Current-status note: This page is published as a litigation record based on the source files available through 2025-12-15. Later filings, appeals, mandates, settlements, or dismissal orders may change the posture; the linked court records control.
Video/audio is held or de-promoted until its title and description clearly carry the same non-final/current-status posture as this page.
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.
Opinion
Type: Decision or judgment
Court of Appeals opinion affirming denial of Rule 60(b) relief, reversing the order setting aside the HOA foreclosure sale, and remanding to reinstate the sale because A.R.S. § 33-1807 abrogates the gross-inadequacy set-aside remedy for HOA lien foreclosures.
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 | 2 CA-CV 2024-0074 and 2 CA-CV 2025-0058 |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Court of Appeals |
| Decision / key date | December 15, 2025 |
| Judge / panel | Judge Sklar, Vice Chief Judge Eppich, Judge O'Neil |
| Parties | An HOA foreclosure purchaser and the homeowner fought over whether a completed HOA foreclosure sale could be set aside because the price was grossly inadequate and the owner was allegedly misled. |
| Governing law | |
| Topics | ForeclosureAssessmentsProcedureLiens |
| Outcome / holding | The court held that A.R.S. § 33-1807 implicitly abrogates the usual common-law authority to undo an HOA foreclosure sale for grossly inadequate price and that the sale should be reinstated. |
| Primary public source | View source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Reviewed source package | 1 PDF |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | No separate litigation roadmap table on this page |
| Video overview | Temporarily unavailable while the expanded case record is reviewed |
| Study / briefing material | 0 sections |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 0 questions |
| Featured download links | 0 download links |
Key Issues & Findings
CURRENT STATUS (June 2026): NOT FINAL — a petition for review is pending at the Arizona Supreme Court (CV-26-0021-PR). Windrose is a major 2025 Arizona HOA foreclosure case. After an HOA foreclosed and the home sold, the trial court set the sale aside and quieted title back to the owner partly because the sale price was grossly inadequate. The Court of Appeals reversed that core ruling. It held that although Arizona courts ordinarily have common-law power to set aside foreclosure sales for gross inadequacy, that power is implicitly displaced in the HOA-lien setting by A.R.S. § 33-1807's more specific statutory scheme. The court also rejected setting aside the sale based on the owner's claim of surprise or misleading circumstances and reinstated the sale. The decision sharply narrows post-sale equitable rescue arguments in Arizona HOA foreclosure litigation.
The court began with the general equitable principle that foreclosure sales can sometimes be set aside when the price is shockingly low. But it treated HOA lien foreclosures as a distinct statutory regime. In the panel's view, the legislature's detailed rules in § 33-1807 left no room for importing that general common-law remedy in a way that would destabilize completed HOA sales.
The court also rejected the alternative theory that the homeowner was sufficiently misled or surprised to justify undoing the sale. And in the related consolidated action, it upheld the refusal to set aside the default judgment authorizing foreclosure, including the service-related rulings. The combined effect was to restore finality to the completed sale.
Windrose is likely to become a central Arizona authority on post-sale challenges to HOA foreclosures. It gives purchasers and associations a strong finality argument once a sale has been completed.
For homeowners, the case means defenses and cure efforts need to happen earlier. After the sale, equitable arguments that might work in other foreclosure contexts may not work in the HOA statutory framework.