THE VILLAGE v. OWENS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE THE VILLAGE AT LITCHFIELD PARK ASSOCIATION, INC., an Arizona nonprofit corporation, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. DANNIELLE G. OWENS, an individual, Defendant/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV 14-0742 FILED 4-21-2016 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CV2013-008704 The Honorable David O. Cunanan, Judge REVERSED AND REMANDED COUNSEL Stratman Law Firm, PLC, Phoenix By Troy B. Stratman, Emily H. Mann Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee Dannielle G. Owens, Litchfield Park Defendant/Appellant THE VILLAGE v. OWENS Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Peter B. Swann delivered the decision of the court, in which Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop and Judge Donn Kessler joined. S W A N N, Judge: ¶1 Dannielle Owens is a homeowner in a planned community. The community is run by The Village at Litchfield Park Association, Inc. (“the Association”) under its Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (“CC&Rs”). Owens held title to the property at all relevant times (sometimes as an individual and sometimes as the trustee of a family trust), and the property was subject to the CC&Rs at all relevant times. ¶2 Under Article 7 of the CC&Rs, property owners must pay to the Association certain contributions, assessments, charges, and fees; delinquent payments may accrue interest and late fees. The Association filed a breach of contract and lien foreclosure action against Owens, alleging a delinquency in the required payments. Owens answered that the amount owed was in dispute and that the Association had failed to validate the debt. ¶3 The Association filed a motion for summary judgment in which it asserted that Owens owed over $12,000; Owens denied that assertion. The only evidence that the Association presented in support of the debt was a copy of correspondence it had sent to Owens requesting payment, which included a typewritten table listing dates, amounts due, and brief descriptions of the unpaid amounts. The table was unaccompanied by business records, affidavits, or any other manner of admissible evidence. ¶4 The superior court granted the Association’s motion for summary judgment for contract damages and entered an appealable order. Owens appeals. ¶5 As we held in Wells Fargo v. Allen, a plaintiff who moves for summary judgment in a contract case bears the burden of persuasion. 231 Ariz. 209, 213, ¶¶ 16-17 (App. 2012). To prevail, the plaintiff must present admissible evidence showing that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. at ¶¶ 17-18. The unauthenticated and unsupported table that the 2 THE VILLAGE v. OWENS Decision of the Court Association submitted in this matter fell short of that standard. See Ariz. R. Evid. 801 & 802 (declarant’s out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted is inadmissible hearsay unless excluded or excepted); Ariz. R. Evid. 803(6) (business records are excepted from hearsay only if certain criteria are shown by a qualified witness’s testimony or certification, and the opposing party does not demonstrate untrustworthiness). Though Owens may ultimately be found liable for a debt, the Association’s evidence was insufficient to establish liability as a matter of law. ¶6 Accordingly, we reverse the grant of summary judgment in favor of the Association, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision.1 We deny the Association’s request for attorney’s fees on appeal. As the prevailing party, Owens is entitled to an award of costs under A.R.S. § 12-341.2 : ama Owens contends the superior court lacks jurisdiction because Section 16.1.1 of the CC&Rs mandates an alternative dispute resolution procedure. But by its terms, Section 16.1.1 applies only to actions or claims related to or rising from the planned community’s development. And Section 8.2.1 of the CC&Rs expressly provides that the Association may bring an action at law to recover unpaid contributions, assessments, charges, and fees. The superior court has jurisdiction. 1 We deny as moot Owens’s filing of March 28, 2016, titled “Appellant’s Motion/Notice in Opposition to Appellee’s Notice of Intent to File Amended Judgment with Trial Court upon Completion of Appeal.” 2 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
