Case Summary
| Case ID | 21F-H2120016-REL-RHG |
|---|---|
| Agency | ADRE |
| Tribunal | OAH |
| Decision Date | 2021-07-14 |
| Administrative Law Judge | Sondra J. Vanella |
| Outcome | none |
| Filing Fees Refunded | $0.00 |
| Civil Penalties | $0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | Haining Xia | Counsel | — |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | Dorsey Place Condominium Association | Counsel | Nick Nogami, Esq. |
Alleged Violations
Bylaws Articles 3.3, 4.1, and 4.4
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated its Bylaws Articles 3.3, 4.1, and 4.4. The Respondent was found to be the prevailing party, and Petitioner’s appeal was dismissed.
Why this result: Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof to establish a violation by a preponderance of the evidence, specifically failing to establish that an election was required during the years alleged.
Key Issues & Findings
Failure to elect the Board at Annual Members Meetings in 2018 and 2019
Petitioner alleged Respondent failed to elect the board during the 2018 and 2019 Annual Members Meetings. The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof to establish a violation, specifically failing to establish that an election was required during those years.
Orders: Respondent is the prevailing party, and Petitioner's appeal is dismissed.
Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
- A.R.S. § 41-2198.01
- A.R.S. § 33-1202(10)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
21F-H2120016-REL Decision – 849881.pdf
21F-H2120016-REL Decision – 895555.pdf
Briefing Document: Xia v. Dorsey Place Condominium Association
Executive Summary
This document synthesizes the key findings, arguments, and legal proceedings from two Administrative Law Judge Decisions concerning a dispute between petitioner Haining Xia and the Dorsey Place Condominium Association (the Respondent). The core of the dispute revolves around Mr. Xia’s allegation that the Association violated its own bylaws by failing to conduct board elections during its 2018 and 2019 annual meetings.
The Respondent’s primary defense was a jurisdictional challenge, arguing that the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) could not hear the case because the Association’s condominium status was legally terminated in April 2019, prior to the filing of the petition. This termination was previously upheld by the Maricopa County Superior Court.
In the initial hearing on January 7, 2021, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof, relying solely on assertions without presenting any documentary evidence. Consequently, the petition was denied. A rehearing was granted and held on July 2, 2021, where the petitioner submitted documents but failed to provide testimony explaining their relevance or to establish that board elections were required in the years in question. The ALJ again concluded that the petitioner did not sustain his burden of proof. The final order dismissed the petitioner’s appeal and declared the Respondent the prevailing party.
Case Overview
• Case Number: 21F-H2120016-REL / 21F-H2120016-REL-RHG
• Tribunal: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
• Petitioner: Haining Xia
• Respondent: Dorsey Place Condominium Association
• Presiding Administrative Law Judge: Sondra J. Vanella
• Core Allegation: The petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated its Bylaws Articles 3.3, 4.1, and 4.4 by failing to include board elections on the agendas for the 2018 and 2019 Annual Members Meetings and by never electing a board at said meetings.
Chronology of Proceedings
September 21, 2020
Haining Xia files a Homeowners Association (HOA) Dispute Resolution Petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
November 20, 2020
The Department issues a Notice of Hearing.
January 7, 2021
The initial administrative hearing is held.
January 22, 2021
The ALJ issues a Decision denying the Petitioner’s Petition.
February 18, 2021
The Petitioner files a request for rehearing, citing errors of law and evidence.
March 23, 2021
The Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate issues an Order Granting Rehearing.
July 2, 2021
The rehearing is conducted.
July 14, 2021
The ALJ issues the final Decision, declaring the Respondent the prevailing party and dismissing the Petitioner’s appeal.
Petitioner’s Position and Arguments
Haining Xia’s case rested on several key arguments presented across both hearings.
• Primary Claim: The central assertion was that the Respondent was in “direct violation of HOA Bylaws Article 3.3, Article 4.1 and Article 4.4” because board elections were not held or even placed on the agenda for the 2018 and 2019 annual meetings.
• Challenge to Condominium Termination: Mr. Xia actively disputed the validity of the Association’s termination as a condominium.
◦ He argued the “Condominium Termination Agreement” was invalid because it “does not contain valid signatures” and represented a “usurpation of corporate power.”
◦ He maintained that because he still holds the title to his unit and the sale has not been finalized, the condominium status could not be legally changed.
◦ He stated his intention to appeal a separate Maricopa County Superior Court ruling which had already upheld the termination agreement.
• Specific Meeting Grievances:
◦ 2018 Meeting: The annual meeting, scheduled for March, was delayed until August 2018. Its stated purpose was to vote on a special assessment, but Mr. Xia asserted there was “not a valid board for that meeting.”
◦ 2019 Meeting: This meeting was held to discuss the termination agreement, but Mr. Xia claimed there was “no election of board members or appointment of officers.”
• Stated Objective: The petitioner requested “a definitive answer as to whether there were valid corporate officers” and, in the rehearing, stated he “wants a finding that there was no legitimate board and no officers appointed.”
• Personal Motivation: During the rehearing, Mr. Xia asserted that he is the only homeowner “who stood up to fight,” that he is fighting “evil,” and is “looking for justice.”
Respondent’s Position and Arguments
The Dorsey Place Condominium Association’s defense was primarily procedural and jurisdictional.
• Jurisdictional Challenge: The Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the OAH lacked jurisdiction over the dispute.
◦ The basis for this argument was that the Association’s status as a “Condominium” was terminated via a “Condominium Termination Agreement” recorded on April 9, 2019.
◦ As the entity no longer met the legal definition of a condominium under A.R.S. §33-1202(10), the OAH had no authority to hear a dispute between it and a unit owner.
• Superior Court Precedent: The Respondent emphasized that the validity of the termination agreement had already been adjudicated and upheld by the Maricopa County Superior Court. The ALJ noted that the OAH “does not have the authority to overturn or modify that ruling.”
• Mootness: The Respondent argued that since the termination, the property is “currently being utilized as an apartment complex,” making the petitioner’s claims moot.
Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Conclusions
The decisions issued by ALJ Sondra J. Vanella focused squarely on the legal standard of proof required of the petitioner.
The ALJ repeatedly established that the petitioner “bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence.” This standard is defined as “proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”
• Failure to Present Evidence: The ALJ found that Mr. Xia “failed to present any evidence at hearing, documentary or otherwise, but rather relied solely on his own assertions.”
• Conclusion: The petitioner did not meet his burden of proof to establish a violation of the specified bylaws.
• Order: The Petition was denied.
• Basis for Rehearing: The rehearing was granted based on the petitioner’s claim of “error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law occurring during the proceeding.”
• Evidence at Rehearing: Mr. Xia submitted several documents, including meeting notices for 2018 and 2019, an “Action by Written Consent,” and a “Board Resolution Filling Director and Officer Vacancies.” However, he “did not provide an explanation of the documents at hearing or testimony concerning the documents.”
• Final Conclusion: After reviewing all evidence from both hearings, the ALJ concluded that the petitioner “failed to sustain his burden to establish a violation.” Critically, the ALJ noted that Mr. Xia “failed to establish that an election was required during either of those years [2018 and 2019].”
• Final Order: The Respondent was declared the prevailing party, and the petitioner’s appeal was dismissed. This order is binding unless appealed to the superior court within 35 days.
Relevant Bylaw Articles
The petition was based on alleged violations of the following articles from the Dorsey Place Condominium Association Bylaws:
Article
Key Provision
Annual Members Meeting
States that at each annual meeting, “the Members shall elect the Board and transact such other business as may properly be brought before the meeting.”
Election
Stipulates that the Association’s affairs are managed by the Board and that “each director shall be elected at the annual meeting of Members concurrent with the expiration of the term of the director he or she is to succeed.”
Annual Board Meetings
Requires that “within thirty (30) days after each annual meeting of Members, the newly elected directors shall meet forthwith for the purpose of organization, the election of officers, and the transaction of other business.”
Study Guide: Haining Xia v. Dorsey Place Condominium Association
This guide reviews the administrative case between Haining Xia (Petitioner) and the Dorsey Place Condominium Association (Respondent) before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. It covers the core allegations, legal arguments, procedural history, and final rulings.
Short-Answer Quiz
Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences based on the information provided in the case documents.
1. Who are the primary parties in this case and what are their roles?
2. What specific violations of the association’s Bylaws did the Petitioner allege?
3. What was the Respondent’s primary legal argument for why the Office of Administrative Hearings lacked jurisdiction?
4. According to the case documents, what is the legal standard known as “preponderance of the evidence”?
5. What was the initial ruling by the Administrative Law Judge on January 22, 2021, and what was the key reason for this decision?
6. On what grounds did the Petitioner request and receive a rehearing of the case?
7. What evidence did the Petitioner submit during the rehearing on July 2, 2021?
8. Why did the Administrative Law Judge state that the Office of Administrative Hearings could not invalidate the “Condominium Termination Agreement”?
9. What specific requirements for annual meetings are outlined in Article 3.3 of the Respondent’s Bylaws?
10. What was the final outcome of the case after the rehearing, as detailed in the order dated July 14, 2021?
——————————————————————————–
Answer Key
1. The primary parties are Haining Xia, the Petitioner, and Dorsey Place Condominium Association, the Respondent. The Petitioner is the unit owner who filed a dispute petition, while the Respondent is the homeowners’ association accused of violating its own Bylaws.
2. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated Bylaws Articles 3.3, 4.1, and 4.4. He claimed the Respondent never elected a board at its Annual Members Meetings for 2018 and 2019 and that board elections were not included on the agendas for those meetings.
3. The Respondent argued that the Office of Administrative Hearings lacked jurisdiction because the association’s condominium status was terminated in April 2019 via a “Condominium Termination Agreement.” As it was no longer legally a condominium, the Respondent claimed it did not meet the statutory requirements for OAH jurisdiction over such disputes.
4. The legal standard is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” It is also described as “The greater weight of the evidence… sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
5. The initial ruling on January 22, 2021, denied the Petitioner’s Petition. The judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof because he presented no documentary evidence and relied solely on his own assertions to support his claims.
6. The Petitioner requested a rehearing on the grounds that there was an “error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law occurring during the proceeding.” The Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate granted this request.
7. During the rehearing, the Petitioner submitted Annual Membership Meeting Notices for 2018 and 2019, a document titled “Action by Written Consent of a Majority of the Unit Owners,” and a November 16, 2018, Board Resolution. However, he did not provide testimony or an explanation concerning these documents.
8. The Administrative Law Judge advised the Petitioner that the validity of the termination agreement had already been adjudicated and upheld by the Maricopa County Superior Court. The Office of Administrative Hearings does not have the legal authority to overturn or modify a ruling from the Superior Court.
9. Article 3.3 states that the annual meeting of Members shall be held in March each year, though it can be delayed until May 31. The purpose of this meeting is for the Members to elect the Board and transact other business that may properly be brought before the meeting.
10. After the rehearing, the Administrative Law Judge again ruled against the Petitioner, ordering that his appeal be dismissed and naming the Respondent as the prevailing party. The judge concluded that the Petitioner once again failed to sustain his burden to establish a violation of the Bylaws.
——————————————————————————–
Essay Questions
Instructions: The following questions are designed for a more in-depth, essay-style response. Answers are not provided.
1. Analyze the jurisdictional challenge raised by the Respondent. How did the “Condominium Termination Agreement” of April 2019 fundamentally alter the legal status of the property and impact the proceedings before the Office of Administrative Hearings?
2. Discuss the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” as it is defined and applied in this case. Explain in detail why the Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet this burden of proof in both the initial hearing and the subsequent rehearing.
3. Trace the complete procedural history of this case, beginning with the filing of the petition on September 21, 2020, and ending with the final order on July 14, 2021. Identify the key events, decisions, and legal reasonings at each stage.
4. Evaluate the different arguments made by the Petitioner, including his claims about invalid board elections, the legitimacy of the termination agreement, and his status as a titled owner. Explain why the Office of Administrative Hearings was limited in its authority to rule on certain aspects of his claims.
5. Based on Bylaws Articles 3.3, 4.1, and 4.4, describe the prescribed process for electing the Board of Directors and conducting annual meetings. How did the Petitioner’s specific allegations in his petition directly challenge whether the Respondent had followed these procedures?
——————————————————————————–
Glossary of Key Terms
Definition
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
An official who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues decisions. In this case, the ALJ was Sondra J. Vanella.
Affirmative Defense
A set of facts other than those alleged by the petitioner which, if proven by the respondent, defeats or mitigates the legal consequences of the respondent’s otherwise unlawful conduct. The respondent bears the burden of proof for affirmative defenses.
A.R.S.
Abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, the collection of laws for the state of Arizona.
Bylaws
The set of rules governing the internal management and affairs of an organization, such as a homeowners’ association. The Petitioner alleged violations of Articles 3.3, 4.1, and 4.4 of the Respondent’s Bylaws.
Condominium Termination Agreement
A legal document recorded on April 9, 2019, that officially terminated the condominium status of Dorsey Place. The Respondent argued this action removed it from the jurisdiction of the Office of Administrative Hearings for condominium disputes.
Department
Refers to the Arizona Department of Real Estate, the state agency authorized to receive and decide petitions for hearings involving homeowners’ associations.
Homeowners Association (HOA)
An organization in a subdivision, planned community, or condominium that makes and enforces rules for the properties and residents. The Dorsey Place Condominium Association is the HOA in this case.
Jurisdiction
The official power to make legal decisions and judgments. The Respondent challenged the OAH’s jurisdiction on the basis that it was no longer legally a condominium.
Motion to Dismiss
A formal request made by a party to a court or other tribunal to dismiss a case. The Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
A state agency that conducts hearings for other state agencies. In this case, the OAH conducted the hearing for the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
Petition
The formal written request filed by the Petitioner to initiate the dispute resolution process with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
Petitioner
The party who files a petition or brings an action in a legal proceeding. In this case, the Petitioner is Haining Xia.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The burden of proof in this civil case. It is defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not,” and as evidence that has “the most convincing force.”
Respondent
The party against whom a petition is filed or an action is brought. In this case, the Respondent is the Dorsey Place Condominium Association.
Superior Court
A state trial court of general jurisdiction. The Maricopa County Superior Court had previously issued a ruling upholding the validity of the Condominium Termination Agreement.
He Fought His HOA and Lost—Twice. 3 Costly Mistakes Every Homeowner Should Avoid.
The Frustration and the Fight
For many homeowners, dealing with a Homeowners Association (HOA) can be a source of immense frustration. Rules can feel arbitrary, and board decisions can seem opaque. It’s a common feeling to believe the HOA is in the wrong and to want to stand up for your rights. But what happens when that conviction meets the cold, hard reality of the legal system?
The case of Haining Xia versus the Dorsey Place Condominium Association serves as a powerful cautionary tale for any homeowner considering a legal challenge. Mr. Xia’s core complaint was straightforward and, on its face, seemed reasonable: he alleged that his HOA violated its own bylaws by failing to hold board elections during its 2018 and 2019 annual meetings.
Despite his strong convictions, he lost his case. He was then granted a rehearing—a rare second chance—and lost again. This article explores the surprising and crucial lessons from his defeat, revealing why simply being right in principle is often not enough to win in practice.
1. Conviction Is Not Evidence
The single biggest reason for Mr. Xia’s failure was his inability to provide proof for his claims. In the initial hearing, the Administrative Law Judge’s decision was stark: the petitioner “failed to present any evidence at hearing, documentary or otherwise, but rather relied solely on his own assertions.”
Herein lies the central mistake for any potential litigant: in a legal proceeding, the outcome isn’t determined by who feels most wronged, but by who can meet the required standard of proof. In this case, that standard was the “preponderance of the evidence.” The legal definition clarifies this standard:
“The greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
Think of it as the scales of justice. Your evidence doesn’t need to slam one side to the ground, but it must be strong enough to tip the scale, even slightly, in your favor. Mr. Xia arrived with only his convictions, which carry no weight on the scale.
During the rehearing, his testimony was filled with passionate statements, asserting that he was the only homeowner “who stood up to fight,” that he was fighting “evil,” and was simply “looking for justice.” These heartfelt convictions, however, were met with the judge’s blunt conclusion that he failed to meet his evidentiary burden. This reveals a critical lesson: in a legal setting, the passion of one’s convictions is irrelevant without factual, documentary proof to back them up.
2. Fight the Right Battle in the Right Courtroom
A significant portion of Mr. Xia’s case was derailed by a fundamental strategic error. The HOA’s attorney argued that the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)—the body hearing the dispute—had no power over the case because the property had ceased to be a condominium in 2019 pursuant to a “Condominium Termination Agreement.”
In response, Mr. Xia tried to argue that this termination agreement was invalid, claiming it “does not contain valid signatures” and was a “usurpation of corporate power.” This was the wrong argument to make in the wrong place.
The Administrative Law Judge explicitly advised him that the validity of the termination agreement had already been decided by a higher court, the Maricopa County Superior Court. The judge stated plainly that the OAH “does not have the authority to overturn or modify that ruling.”
This wasn’t just a procedural mistake; it was a credibility-damaging tactical blunder. By focusing on an issue the court had no power to address, he appeared unprepared and distracted from the one claim he was actually there to prove. This strategic error likely damaged his credibility with the judge from the outset, underscoring the importance of understanding a court’s specific jurisdiction before you ever step foot inside.
3. A Second Chance Requires a New Strategy, Not Just New Documents
Being granted a rehearing is a significant opportunity in any legal dispute. Mr. Xia was granted this second chance after citing a specific “error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law occurring during the proceeding.” This wasn’t a general appeal to fairness; it was a procedural opening that offered a rare chance to correct the flaws of his first attempt.
Unfortunately, he failed to capitalize on it. While he did submit documents in the second hearing, the judge noted a fatal flaw in his presentation: he “did not provide an explanation of the documents at hearing or testimony concerning the documents.”
Submitting a stack of papers is not the same as building a case. Evidence doesn’t speak for itself. Each document needed a narrative. Mr. Xia should have walked the judge through each paper, explaining: “This is the notice for the 2018 meeting. As you can see, an election is not on the agenda, which violates Bylaw 3.3. This document proves my specific claim.” Without that narrative, he just presented a puzzle with no solution.
The final, unambiguous conclusion from the second hearing was that the “Petitioner failed to establish that an election was required during either of those years.” The key takeaway is clear: a procedural victory like a rehearing is meaningless if the fundamental flaws in your case—in this instance, a lack of compelling, well-explained evidence—are not corrected.
From Principle to Proof
Mr. Xia’s journey shows a fatal progression: he began with a case built on feeling instead of fact, tried to fight it in the wrong court over a settled issue, and when given a rare chance to fix these fundamental errors, he failed to change his approach. It’s a story of how a lack of preparation can doom a case from start to finish.
This case is a stark reminder that in the eyes of the law, a right that cannot be proven does not exist. Before you begin your fight, ask yourself: are you prepared to prove your case, not just believe in it?
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Haining Xia (petitioner)
Appeared and testified on his own behalf
Respondent Side
- Nick Nogami (attorney)
Dorsey Place Condominium Association
Represented Respondent - Edith Rudder (attorney)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
Listed on service list
Neutral Parties
- Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
OAH
Administrative Law Judge for initial hearing and rehearing - Judy Lowe (commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Commissioner who issued Order Granting Rehearing - Daniel Martin (judge)
Referenced regarding a prior Minute Entry
