• 7/7/21: BHOA Motion for Dismissal
• Denied 9/29 by Maricopa Superior Court
• 10/01: BHOA Motion for Stay of Proceedings,Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Motion for Partial Final Judgement
• All Denied 11/02 by Maricopa Superior Court
• 11/08: BHOA Motion for Stay of Proceedings
Admin: The attorney for the BHOA has filed a motion with the Maricopa County Superior Court for a stay of its denial of a previous motion for a preliminary injunction. We are not qualified to issue legal opinions, but it does appear to us that the arguments in this motion are similar to those rejected by the Court in its denial of the previous motion.
As far as we can determine, the BHOA has made no argument disputing the right of Carefree Water Company to condemn the property and construct a water tank and is instead litigating the Town’s authority to condemn the property for that use. We believe the relevant distinction, as the Association has repeatedly stated, is that if condemned by the Carefree Water Company and its parent the UCFD, “the BHOA could better protect its constitutional right not to be subject to an order of immediate possession” (this quote is from the Association’s first motion, dated July 7). The intent of this latest motion therefore appears to be to delay the start of construction on the Town’s newly acquired property rather than to prevent it.
In this latest motion, the BHOA once again informs the Court of its intent to appeal. That appeal would be specific to the motion for a preliminary injunction, which would seem pointless unless the Board is planning additional appeals on more substantive rulings later. We are aware of no Board forecast to members of the projected costs of multiple appeals. 17, which we assume will still occur on that date.
Judge Daniel G. Martin has previously ordered a scheduling conference for November 17, which we assume will still occur on that date. Carefree Unity will continue to report on developments as they occur.
Carefree Unity 