cc-and-rs | A.R.S. § 33-1228 | 257 Ariz. 82 (2024)
This Arizona Supreme Court decision sets the constitutional and statutory ground rules for forcing the buyout of minority condominium owners after a supermajority votes to terminate. It upholds the termination statute against a takings challenge but requires that the entire condominium — not individual holdout units — be sold.
Last updated June 30, 2026. Case: Cao, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-22-0228-PR, 257 Ariz. 82 (2024); Court of Appeals decision vacated, superior court affirmed in part and remanded. A later order (No. CV-25-0071-PR, Aug. 20, 2025) sent the unit’s valuation to binding arbitration.
Current-status note: This page is published as a litigation record based on the source files available through 2025-08-20. Later filings, appeals, mandates, settlements, or dismissal orders may change the posture; the linked court records control.
Scope note: This page covers the Arizona Supreme Court’s resolution of a condominium-termination forced sale — the March 22, 2024 opinion (257 Ariz. 82), which vacated the Court of Appeals decision, and the follow-on August 20, 2025 per curiam order (No. CV-25-0071-PR) sending the unit’s valuation to binding arbitration. The Court of Appeals’ 2022 opinion has been vacated and is no longer controlling. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The takeaway
The Arizona Supreme Court held that a forced sale following a supermajority condominium termination under A.R.S. § 33-1228 does not violate the eminent-domain (private-takings) provision of the Arizona Constitution as applied to owners who agreed to a recorded declaration incorporating the Condominium Act. However, the Court also held that, under these circumstances, § 33-1228 required the sale of the entire condominium upon termination, not the sale of only the minority owners’ individual unit. It vacated the Court of Appeals’ decision, affirmed the superior court except as to that issue, and remanded.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Jie Cao (Plaintiff)
Minority condominium unit owner of Unit 106 at Dorsey Place Condominiums who challenged the condominium termination and forced sale. - Haining "Frazer" Xia (Plaintiff)
Minority condominium unit owner of Unit 106, husband of Jie Cao, who challenged the termination and forced sale. - Stone Xia (Plaintiff)
Son of Jie Cao and Haining Xia, residing in Fountain Hills, Arizona, named as a plaintiff in the complaints. - Dennis I. Wilenchik (Counsel)
Wilenchik & Bartness, P.C.
Trial counsel representing Plaintiffs Jie Cao, Haining Xia, and Stone Xia in Maricopa County Superior Court. - John "Jack" D. Wilenchik (Counsel)
Wilenchik & Bartness, P.C.
Trial counsel representing Plaintiffs Jie Cao, Haining Xia, and Stone Xia in Maricopa County Superior Court. - Ross P. Meyer (Counsel)
Wilenchik & Bartness, P.C.
Trial and appellate counsel representing Plaintiffs in both Superior Court and Court of Appeals proceedings. - Eric M. Fraser (Counsel)
Osborn Maledon, P.A.
Appellate counsel representing Plaintiffs/Appellants Jie Cao and Haining Xia before the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court. - John S. Bullock (Counsel)
Osborn Maledon, P.A.
Appellate counsel representing Plaintiffs/Appellants Jie Cao and Haining Xia before the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court. - Thomas L. Hudson (Counsel)
Osborn Maledon, P.A.
Appellate attorney with Osborn Maledon, P.A. who assisted on the appellate briefing and oral argument preparation. - James M. Manley (Counsel)
Pacific Legal Foundation
Amicus curiae counsel representing the Pacific Legal Foundation in support of Plaintiffs/Appellants.
Respondent Side
- PFP Dorsey Investments, LLC (Defendant)
Majority investor entity that acquired 90 of the 96 units at Dorsey Place Condominiums and voted to terminate the condominium. - Dorsey Place Condominium Association (Defendant)
The homeowners association for the condominium complex that executed and recorded the termination agreement and warranty deed. - Lorne Polger (Board Member)
Pathfinder Partners / Dorsey Place Condominium Association
Principal of Pathfinder Partners and self-appointed Secretary of the Dorsey Place HOA; initially named as an individual defendant. - Matt Quinn (Association President)
Pathfinder Partners / Dorsey Place Condominium Association
Vice President of Pathfinder Partners and self-appointed President of the Dorsey Place HOA; initially named as an individual defendant. - Michael A. Schern (Counsel)
Schern Richardson Finter, PLC
Trial attorney who represented PFP Dorsey and the individual defendants; initially named as an individual defendant before being dismissed. - Shawna M. Woner (Counsel)
Woner Hoffmaster Peshek & Gintert, PC
Counsel representing Defendant/Appellee PFP Dorsey Investments, LLC. - Stephanie K. Gintert (Counsel)
Woner Hoffmaster Peshek & Gintert, PC
Counsel representing Defendant/Appellee PFP Dorsey Investments, LLC. - Edith I. Rudder (Counsel)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
Counsel representing Defendant/Appellee Dorsey Place Condominium Association. - Nicholas C.S. Nogami (Counsel)
Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP
Counsel representing Defendant/Appellee Dorsey Place Condominium Association. - Aaron M. Finter (Counsel)
Schern Richardson Finter, PLC
Co-counsel representing defendants Lorne Polger, Matt Quinn, and Michael A. Schern in Superior Court. - Aaron R. Clouse (Counsel)
Schern Richardson Finter, PLC
Co-counsel representing defendants Lorne Polger, Matt Quinn, and Michael A. Schern in Superior Court. - Jennifer Barry (Board Member)
Pathfinder Partners
General Counsel for Pathfinder Partners who coordinated defense strategy, mediation, and client representation.
Neutral Parties
- Hon. Theodore Campagnolo (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court
Trial court judge originally assigned to the civil action in Maricopa County Superior Court. - Hon. Gary L. Popham Jr. (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court
Trial commissioner/judge who heard and ruled on early default and consolidation motions. - Hon. Daniel G. Martin (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court
Commercial Court judge who dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice and awarded taxable costs. - Hon. Paul J. McMurdie (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One
Presiding Appellate Judge who delivered the court's published opinion reversing and remanding the case. - Hon. Kent E. Cattani (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One
Chief Appellate Judge who sat on the Division One panel and joined the opinion. - Hon. David B. Gass (Judge)
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One
Appellate Judge who sat on the Division One panel and joined the opinion. - Justice Clint Bolick (Judge)
Arizona Supreme Court
Arizona Supreme Court Justice who authored the unanimous March 22, 2024 opinion (257 Ariz. 82). - Amy M. Wood (Other)
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One
Clerk of the Court of Appeals Division One who issued appellate clerk notices, record transmittals, and schedules. - Jeff Fine (Other)
Maricopa County Superior Court
Clerk of the Maricopa County Superior Court who certified and transmitted the electronic record on appeal. - Chief Justice Robert M. Brutinel (Judge)
Arizona Supreme Court
Joined the unanimous 2024 opinion. - Vice Chief Justice Ann A. Scott Timmer (Judge)
Arizona Supreme Court
Joined the 2024 opinion; as Chief Justice, signed the August 20, 2025 per curiam Decision Order. - Justice John R. Lopez IV (Judge)
Arizona Supreme Court
Joined the unanimous 2024 opinion. - Justice James P. Beene (Judge)
Arizona Supreme Court
Joined the unanimous 2024 opinion. - Justice William G. Montgomery (Judge)
Arizona Supreme Court
Joined the unanimous 2024 opinion. - Justice Kathryn H. King (Judge)
Arizona Supreme Court
Joined the unanimous 2024 opinion.
What happened
In January 2018, Jie Cao and Haining Xia purchased Unit 106 of the Dorsey Place Condominiums in Tempe, Arizona, subject to the recorded Condominium Declaration. In November 2018, PFP Dorsey Investments, LLC acquired 90 of the 96 units in the complex, gaining approximately 94% of the voting power.
In March 2019, the Association notified members of a meeting to terminate the condominium, proposing to sell the entire complex to PFP Dorsey. At the April 4, 2019 meeting, the Association presented a modified termination agreement to sell only the minority-owned units to PFP Dorsey. Utilizing its 94% vote, PFP Dorsey ratified the agreement, and the Association recorded a deed transferring the Xias’ unit to PFP Dorsey.
The Xias sued PFP Dorsey and the Association, claiming the forced sale was an unconstitutional private taking and a breach of fiduciary duty. The Maricopa County Superior Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, and the Court of Appeals reversed on the theory that an older version of the termination statute governed. The Arizona Supreme Court granted review.
On March 22, 2024, the Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals’ decision. It rejected the owners’ constitutional argument but held that A.R.S. § 33-1228 required selling the entire condominium, not just the Xias’ unit, and remanded. After the parties disputed the meaning of the mandate on remand, the Court issued a per curiam order on August 20, 2025 (No. CV-25-0071-PR) affirming the superior court, limiting the remaining issue to the unit’s fair market value as the owners’ total compensation, and sending that valuation to final and binding arbitration under § 33-1228.
Video overview of the case record
An AI-generated video overview of Cao v. PFP Dorsey Investments (257 Ariz. 82, 545 P.3d 459 (2024)). Condo termination statute allowed forced sale procedures, subject to constitutional compensation limits. This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own ruling controls.
Listen: audio deep dive on the case record
An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the court record and procedural posture in Cao v. PFP Dorsey Investments. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked case records below.
Procedural timeline
Plaintiffs Jie Cao, Haining Xia, and Stone Xia file their initial Civil Complaint in Maricopa County Superior Court.
Defendants file a Notice Requesting Assignment to Commercial Court and a Motion for More Definite Statement.
Defendants file their formal Answer to the initial Complaint.
Carpenter Hazlewood files a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Lorne Polger and Matt Quinn.
Minute Entry orders the case referred for reassignment to Commercial Court.
Plaintiffs file a Motion requesting a sheriff lock up of Unit 106 and an injunction on Defendants.
Case is officially reassigned to the Commercial Court under Hon. Daniel Martin.
Minute Entry from status conference orders Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint, denies Defendants' MTD as moot, and Plaintiffs withdraw their injunction motion.
Plaintiffs file their First Amended Complaint.
Plaintiffs file their Second Amended Complaint.
Hon. Daniel Martin signs an order dismissing defendants Lorne Polger, Matt Quinn, and Michael A. Schern without prejudice.
PFP Dorsey and Dorsey Place Condominium Association file separate Motions to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.
Plaintiffs file their Response to the Motions to Dismiss.
Defendants file their Reply briefs in support of the Motions to Dismiss.
Virtual Oral Argument is held on the Motions to Dismiss before Hon. Daniel Martin.
Court files a Minute Entry Under Advisement Ruling dated Dec 15, 2020, granting both Motions to Dismiss with prejudice.
Defendants file separate Applications for Attorneys' Fees and Costs.
Hon. Daniel Martin issues a Minute Entry Ruling denying the defendants' fee applications but granting taxable costs.
Court enters signed judgments in favor of both defendants under Rule 54(b).
Plaintiffs file their first Notice of Appeal from the March 18 judgments.
Court enters revised final judgment under Rule 54(c).
Plaintiffs file a stipulated motion to dismiss the first appeal as moot and file a new Notice of Appeal from the April 27 judgment.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One assigns case number 1 CA-CV 21-0275 and issues Appellate Clerk Notice.
Osborn Maledon, P.A. (Eric M. Fraser) files Notice of Substitution of Counsel and Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Opening Brief.
Appellants file their Case Management Statement and Notice of Filing Transcript of the December 15, 2020 hearing.
Appellants file their Opening Brief and Appendix.
Appellees file their Answering Brief.
Appellants file their Reply Brief.
Pacific Legal Foundation files a Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief.
Court of Appeals issues an order accepting the Amicus Curiae brief of Pacific Legal Foundation.
Appellees file their Response Brief to the Amicus Curiae brief of Pacific Legal Foundation.
Oral Argument is held before the Court of Appeals Division One.
Court of Appeals issues an Order for Additional Briefing on the applicability of the 1986 versus the 2018 statutory versions of A.R.S. § 33-1228.
Court of Appeals issues an Order Re: Supplemental Authority requesting briefing on the impact of the newly issued Supreme Court case Kalway v. Calabria Ranch.
Parties file simultaneous supplemental briefs.
Parties file simultaneous responses to the additional briefing.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One issues its published Opinion reversing and remanding.
Appellees file a Motion for Reconsideration and object to Appellants' application for attorneys' fees.
Court of Appeals denies Appellees' Motion for Reconsideration and awards Appellants $230,000 in attorneys' fees and costs.
Appellees file a Petition for Review in the Arizona Supreme Court (No. CV-22-0228-PR).
Arizona Supreme Court grants the Petition and Cross-Petitions for Review in part, rephrasing four statutory and constitutional questions.
Arizona Supreme Court issues its Opinion (257 Ariz. 82), authored by Justice Bolick for a unanimous Court: vacates the Court of Appeals' decision, affirms the superior court except as to Part II (the single-unit sale), and remands.
Arizona Supreme Court issues its Mandate and an order awarding the Xias $56,947.00 in fees and $316.32 in costs (denying appellate fees under ARCAP 21(d)).
On remand, the superior court denies PFP Dorsey's motion to compel arbitration of the unit's valuation (minute entry).
The superior court grants the Xias' motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint realleging previously dismissed claims (minute entry).
The Court of Appeals declines special-action jurisdiction over PFP Dorsey's petition challenging the remand rulings (No. 1 CA-SA 25-0015).
PFP Dorsey files a Petition for Review of the special-action decision, seeking clarification of the Supreme Court's mandate (No. CV-25-0071-PR).
Arizona Supreme Court issues a per curiam Decision Order: grants review, affirms the superior court, holds the sole remaining issue is the fair market value of the Xias' unit as their total compensation, vacates the August 8 and December 3, 2024 minute entries, remands for final and binding arbitration under A.R.S. § 33-1228, and awards PFP Dorsey reasonable attorney fees.
Complete source-document index
This index contains 193 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.
0000 Appellate Clerk Notice Re Appellan
Type: Procedural/service filing
Moves the dispute into appellate or judicial-review procedure; use it to track the next forum.
0000 Index Of Record
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0001 Civil Complaint
Type: Opening pleading
Starts or reframes the case and identifies the claims or relief requested.
0002 Certificate Of Compulsory Arbitra
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0003 Civil Cover Sheet
Type: Court/source PDF
Court intake document classifying the case for filing and assignment purposes.
0004 Plaintiffs Demand For Jury Trial
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0005 Declaration Of Service By Certifie
Type: Declaration or affidavit
Witness statement submitted under oath or declaration; its assertions are evidence offered by a party, not court findings.
0006 Declaration Of Service By Certifie
Type: Declaration or affidavit
Witness statement submitted under oath or declaration; its assertions are evidence offered by a party, not court findings.
0007 Declaration Of Service By Certifie
Type: Declaration or affidavit
Witness statement submitted under oath or declaration; its assertions are evidence offered by a party, not court findings.
0008 Notice Of Appearance
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0009 Application And Affidavit For Defa
Type: Declaration or affidavit
Witness statement submitted under oath or declaration; its assertions are evidence offered by a party, not court findings.
0010 Defendants Notice Requesting Assi
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
0011 Motion For More Definite Statement
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
0012 Answer
Type: Responsive pleading
Responding party's first substantive response to the complaint or petition.
0013 Credit Memo
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0014 Application And Affidavit For Defa
Type: Declaration or affidavit
Witness statement submitted under oath or declaration; its assertions are evidence offered by a party, not court findings.
0015 Motion For Entry Of Default Judgmen
Type: Motion/application
Shows the filer trying to move the case forward because the opposing party had not timely appeared.
0016 Motion To Withdraw As Counsel Witho
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
0017 Motion For Treble Damages
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
0018 Minute Entry Order Entered By Court 01062020
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
0019 Affidavit Of Service
Type: Declaration or affidavit
Proof-of-service material; check it to understand who was served and when deadlines started.
0020 Motion To Compel Defendants To Comp
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
0021 Motion To Strike Quinnpolgers Answ
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
0022 Motion For Entry Of Default Judgmen
Type: Motion/application
Shows the filer trying to move the case forward because the opposing party had not timely appeared.
0023 Defendants Motion To Strike Plaint
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
0024 Minute Entry Order Entered By Court 01172020
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
0025 Motion To Support Treble Damages So
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
0026 Minute Entry Ruling 01172020
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
0027 Minute Entry Order Entered By Court 01212020
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
0028 Motion To Request Look Up Of Unit And
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
0029 Motion To Strike Defendants Answer
Type: Responsive pleading
Responding party's first substantive response to the complaint or petition.
0030 Minute Entry Order Entered By Court 01222020
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
0031 Motion For More Definite Statement
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
0032 Minute Entry Case Reassigned 01242020
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0033 Order Granting Motion To Withdraw A
Type: Court order/minute entry
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
0034 Notice Of Appearance
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0035 Part 1 of 2 Defendants Notice Of Outs
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0036 Part 2 of 2 Defendants Notice Of Outs
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0037 Minute Entry Status Conference Set 02132020
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0038 Minute Entry Status Conference 02252020
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0039 First Amended Complaint
Type: Opening pleading
Starts or reframes the case and identifies the claims or relief requested.
0040 Second Amended Complaint
Type: Opening pleading
Starts or reframes the case and identifies the claims or relief requested.
0041 Acceptance Of Service For Pfp Dorse
Type: Procedural/service filing
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0042 Stipulation To Dismiss Certain Def
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0043 Acceptance Of Service For Dorsey Pl
Type: Procedural/service filing
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0044 Order Dismissing Certain Defendan
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
0045 Part 1 of 5 Defendant Pfp Dorsey Inve
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0046 Part 2 of 5 Defendant Pfp Dorsey Inve
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0047 Part 3 of 5 Defendant Pfp Dorsey Inve
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0048 Part 4 of 5 Defendant Pfp Dorsey Inve
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0049 Part 5 of 5 Defendant Pfp Dorsey Inve
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0050 Defendant Pfp Dorsey Investments L
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0051 Defendant Dorsey Place Condominiu
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0052 Defendant Dorsey Place Condominiu
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0053 Credit Memo
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0054 Credit Memo
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0055 Notice Of Plaintiffs First Extenst
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0056 Plaintiffs Response To Defendants
Type: Briefing paper
Opposing or responsive paper; compare it to the motion or request filed immediately before it.
0057 Defendant Dorsey Place Condominiu
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0058 Defendant Pfp Dorsey Investments L
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0059 Defendant Dorsey Place Condominiu
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0060 Minute Entry Oral Argument Set 10122020
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0061 Minute Entry Under Advisement Ruling 1215202
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
0062 Notice Of Lodging Judgment
Type: Decision or judgment
Decision document; read it to understand the controlling result before moving to later filings.
0063 Verified Request For An Award Of Tax
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
0064 Motion For Authorization To File Do
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
0065 Part 1 of 3 Defendant Pfp Dorsey Inve
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0066 Part 2 of 3 Defendant Pfp Dorsey Inve
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0067 Part 3 of 3 Defendant Pfp Dorsey Inve
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0068 Part 1 of 2 Affidavit Of Nicholas Nog
Type: Declaration or affidavit
Witness statement submitted under oath or declaration; its assertions are evidence offered by a party, not court findings.
0069 Part 2 of 2 Affidavit Of Nicholas Nog
Type: Declaration or affidavit
Witness statement submitted under oath or declaration; its assertions are evidence offered by a party, not court findings.
0070 Part 1 of 4 Defendant Forsey Place Co
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0072 Part 3 of 4 Defendant Forsey Place Co
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0073 Part 4 of 4 Defendant Forsey Place Co
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0074 Part 1 of 2 Defendant Dorsey Place Co
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0075 Part 2 of 2 Defendant Dorsey Place Co
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0076 Plaintiffs Opposition To Defendan
Type: Briefing paper
Opposing or responsive paper; compare it to the motion or request filed immediately before it.
0077 Notice Of First Extension Of Time To
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0078 Part 1 of 2 Pfp Dorsey Investments Ll
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0079 Part 2 of 2 Pfp Dorsey Investments Ll
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0080 Defendant Dorsey Place Condominiu
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0081 Order Granting Motion To File Under
Type: Court order/minute entry
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
0082 Minute Entry Order Entered By Court 02222021
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
0083 Notice Of Lodging Of Itemized Billi
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0085 Minute Entry Ruling 03152021
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
0086 Judgment
Type: Decision or judgment
Decision document; read it to understand the controlling result before moving to later filings.
0087 Judgment
Type: Decision or judgment
Decision document; read it to understand the controlling result before moving to later filings.
0088 Notice Of Lodging Amended Proposed
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0089 Notice Of Appeal
Type: Procedural/service filing
Moves the dispute into appellate or judicial-review procedure; use it to track the next forum.
0090 Judgment
Type: Decision or judgment
Decision document; read it to understand the controlling result before moving to later filings.
0091 Notice Of Appeal
Type: Procedural/service filing
Moves the dispute into appellate or judicial-review procedure; use it to track the next forum.
0092 Stipulated Motion To Dimisssic Pla
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
0000 Notice Of Payment Of Filing Fee
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0001 Certificate Of Service
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0000 Motion For Procedural Order To Exte
Type: Court order/minute entry
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
0001 Certificate Of Service
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0000 Order Extending Time To File Case Ma
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
0000 Appellate Clerk Notice Re Appellee
Type: Procedural/service filing
Moves the dispute into appellate or judicial-review procedure; use it to track the next forum.
0000 Appellee Pfp Dorsey Investments Ll
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0001 Certificate Of Service
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0000 Notice Of Substitution Of Counsel
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0000 Unopposed Motion For Extension Of T
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
0001 Certificate Of Service
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0000 Order Extending Time To File Openin
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
0000 Case Management Statement
Type: Court/source PDF
Case-management filing; it tells the court how the parties propose to schedule and manage the case.
0000 Notice Of Filing Transcript
Type: Procedural/service filing
Adds hearing transcript material to the record for later review or appeal.
0000 Reporters Transcript 12152020 Vir
Type: Court/source PDF
Adds hearing transcript material to the record for later review or appeal.
0001 Certificate Of Service
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0000 Notice Of Change In Firm Name Firm AD
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0001 Certificate Of Service Of Notice Of
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0000 Opening Brief And Appendix Of Plain
Type: Briefing paper
Opening merits brief; this is where the appellant or moving party frames the legal argument.
0000 Request For Oral Argument
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
0001 Certificate Of Compliance
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0001 Certificate Of Service
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0000 Answering Brief Of Defendantsappe
Type: Responsive pleading
Responding party's first substantive response to the complaint or petition.
0001 Certificate Of Compliance
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0002 Certificate Of Service
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0000 Unopposed Motion For Extension Of T
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
0001 Certificate Of Service
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0000 Order Extending Time To File Reply B
Type: Court order/minute entry
Reply paper; usually the final written response before the court takes the issue under advisement.
0000 Reply Brief Of Plaintiffsappellan
Type: Briefing paper
Reply paper; usually the final written response before the court takes the issue under advisement.
0001 Certificate Of Compliance
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0002 Certificate Of Service
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0000 Order Granting Request For Oral Arg
Type: Court order/minute entry
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
0000 Brief Amicus Curiae Of Pacific Lega
Type: Briefing paper
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0000 Motion For Leave To File Brief Amicu
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
0001 Certificate Of Compliance
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0001 Declaration Of Service
Type: Declaration or affidavit
Witness statement submitted under oath or declaration; its assertions are evidence offered by a party, not court findings.
0002 Declaration Of Service
Type: Declaration or affidavit
Witness statement submitted under oath or declaration; its assertions are evidence offered by a party, not court findings.
0000 Div 1 Memorandum Requesting Additi
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
0093 Court Of Appeals Receipt
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0094 Electronic Index Of Record
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0095 Court Of Appeals Appellate Clerk No
Type: Court/source PDF
Moves the dispute into appellate or judicial-review procedure; use it to track the next forum.
0096 Notice Of Change In Firm Name Firm AD
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0097 Court Of Appeals Memorandum Dated 1
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0000 Certificate Of Serviceduplicate
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0000 Defendantsappellees Pfp Dorsey In
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0000 Reply In Support Of Pacific Legal Fo
Type: Briefing paper
Reply paper; usually the final written response before the court takes the issue under advisement.
0001 Declaration Of Service
Type: Declaration or affidavit
Witness statement submitted under oath or declaration; its assertions are evidence offered by a party, not court findings.
0000 Order Accepting Amicus Curiae Brie
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
0000 Notice Of Oral Argument Request For
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
0000 Return Receipt For Notice Of Oral Ar
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0000 Response Brief To Amicus Curiae Of P
Type: Briefing paper
Opposing or responsive paper; compare it to the motion or request filed immediately before it.
0001 Certificate Of Compliance
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0002 Certificate Of Service
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0000 Return Receipt For Notice Of Oral Ar
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0000 Return Receipt For Notice Of Oral Ar 2
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0001 Certificate Of Service
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0000 Memorandum Judge Cattani For Judge
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0000 Sign-in Sheetcase Is Under Adviseme
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0000 Order For Additional Briefing
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
0000 Order Re Supplemental Authority
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
0000 Additional Briefing Of Defendants
Type: Briefing paper
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0000 Supplemental Brief Of Plaintiffsa
Type: Briefing paper
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0001 Certificate Of Compliance
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0001 Certificate Of Compliance 2
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0002 Certificate Of Service
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0002 Certificate Of Service 2
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0000 Reply In Support Of The Additional B
Type: Briefing paper
Reply paper; usually the final written response before the court takes the issue under advisement.
0000 Response Of Plaintiffsappellants
Type: Briefing paper
Opposing or responsive paper; compare it to the motion or request filed immediately before it.
0001 Certificate Of Compliance
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0001 Certificate Of Compliance 2
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0002 Certificate Of Service
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0002 Certificate Of Service 2
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0000 Enotification Of Opinion
Type: Decision or judgment
Decision document; read it to understand the controlling result before moving to later filings.
0000 Opinion
Type: Decision or judgment
Opinion holding that the Arizona Supreme Court held that a forced sale following a supermajority condominium termination under A.R.S. § 33-1228 does not violate the eminent-domain (private-takings) provision of the Arizona Constitution as applied to owners who agreed to a recorded declaration incorporating the Condominium Act.
0000 Opinion Distribution List
Type: Decision or judgment
Decision document; read it to understand the controlling result before moving to later filings.
0000 Application For Attorneys Fees
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
0000 Statement Of Costs
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0001 Certificate Of Service
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0002 Declaration Of Eric M Fraser In Supp
Type: Declaration or affidavit
Witness statement submitted under oath or declaration; its assertions are evidence offered by a party, not court findings.
0000 Defendantsappellees Pfp Dorsey In
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0001 Certificate Of Compliance
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0002 Certificate Of Service
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0000 Defendantsappellees Pfp Dorsey In
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0000 Defendantsappellees Pfp Dorsey In 2
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0001 Certificate Of Service
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0001 Certificate Of Service 2
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0002 Exhibit 1
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0000 Unopposed Motion For Extension Of T
Type: Motion/application
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
0001 Certificate Of Service
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0000 Reply In Support Of Application For
Type: Motion/application
Reply paper; usually the final written response before the court takes the issue under advisement.
0001 Certificate Of Service
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0002 Declaration Of Eric M Fraser In Supp
Type: Declaration or affidavit
Witness statement submitted under oath or declaration; its assertions are evidence offered by a party, not court findings.
0000 Order Denying Motion For Reconside
Type: Court order/minute entry
A request for a specific ruling or procedural action; the next document is often a response or order.
0000 Email Notice From Asc Re Petition Fo
Type: Procedural/service filing
Procedural filing that documents service, appearance, compliance, or a required notice step.
0000 Div 1 Transmittal Of Partial Record
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0000 Letter From Asc 08232023 Re Petitio
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0000 Letter Transmitting Entire Record
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
0000 Supreme Court Opinion
Type: Decision or judgment
Opinion holding that the Arizona Supreme Court held that a forced sale following a supermajority condominium termination under A.R.S. § 33-1228 does not violate the eminent-domain (private-takings) provision of the Arizona Constitution as applied to owners who agreed to a recorded declaration incorporating the Condominium Act.
0000 Asc Order Filed 05162024 Re Awardin
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
0000 Asc Order Filed 05292024 Re Denying
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
0000 Supreme Court Decision Order
Type: Decision or judgment
Decision holding that the Arizona Supreme Court held that a forced sale following a supermajority condominium termination under A.R.S. § 33-1228 does not violate the eminent-domain (private-takings) provision of the Arizona Constitution as applied to owners who agreed to a recorded declaration incorporating the Condominium Act.
FAQ
Is Cao v. PFP Dorsey Investments binding precedent in Arizona?
Yes. The controlling decision is now the Arizona Supreme Court’s published opinion, Cao v. PFP Dorsey Investments, LLC, 257 Ariz. 82 (2024), which vacated the earlier Court of Appeals decision. The Supreme Court’s opinion is binding statewide; the 2022 Court of Appeals opinion is no longer good law.
Can a supermajority investor force minority condo owners to sell their units?
Under A.R.S. § 33-1228, a supermajority can vote to terminate a condominium. The Supreme Court held this forced sale does not violate Arizona’s constitutional ban on takings for private use, because the owners agreed to the recorded Declaration, which incorporates the Condominium Act. However, the Court held the statute requires the sale of the entire condominium upon termination — not the sale of only the holdout owners’ individual unit.
Did the unit owners win or lose?
It was a split result. The owners (Jie Cao and Haining ‘Frazer’ Xia) lost their constitutional eminent-domain argument but won on the statutory ground: because only their unit was force-sold while the investor kept the other 90 units, the sale was improper under § 33-1228. The case was remanded, and a later order limited the remaining issue to the fair market value of their unit as their total compensation.
What did the August 2025 Supreme Court order decide?
In a per curiam order (No. CV-25-0071-PR, Aug. 20, 2025), the Court clarified its mandate: the superior court was affirmed, the sole remaining issue is the fair market value of the owners’ unit (paid as their total compensation), and the matter was remanded for final and binding arbitration under A.R.S. § 33-1228 and the Condominium Termination Agreement.
What happened to the Court of Appeals' 'older statute governs' reasoning?
The Supreme Court rejected it. The Court of Appeals had held that the 1986 version of § 33-1228 governed because the owners bought before the 2018 amendments. The Supreme Court disagreed: the Declaration incorporated the Condominium Act ‘as amended from time to time,’ that amendment was anticipated, and Kalway v. Calabria Ranch did not apply because the Declaration itself was never amended — so the 2018 version of the statute applied.
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 | 257 Ariz. 82, 545 P.3d 459 (2024) |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Arizona Supreme Court |
| Decision / key date | March 22, 2024 |
| Judge / panel | Justice Clint Bolick (author), Chief Justice Robert M. Brutinel, Vice Chief Justice Ann A. Scott Timmer, Justice John R. Lopez IV, Justice James P. Beene, Justice William G. Montgomery, Justice Kathryn H. King |
| Parties | Jie Cao and Haining 'Frazer' Xia (condominium unit owners) v. PFP Dorsey Investments, LLC (majority investor) and Dorsey Place Condominium Association (homeowners association) |
| Governing law |
|
| Topics | CC&RsBoard GovernanceProcedureAttorney Fees |
| Outcome / holding | The Arizona Supreme Court held that a forced sale following a supermajority condominium termination under A.R.S. § 33-1228 does not violate the eminent-domain (private-takings) provision of the Arizona Constitution as applied to owners who agreed to a recorded declaration incorporating the Condominium Act. However, the Court also held that, under these circumstances, § 33-1228 required the sale of the entire condominium upon termination, not the sale of only the minority owners' individual unit. It vacated the Court of Appeals' decision, affirmed the superior court except as to that issue, and remanded. |
| Primary public source | View source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Reviewed source package | 193 PDFs |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 48 roadmap entries |
| Video overview | Cao v. PFP Dorsey Investments |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 5 questions |
| Featured download links | 4 download links |
Key Issues & Findings
Jie Cao and Haining 'Frazer' Xia owned one of 96 units at Dorsey Place Condominiums. After PFP Dorsey Investments acquired 90 units (about 94% of the vote), it invoked A.R.S. § 33-1228 to terminate the condominium and force the sale of the remaining minority units to itself. The Xias sued, arguing the forced sale was an unconstitutional private taking. The superior court dismissed the complaint; the Court of Appeals reversed on a statutory-retroactivity theory. The Arizona Supreme Court vacated that decision. It held the forced sale did not violate Arizona's eminent-domain clause, because the owners agreed to the recorded Declaration incorporating the Condominium Act, but it also held that § 33-1228 required selling the entire condominium, not just the holdout unit. It remanded; a later 2025 order limited the remaining issue to the unit's fair market value as the owners' total compensation, to be fixed by binding arbitration.
Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Bolick first addressed the constitutional challenge. The Xias argued that A.R.S. § 33-1228 — which lets a supermajority terminate a condominium and force the sale of objecting owners' units — authorized an unconstitutional taking of private property for private use under Article 2, Section 17 of the Arizona Constitution. The Court disagreed. The sale authority derived not from the State's eminent-domain power but from the recorded Declaration, a contract to which the Xias voluntarily agreed when they purchased their unit; the Declaration expressly submitted the property to the Condominium Act and provided for partition upon dissolution. Because the arrangement was contractual, it was not a governmental taking.
The Court then held, however, that the forced sale as carried out was not authorized by the statute. Termination under § 33-1228 required the sale of all of the condominium property, not the sale of individual holdout units while the terminating owner retained the rest. Here PFP Dorsey force-sold only the Xias' unit and kept the other ninety units, which the statute did not permit. The Court therefore vacated the Court of Appeals' decision, affirmed the superior court except as to this issue (Part II of the opinion), and remanded.
Finally, the Court rejected the Court of Appeals' premise that an older (1986) version of the statute governed because the Xias purchased before the 2018 amendments. The Declaration incorporated the Condominium Act 'as amended from time to time,' so the possibility of statutory amendment was anticipated; Kalway v. Calabria Ranch — which barred unforeseen amendments to a declaration itself — did not apply because the Declaration was never amended, only the incorporated statutes were. Accordingly, the 2018 version of § 33-1228 controlled. On remand the parties disputed the scope of the mandate, and in a per curiam order dated August 20, 2025 (No. CV-25-0071-PR), the Supreme Court clarified that the superior court was affirmed, the only remaining issue is the fair market value of the Xias' unit as their total compensation, and the matter must proceed to final and binding arbitration under § 33-1228 and the Condominium Termination Agreement.
For Arizona condominium owners, associations, and investors, this decision sets the ground rules for 'bulk buyout' terminations. It confirms that a supermajority may use A.R.S. § 33-1228 to terminate a condominium and that the resulting forced sale is not an unconstitutional taking, because owners agree to the Condominium Act through their recorded declaration. Investors cannot defeat a buyout simply by labeling it a private taking.
But the decision also imposes a critical limit: on termination, the statute requires selling the entire condominium, not cherry-picking and force-selling only holdout units while the majority owner keeps the rest. And owners who are bought out are entitled to the fair market value of their unit as total compensation, which — per the Court's 2025 order — may be fixed through binding arbitration under the termination agreement. Boards and counsel structuring a termination must follow the whole-property sale mechanism and a defensible valuation process, or risk having the sale undone.