgment and remanding the case. On October 17, 2014, the parties filed a stipulation—stating the matter had settled—to vacate all judgments, set aside the sheriff's sale, and dismiss the collection action with prejudice. On October 30, 2014, Commissioner Harris declined to act on the stipulation, holding the Superior Court no longer had jurisdiction after the remand to the East Mesa Justice Court.
Under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 56, summary judgment is inappropriate where genuine disputes of material fact exist or where the moving party fails to demonstrate entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Here, Poggi challenged the association's assessment calculations, contending that it had improperly inflated her purported balance by billing separate assessments per residential unit rather than per platted lot.
Commissioner Harris evaluated the recorded CC&Rs and found a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the association's per-unit billing formula departed from the per-lot basis the community documents required. Because the summary judgment rested on that disputed factual premise, the court set the summary judgment aside, affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding to the East Mesa Justice Court. After the ruling, the parties settled and, on October 17, 2014, filed a stipulation to vacate all judgments, set aside the execution sale, and dismiss with prejudice; on October 30, 2014, the Superior Court declined to act on the stipulation, holding it lacked jurisdiction after the remand.
This case is an extraordinary example of an HOA using a small assessment dispute to obtain an execution sheriff's sale on an owner's home, only to have the entire enforcement action unravel on appeal. It highlights how aggressive collection tactics—such as manufacturing per-unit assessment formulas not supported by CC&Rs and pushing forward with execution sales on flawed judgments—can be unwound through appellate reversal and a resulting settlement.