ADRE Appeals | Condominium Governance | LC2021-000258
When a condominium owner appealed an ADRE administrative dismissal involving Dorsey Place, Judge Daniel J. Kiley affirmed the decision, holding that an administrative dismissal must be upheld if supported by the record and legally correct for any reason.
Last updated September 17, 2026. Case: Haining Xia v. Dorsey Place Condominium Association, Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2021-000258 (minute entries use LC2021-000258-001 DT); ADRE / OAH Agency Case No. 21F-H2120016-REL; Hon. Daniel J. Kiley.
Scope note: This page covers Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2021-000258, an appeal under the Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions Act from an ADRE administrative dismissal involving Dorsey Place Condominiums. Condominium owner Haining Xia challenged administrative rulings regarding association governance and dispute resolution intertwined with parallel superior court litigation in Cao v. PFP Dorsey Investments. Judge Daniel J. Kiley affirmed the administrative dismissal on jurisdictional/claim-preclusion grounds (correct for any reason), and entered orders coordinating with the Arizona Court of Appeals mandate. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The takeaway
Affirmed. Under the Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions Act (A.R.S. § 12-901 et seq.), an administrative dismissal must be affirmed if supported by substantial evidence and correct for any reason; because the 2019 Termination Agreement had been adjudicated valid, the condominium was terminated and ADRE/OAH lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A); the merits dismissal was affirmed only because a ruling is upheld if correct for any reason (Spence v. Bacal).
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Haining Xia (Petitioner/Appellant)
Tempe condominium owner; self-represented pro se; appealed ADRE administrative dismissal.
Respondent Side
- Dorsey Place Condominium Association (Respondent/Appellee)
Arizona nonprofit corporation
Condominium association respondent; represented by Nicholas Nogami; administrative dismissal affirmed on appeal. - Nicholas C. Nogami (Counsel)
Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.
Counsel for Respondent/Appellee Dorsey Place Condominium Association.
Neutral Parties
- Hon. Daniel J. Kiley (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court
Superior Court Judge who authored the JRAD decision affirming administrative dismissal. - Arizona Department of Real Estate (Originating Agency)
State administrative agency (Case No. 21F-H2120016-REL) whose ALJ dismissal was affirmed.
What happened
Haining Xia filed a petition under A.R.S. § 32-2199.01 before the Arizona Department of Real Estate alleging governance violations by Dorsey Place Condominium Association.
The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings (Case No. 21F-H2120016-REL). On July 14, 2021, the Administrative Law Judge entered a decision dismissing the petition on grounds that Xia failed to produce documentary evidence demonstrating a breach of the declaration.
Xia filed a notice of appeal in Maricopa County Superior Court under A.R.S. § 12-904. Assigned to Judge Daniel J. Kiley, the association appeared through counsel Nicholas C. Nogami of Maxwell & Morgan.
On June 15, 2022, Judge Kiley issued a formal JRAD decision affirming the administrative dismissal in full under Spence v. Bacal. On August 25, 2022, the court entered an order noting that the Court of Appeals had vacated the December 15, 2020 ruling underlying the affirmance (Cao v. PFP Dorsey Investments), and deferring all pending matters—including Appellant’s Motion to Vacate the affirmance—until the Cao mandate issues.
Video overview of the case record
An AI-generated video overview of Haining Xia v. Dorsey Place Condominium Association (Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2021-000258). Affirmed. Superior Court affirmed the ADRE dismissal because the 2019 condominium termination, previously held valid, left ADRE/OAH without subject-matter jurisdiction. This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own records control.
Listen: audio deep dive on the case record
An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the case record in Haining Xia v. Dorsey Place Condominium Association. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked records below.
Procedural timeline
Haining Xia files a Homeowners Association Dispute Process Petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate regarding Dorsey Place Condominiums.
ADRE ALJ issues decision dismissing petition for lack of competent documentary evidence.
Xia appeals administrative dismissal to Maricopa County Superior Court (LC2021-000258).
Judge Daniel J. Kiley denies association motion to dismiss appeal.
Court denies motion to strike appellant opening brief.
Judge Kiley issues JRAD decision affirming administrative dismissal of petition.
Judge Kiley defers ruling on Appellant's Motion to Vacate; notes Court of Appeals vacated the underlying CV2019-055353 ruling in Cao and awaits the appellate mandate.
Complete source-document index
This index contains 6 PDFs from the reviewed public source packet. Byte-identical copies are listed once. Files are ordered by the date and sequence in the public filename, and party filings or research materials are labeled separately from court rulings.
Minute Entry Directing Service Of Appeal
Type: Court order/minute entry
Initial minute entry directing service of notice of appeal on Dorsey Place Condominium Association.
Minute Entry Denying Motion To Dismiss
Type: Court order/minute entry
Minute entry by Judge Daniel J. Kiley denying association motion to dismiss the appeal.
Minute Entry Denying Motion To Strike Opening Brief
Type: Court order/minute entry
Minute entry denying association motion to strike appellant opening brief.
Minute Entry Setting Oral Argument
Type: Court order/minute entry
Minute entry scheduling oral argument on the administrative record appeal.
Jrad Decision Affirming ADRE Dismissal
Type: Decision or judgment
Formal JRAD decision by Judge Daniel J. Kiley affirming ADRE administrative dismissal under Spence v. Bacal.
Minute Entry On Mandate In Cao V Pfp Dorsey
Type: Decision or judgment
Minute entry coordinating disposition with Court of Appeals mandate in Cao v. PFP Dorsey Investments.
FAQ
What was the dispute in Haining Xia v. Dorsey Place Condominium Association?
Condominium owner Haining Xia filed an administrative complaint with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (Agency Case No. 21F-H2120016-REL) alleging violations of the condominium declaration and governing statutes by Dorsey Place Condominium Association.
Why did the administrative law judge dismiss the petition?
The ALJ dismissed the petition after finding that the petitioner failed to present competent documentary evidence establishing specific actionable breaches of the declaration by the association.
What standard of review did Judge Daniel J. Kiley apply on appeal?
Under the Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions Act (A.R.S. § 12-901 et seq.) and Spence v. Bacal, 243 Ariz. 504, the Superior Court will affirm an administrative decision if it is correct for any reason (Spence v. Bacal, 243 Ariz. 504). Here the court did not reach substantial-evidence review of the facts; it affirmed on a threshold ground—the previously adjudicated validity of the 2019 Termination Agreement had preclusive effect, terminating the condominium and depriving ADRE/OAH of subject-matter jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A).
How did this case connect to the parallel appellate case Cao v. PFP Dorsey Investments?
The governance and control of Dorsey Place Condominiums was simultaneously subject to major superior court and Court of Appeals litigation in Cao v. PFP Dorsey Investments. On August 25, 2022, Judge Kiley entered an order recognizing that the Court of Appeals in Cao had vacated the December 15, 2020 ruling that was the basis of the affirmance; because that decision was not yet final (no mandate had issued), the court declined to act on Appellant’s Motion to Vacate and ordered the parties to report the mandate’s outcome before it would rule.
What is the key takeaway for owners filing ADRE petitions?
Owners must build an airtight documentary record at the administrative hearing level. An appellate court reviewing an ADRE decision will not reweigh conflicting evidence or supply missing documentation, making thorough preparation at the OAH hearing essential.
Case Dossier
This dossier combines the case metadata, linked court sources, and the explanatory sections below. It distinguishes court rulings from party filings, allegations, and requested relief.
Case Summary
| Case ID / citation | Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2021-000258 |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Superior Court |
| Decision / key date | June 15, 2022 |
| Judge / panel | Hon. Daniel J. Kiley |
| Parties | Haining Xia (Appellant) v. Dorsey Place Condominium Association (Appellee) |
| Governing law |
|
| Topics | Board GovernanceCC&RsProcedure |
| Outcome / holding | Affirmed. Under the Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions Act (A.R.S. § 12-901 et seq.), an administrative dismissal may be affirmed if it is correct for any reason; here the 2019 termination of the condominium (held valid in CV2019-055353) removed the association-governance dispute from ADRE/OAH jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A), and the dismissal was affirmed on that ground. |
| Primary public source | View hosted source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Reviewed source package | 6 PDFs |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 7 roadmap entries |
| Video overview | Haining Xia v. Dorsey Place Condominium Association |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 5 questions |
| Featured download links | 2 download links |
Key Issues & Findings
Condominium owner Haining Xia filed an administrative complaint with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (Agency Case No. 21F-H2120016-REL) challenging governance and declaration enforcement decisions by Dorsey Place Condominium Association. An Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition after concluding that Xia failed to submit documentary evidence sufficient to substantiate a breach. Representing himself pro se, Xia appealed to Maricopa County Superior Court under the Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions Act. Assigned to Judge Daniel J. Kiley, the association was represented by Nicholas C. Nogami of Maxwell & Morgan. In a written JRAD decision issued June 15, 2022, Judge Kiley affirmed the administrative dismissal on jurisdictional grounds: because the 2019 Termination Agreement had been adjudicated valid in CV2019-055353, the condominium had been terminated and ADRE/OAH lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A). Although the ALJ had dismissed on the merits, the court affirmed under the rule that a ruling is upheld if it is correct for any reason (Spence v. Bacal). On August 25, 2022, Judge Kiley entered an order noting that the Court of Appeals had vacated the December 15, 2020 ruling underlying the affirmance (Cao v. PFP Dorsey Investments) and deferring all pending matters until the Cao appellate mandate issues.
The Superior Court reviewed the administrative record pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-901 through 12-914. Under Spence v. Bacal, 243 Ariz. 504, a reviewing court must affirm an order dismissing a complaint if the result was legally correct for any reason, even where the tribunal reached its dismissal on a different ground.
Although the ALJ had dismissed Xia's petition on the merits, Judge Kiley did not reach substantial-evidence review of the facts. The court instead held that the validity of the 2019 Termination Agreement had already been adjudicated in CV2019-055353 and was entitled to preclusive effect; because that agreement terminated the condominium, ADRE and the Office of Administrative Hearings lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A). The ALJ therefore should have dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, and the dismissal was affirmed as correct for that reason. In subsequent proceedings on August 25, 2022, Judge Kiley entered an order noting that the Court of Appeals had vacated the December 15, 2020 ruling underlying the affirmance (Cao v. PFP Dorsey Investments) and deferring all pending matters until the Cao appellate mandate issued.
This decision underscores the stringent standards applied when an owner seeks judicial review of an adverse ADRE administrative ruling. Many homeowners mistakenly believe that appealing an administrative decision to Superior Court provides a clean slate to re-argue facts. Under Arizona's JRAD statutes, the Superior Court's review is primarily confined to the administrative record, and agency dismissals will be upheld if supported by any reasonable interpretation of the evidence. Owners pursuing ADRE dispute resolution must ensure every critical fact is substantiated by admissible documentary evidence during the initial OAH hearing.