The four-year legal battle for the future of Club West Golf Course went through a surprising turn last week after a judge rejected two Shea Homes entities as defendants.

When denying the Shea Homes Inc. and Shea Homes Limited partnership, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Susanna C. Pineda is not a fatal hole, but a big hole in his attempt to permanently exclude the course of Club West Conservancy. It looked like it would blow away. Other uses.

Pineda’s ruling remains the superiority of defendant in the case, but the reserve aimed to be a crucial part of the case in Shea.

With around 300 homeowners at Club West, the conservancy has 357 home buyers on the boundary of the course as the golf course has been promised through marketing materials and sales agreements. He says he paid a premium lot price.

However, Edge was not a party to those contracts or promotions.

Four men formed it in 1999 when they finished their contract from Wilsongie to buy the course for $750,000.

The course has been closed for almost nine years, except for a short period between October 2017 and February 2018.

During that short period, another future owner attempted, but failed to make it a sustainable business, eventually losing his interim ownership to Gee.

Gee stopped irrigation in 2016, claiming he could no longer afford the city’s bill for drinking water, the only water available on the 164-acre site.

Pineda, a judge of the 5th Superior Court, is presidering over the sanctuary case, so one of her predecessors said on June 19, 2024 that Shea Homes Inc.’s rights to declare courses He pointed out that he had ruled that he had moved to the edge.

The rights, or terms, contracts and restrictions (CC&RS) of the Declarer determine how you use the Golf Course Site. For Club West, the golf course CC&R is separate from those that manage the homeowner.

Pineda’s ruling now appears to narrow the case down to two issues.

One concerns the reserve’s claim that Edge is bound by the same promises made in promotions and contracts, and the same promises made in the rights of the declarant.

But the bigger problem is what the declarant’s rights actually require. Various sections appear to support discussions on each side of course use.

Pineda’s opinion stated on January 10, 2023 that Shea Homes Inc. resigned from the rights of the declarant.

She said, “there are no interest, rights or obligations (legal or fair) related to, or related to, or related to, CC&RS of the golf course or (golf course property)”. I cited Shea’s repeated claims.

She also stated that “there is no real issue of material facts” suggesting that non-other parties own rights to use the course.

“The only appropriate accused is based on positive standards,” the judge declared. “Edge is the only entity with all legal and fair rights and obligations relating to the rights of the declarants of Golf Course CC&RS.”

It is unclear when or when a trial could be made for the reserve’s claim that Edge inherits the rights of the declarant and requires those rights to be restored.

“By allowing golf courses to place barren as a barren weed wasteland, the value of the property of Club West members has been strengthened and unprotected,” one of the conservancy pleas claims. Masu.

“The eyesore of Edge’s abandoned property at the heart of the Club West Member’s community has reduced the value of Club West Member’s homes.”

The Conservancy points to the rights of the Site’s Declarator, including those that the property of the golf course and all parts thereof shall be used solely as a golf course. It is prohibited.”

Edge points out that the “core issue” in the Conservancy case is “implicit ordinary slaves.” Essentially, it means that the owner has inherited the obligations set out in the rights of the declarant.

Edge calls that argument “cannot be done.”

It also cited some of the rights of the declarants enacted in 1989.

“all [Homeowners] Herein, the Declarer or others may be entitled to by another person in relation to the continued ownership, operation, or use rights of the golf course near or adjacent to the Property. It is recommended that it has not been done. It is not depicted on a Master Development Plan, other land use plans, sales brochures, or other marketing displays or platts.

“A written or oral representation or warranty is ineffective without modifications made by the declarant.”

In other words, Edge’s lawyers argue that parents and homeowners have no legal reliance unless the course owners amend the rights of the declarant and promise an eternal golf course .

The trial was originally scheduled for February by Judge Christopher Cooley, one of Pineda’s predecessors.

However, in November, Cooley discovered that his former boss had been doing some legal work for Edge at the law firm he worked for before taking him to the bench. I rejected myself.

Cooley’s replacement, Judge DeWayne Fox, only argued for a few weeks when the reserve rejected himself after balked at the appointment.

On December 6th, Conservancy’s lawyers, including Frances and Daniel Slavin, said that if Slavin is not only on the other side, but is also sued by a Fox client for $4 million, Fox’s role as an attorney. I submitted a long affidavit pointing out. The 2010 lawsuit.

Conservancy first floated since 2020 after course owners first floated plans to sell three pieces of the course to home builder Taylor Morrison for the construction of a 164 single-home and two-storey home. , fighting Edge.

Many homeowners protested the plan and said those homes would destroy their opinions.

Edge said it will build a new clubhouse and use revenue from sales to improve the course, but will be shortened.

After Taylor Morrison dropped out of the tentative deal due to the unfavorable reaction that it occurred, Edge asked for community input to turn the course into a park, but the owner still had a snippet of the site. They did not say whether they were planning to sell it to a builder.

One of the central obstacles to golf sustainability at the site is water.

The only option to use drinking water was advanced by an entrepreneur at Ahwatukee 10 years ago. A pipeline was proposed from the Gira River Indian Community to the course, transporting reclaimed water to the site.

The plan is well-executable, so the Arizona Department of Transportation installed concrete sleeves under the South Mountain Highway during construction for water transmission pipes.

The plan is estimated to cost more than $1 million, and it fell on the roadside, leaving more and more expensive urban drinking water as the only way to irrigate the course.