Do the Intervenors have an absolute right to intervene as a separate, bona fide Party in the State's action to take common lands of their HOA pursuant to ARCP Rule 24(a)(2)?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Do the Intervenors have an absolute right to intervene as a separate, bona fide Party in the State’s action to take common lands of their HOA pursuant to ARCP! Rule, 24(a) (2)? 2. Does the State’s failure to provide Notice and Summons to HOA homeowners per ARS? §121145 constitute fatal error? 8. Did the State’s Settlement with the HOA fairly settle the Intervenors’ Takings Claims? 4, Was the Trial Court’s approval of the State’s HOA Taking settlement, over and above the Intervenor’s objection to the taking and without addressing the prohibitions and supremacy clause contained in Prop207° raised by the Intervenors, a reversible error? 5. Was the Intervenors’ Interlocutory Appeal, based on Prop207’s prohibitions, properly rejected by a single Judge Pro Temp., allegedly because the trial judge’s order was not a “final ruling,” when in fact the immediate consequences were irrefutably final? 6. Was the Trial Court’s declaration of Summary Judgement plain error? 7. Was the Trial Court’s insistence on the statutory formula for damages plain error? 1 ARCP = Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure 2 ARS = Arizona Revised Statutes 8 ARS 12-1136 (5) (b) and 12-1137 il 8. Did the State’s and HOA’s experts fail to correctly interpret statutory language to quantify real-world bank value losses per ARS? 9. Is the Substitute Facility Remedy the Only “Just” Remedy? 10.Does ARS Prohibit Punitive Damages in this Case? 11.Was the Court’s failure to proceed to trial a reversible error? 12.Was the Award of Fees to the HOA’s Attorney Proper?