Tag Archives: board-governance

Xia v. Dorsey Place Condominium Assn: ADRE Review and Parallel Litigation (LC2021-000258)

Posted on by

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.

Download JRAD decision affirming ADRE dismissal Download minute entry coordinating with appellate mandate Source-file index FAQ

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.

Audio overview generated with Google NotebookLM from the case’s court filings.

Procedural timeline

2020-09-21

Haining Xia files a Homeowners Association Dispute Process Petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate regarding Dorsey Place Condominiums.

2021-07-14

ADRE ALJ issues decision dismissing petition for lack of competent documentary evidence.

2021-09-22

Xia appeals administrative dismissal to Maricopa County Superior Court (LC2021-000258).

2022-08-25

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.

Download source
Minute Entry On Mandate In Cao V Pfp Dorsey

View all 6 source documents for this case ↓

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.

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 / citationMaricopa County Superior Court No. LC2021-000258
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateJune 15, 2022
Judge / panelHon. Daniel J. Kiley
PartiesHaining 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 sourceView hosted source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package6 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap7 roadmap entries
Video overviewHaining Xia v. Dorsey Place Condominium Association
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links2 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

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.

Key Issues & Findings

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.

Why It Matters

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.

← Back to Superior Court cases

CBS-136 HOA v. Cohen: Facial Challenge to ADRE Dispute Process (LC2018-000316)

Posted on by

Constitutional Law | ADRE Administrative Appeals | LC2018-000316

After losing an administrative hearing to homeowner Annette Cohen, CBS-136 HOA mounted a facial constitutional challenge against the ADRE dispute process. When Judge Patricia Ann Starr ordered formal service on the Attorney General and legislative leadership, the HOA stipulated to dismiss.

Last updated September 17, 2026. Case: CBS-136 Homeowners Association v. Annette Cohen, Arizona Department of Real Estate, and State of Arizona, Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2018-000316 (minute entries use LC2018-000316-001 DT); related Office of Administrative Hearings / ADRE matter; Hon. Patricia Ann Starr.

Download order on facial constitutionality and state substitution Download minute entry denying motion for sanctions Download minute entry denying motion to dismiss Source-file index FAQ

Scope note: This page covers Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2018-000316, an administrative appeal filed on August 10, 2018. Following an adverse administrative ruling in favor of homeowner Annette Cohen before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), CBS-136 Homeowners Association appealed to Superior Court and mounted a direct facial constitutional challenge against the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) dispute resolution statutes (A.R.S. § 32-2199.01 et seq.). Judge Patricia Ann Starr substituted the State of Arizona as the proper party appellee, required formal service on the Arizona Attorney General, Speaker of the House, and President of the Senate under A.R.S. § 12-841(A), and the association subsequently stipulated to dismiss the appeal with prejudice, preserving the homeowner’s administrative victory. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The Superior Court held that under A.R.S. § 12-908, the Department of Real Estate is not a necessary party to every HOA dispute appeal, but an HOA’s facial constitutional challenge against state dispute resolution statutes requires substitution of the State of Arizona and mandatory statutory service on the Attorney General, Speaker of the House, and President of the Senate pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-841(A).

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • CBS-136 Homeowners Association (Plaintiff/Appellant)
    Homeowners association in Sun City West that appealed an adverse administrative decision and attacked the statutory dispute process as facially unconstitutional.
  • Brian E. Ditsch (Counsel)
    Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, PLC
    Counsel of record representing CBS-136 Homeowners Association.

Respondent Side

  • Annette Cohen (Defendant/Appellee)
    Homeowner who prevailed against the HOA at the Office of Administrative Hearings and defended her victory pro per in Superior Court.
  • State of Arizona (Defendant/Appellee)
    Office of the Arizona Attorney General
    Substituted as party appellee by court order to defend the facial constitutionality of Arizona's HOA administrative dispute resolution statutes.
  • Arizona Department of Real Estate (Dismissed Appellee)
    State regulatory agency that referred the petition to OAH; dismissed as a non-jural entity and superseded by the State of Arizona.
  • Dena Rosen Benjamin (Counsel)
    Office of the Arizona Attorney General
    Assistant Attorney General representing the State of Arizona upon substitution.

Neutral Parties

  • Hon. Patricia Ann Starr (Judge)
    Maricopa County Superior Court
    Superior Court Judge who ordered service on legislative leadership, substituted the State of Arizona, and presided over the appeal.

What happened

Homeowner Annette Cohen prevailed against CBS-136 HOA in an administrative dispute before the Office of Administrative Hearings.

The Real Estate Commissioner denied the HOA’s petition for rehearing, rendering the ALJ order binding.

CBS-136 HOA appealed to Maricopa County Superior Court (LC2018-000316), raising a facial constitutional challenge to A.R.S. § 32-2199.01.

Homeowner Cohen moved to dismiss the appeal, which the court denied because the Rules of Civil Procedure do not govern administrative reviews.

ADRE moved to dismiss itself as a non-jural entity under A.R.S. § 12-908.

Judge Patricia Ann Starr substituted the State of Arizona as appellee and ordered the HOA to serve the Attorney General, Senate President, and House Speaker under A.R.S. § 12-841(A).

Assistant Attorney General Dena Rosen Benjamin entered an appearance for the State.

The parties subsequently filed a joint stipulation for dismissal, terminating the appeal and leaving the administrative ruling in place.

Video overview of the case record

An AI-generated video overview of CBS-136 Homeowners Association v. Annette Cohen and State of Arizona (Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2018-000316). HOA launched facial constitutional challenge to ADRE dispute statute; State intervened before stipulated dismissal. 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 CBS-136 Homeowners Association v. Annette Cohen and State of Arizona. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked records below.

Audio overview generated with Google NotebookLM from the case’s court filings.

Procedural timeline

2018-08-10

CBS-136 HOA files Notice of Appeal for Judicial Review of Administrative Decision in Maricopa County Superior Court (LC2018-000316).

2018-12-19

Assistant Attorney General Dena Rosen Benjamin files Notice of Appearance for the State of Arizona.

2019-03-04

Court enters formal Order of Dismissal following parties' joint stipulation for dismissal.

View all 9 source documents for this case ↓

Complete source-document index

This index contains 9 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.

Source 1 2018-08-23

Administrative Review Orders

Type: Court order/minute entry

Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.

Download source file
2018-08-23_001_administrative-review-orders.pdf

FAQ

What led to the appeal in CBS-136 HOA v. Cohen?

Homeowner Annette Cohen filed a dispute petition against CBS-136 Homeowners Association with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE). The matter was heard before an Administrative Law Judge at the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), who ruled in favor of Cohen. The Real Estate Commissioner denied the association’s motion for rehearing, making the ALJ order binding.

What constitutional challenge did the HOA raise?

Represented by attorney Brian E. Ditsch, CBS-136 HOA appealed to Maricopa County Superior Court and argued that Arizona’s HOA dispute resolution statutes (A.R.S. § 32-2199.01 et seq.) were facially unconstitutional, invoking legal arguments reminiscent of the earlier Gelb v. DFBLS jurisprudence.

How did Judge Starr handle the constitutional challenge?

Judge Patricia Ann Starr held that under A.R.S. § 12-841(A), any party asserting that a state statute is facially unconstitutional must formally serve its brief on the Arizona Attorney General, Speaker of the House of Representatives, and President of the Senate. The court refused to rule on constitutionality until proof of service on state leadership was provided.

Why was the State of Arizona substituted for ADRE?

ADRE moved to dismiss itself as an appellee, arguing it was a non-jural entity under amended A.R.S. § 12-908 and that the binding decision was issued by an ALJ. Judge Starr agreed that ADRE was not a necessary party to every HOA dispute, but recognized that the HOA’s constitutional challenge required state representation, ordering the State of Arizona substituted as party appellee.

How did the litigation conclude?

After Assistant Attorney General Dena Rosen Benjamin appeared on behalf of the State and briefing proceeded, the parties filed a joint stipulation for dismissal. The court entered an order of dismissal, leaving the homeowner’s administrative victory in full effect.

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 / citationMaricopa County Superior Court No. LC2018-000316
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateDecember 11, 2018
Judge / panelHon. Patricia Ann Starr
PartiesCBS-136 HOA (Appellant) v. Annette Cohen & State of Arizona (Appellees)
Governing law
  • A.R.S. § 12-841(A)
  • A.R.S. § 12-908
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
Topics
ProcedureCC&RsBoard Governance
Outcome / holding

The Superior Court held that under A.R.S. § 12-908, the Department of Real Estate is not a necessary party to every HOA dispute appeal, but an HOA's facial constitutional challenge against state dispute resolution statutes requires substitution of the State of Arizona and mandatory statutory service on the Attorney General, Speaker of the House, and President of the Senate pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-841(A).

Primary public sourceView hosted source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package9 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap7 roadmap entries
Video overviewCBS-136 Homeowners Association v. Annette Cohen and State of Arizona
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links3 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Following an adverse ruling by an Administrative Law Judge at the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) in favor of Sun City West homeowner Annette Cohen, CBS-136 Homeowners Association initiated an administrative appeal in Maricopa County Superior Court (LC2018-000316). Rather than defending on the factual record, the association—represented by Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen—mounted a direct facial constitutional challenge against Arizona's HOA dispute resolution system established under A.R.S. § 32-2199.01 et seq. ADRE moved to dismiss itself as a non-jural entity under amended A.R.S. § 12-908, but recognized that the facial constitutional attack required state representation. On December 11, 2018, Judge Patricia Ann Starr substituted the State of Arizona as party appellee and strictly enforced A.R.S. § 12-841(A), ordering that the HOA could not obtain a ruling on constitutionality without formally serving its brief on the Arizona Attorney General, Speaker of the House, and President of the Senate. Facing formal state intervention and rigorous review, the association subsequently entered a stipulation for dismissal, leaving the homeowner's administrative victory standing.

Key Issues & Findings

Under amended A.R.S. § 12-908, an administrative agency is no longer an indispensable party to every judicial review proceeding between private litigants (Lewis v. Arizona State Personnel Board). Because the binding decision before the court was issued by an Administrative Law Judge under A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B) after the Commissioner denied rehearing, ADRE was entitled to dismissal.

However, because CBS-136 HOA challenged the fundamental facial constitutionality of the legislative scheme governing HOA dispute resolution, the State of Arizona was the indispensable sovereign entity to defend its statutes. Judge Starr held that compliance with A.R.S. § 12-841(A) was mandatory: any party alleging that a state statute is facially unconstitutional must serve the Attorney General, House Speaker, and Senate President. The court refused to adjudicate the constitutional claims absent verified proof of legislative and executive service. When confronted with this procedural hurdle and the entry of appearance by the Attorney General's Office, the association chose to stipulate to dismissal.

Why It Matters

This case provides critical insight into how HOA industry counsel attempted to challenge the reconstituted ADRE dispute resolution system following the Court of Appeals decision in Gelb v. DFBLS. When homeowners successfully prevail before an ALJ, associations have attempted to invalidate the entire administrative forum on constitutional grounds. Judge Starr's enforcement of statutory service on state leadership and substitution of the Attorney General creates a formidable procedural barrier against collateral constitutional attacks by associations.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Olive Grove Village Association v. Printy: $5,000 Audit Penalty Affirmed (LC2017-000142)

Posted on by

Financial Audits | A.R.S. §§ 33-1243(J), 32-2199.02 | LC2017-000142

When a condominium owner asked three times over about a year for the association’s annual audit, and the association neither completed it on time nor handed it over, the State imposed a $5,000 penalty. Judge Patricia A. Starr affirmed, holding the penalty was authorized by statute and not excessive.

Last updated November 5, 2026. Case: Olive Grove Village Association, Inc. v. Barbara Printy, Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2017-000142 (minute entries use LC2017-000142-001 DT); appeal from the Arizona Department of Real Estate final administrative decision of December 8, 2016; Hon. Patricia A. Starr.

Download record appeal ruling affirming the $5,000 penalty Source-file index FAQ

Scope note: This page covers Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2017-000142, an appeal under the Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions Act from a final decision of the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE). A condominium owner, Barbara Printy, asked her association three times over about a year for a copy of its annual financial audit; the association neither completed the audit on time nor provided it, and an administrative law judge ordered the association to pay her filing fee plus a $5,000 civil penalty. The association appealed, and Superior Court Judge Patricia A. Starr affirmed the penalty in full, holding it did not conflict with the administrative penalty statute (A.R.S. § 32-2199.02) and was not excessive. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

Affirmed. A $5,000 civil penalty imposed on a condominium association for failing to complete and provide its annual financial audit as required by A.R.S. § 33-1243(J) was lawful: it does not conflict with the administrative law judge’s penalty authority under A.R.S. § 32-2199.02, and it is not excessive where the association ignored three requests over roughly a year and produced the audit only the day before the hearing.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Barbara Printy (Petitioner/Appellee)
    Condominium owner who requested the association's annual audit three times and filed the administrative petition; prevailed below and on appeal when the $5,000 penalty was affirmed.
  • Philip B. Whitaker (Counsel)
    Counsel for Appellee Barbara Printy.

Respondent Side

  • Olive Grove Village Association, Inc. (Respondent/Appellant)
    Arizona nonprofit corporation; Phoenix condominium association
    Association that failed to complete and provide its annual financial audit on time; penalized $5,000 by the administrative law judge and unsuccessful on appeal.
  • Jonathan D. Ebertshauser (Counsel)
    Counsel for Appellant Olive Grove Village Association, Inc.

Neutral Parties

  • Hon. Patricia A. Starr (Judge)
    Maricopa County Superior Court
    Superior Court Judge who affirmed the Department's final administrative decision and the $5,000 civil penalty.
  • Arizona Department of Real Estate (Originating Agency)
    State agency whose December 8, 2016 final administrative decision — adopting the administrative law judge's ruling after the Department took no action — was reviewed and affirmed.

What happened

Barbara Printy owned a unit in a Phoenix condominium community governed by Olive Grove Village Association, Inc. Under A.R.S. § 33-1243(J), a condominium association must have its annual financial statements audited or reviewed within 90 days after the end of its fiscal year. Printy asked the association for a copy of its audit report three times — in April 2015, October 2015, and March 2016 — and the association did not provide one.

In March 2016 Printy filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging that the association violated its CC&Rs, its bylaws, and A.R.S. § 33-1243(J) by failing to complete an audit of its 2014 financials within 90 days of the end of the fiscal year. The association did not hire a certified public accountant to perform the audit until August 2016, and it gave Printy the completed audit on October 11, 2016 — the day before the scheduled administrative hearing.

The administrative law judge granted Printy’s petition and ordered the association to pay her filing fee and a $5,000 civil penalty. The Department took no further action, so the judge’s decision was certified as the Department’s final administrative decision on December 8, 2016. The association’s motion for rehearing was denied.

The association appealed to Maricopa County Superior Court, where the case was assigned to Judge Patricia A. Starr. After briefing — in which the association’s opening and reply briefs and Printy’s answering brief were each filed late — and with no party requesting oral argument, the court took the matter under advisement. On January 19, 2018, Judge Starr affirmed the Department’s decision in full, holding the $5,000 penalty neither conflicted with A.R.S. § 32-2199.02 nor was excessive, and entered judgment as final under Rule 54(c).

Procedural timeline

April 2015

Barbara Printy first asks Olive Grove Village Association for a copy of its annual financial audit report.

October 2015

Printy requests the audit a second time; the association does not provide it.

March 2016

Printy requests the audit a third time and files a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, alleging the association violated its CC&Rs, bylaws, and A.R.S. § 33-1243(J) by not auditing its 2014 financials within 90 days of year-end.

August 2016

The association hires a certified public accountant to perform the overdue 2014 audit.

2016-10-11

The association gives Printy the completed audit — one day before the scheduled administrative hearing.

2016-12-08

The administrative law judge's ruling (granting the petition and imposing the filing fee plus a $5,000 civil penalty) becomes the Department's final administrative decision; the association's motion for rehearing is later denied.

2017-05-05

Olive Grove Village Association files a notice of appeal for judicial review in Maricopa County Superior Court (LC2017-000142).

2017-07-14

The court notes that no opening brief has been filed and orders the association to file one within 45 days or face dismissal.

Download source
No Opening Brief Filed
2017-08-18

The association files its (late) opening brief.

2017-10-18

The court sets an October 27, 2017 deadline for Printy's answering brief and says the appeal will otherwise be decided on the opening brief alone.

Download source
Answering Brief Deadline
2017-11-29

With briefing complete and no party requesting oral argument, the court sets the administrative review for determination.

Download source
Set For Determination
2018-01-19

Judge Starr affirms the $5,000 penalty, holding it neither conflicts with A.R.S. § 32-2199.02 nor is excessive, and enters judgment as final under Rule 54(c).

Download source
Record Appeal Ruling Affirming ADRE Penalty

View all 6 source documents for this case ↓

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.

Source 1 2017-05-15

Administrative Review Orders

Type: Court order/minute entry

Minute entry setting service, agency-record, and briefing requirements for the administrative appeal before Judge Patricia A. Starr.

Download source file
2017-05-15_001_administrative-review-orders.pdf
Source 2 2017-05-15

Nunc Pro Tunc Correcting Appellant

Type: Court/source PDF

Nunc pro tunc order correcting the May 15, 2017 minute entry to identify Olive Grove Village Association, Inc. as the appellant.

Download source file
2017-05-15_002_nunc-pro-tunc-correcting-appellant.pdf
Source 3 2017-07-14

No Opening Brief Filed

Type: Briefing paper

Minute entry noting that no opening brief had been filed and ordering the association to file one within 45 days or face dismissal.

Download source file
2017-07-14_003_no-opening-brief-filed.pdf
Source 4 2017-10-18

Answering Brief Deadline

Type: Responsive pleading

Minute entry setting an October 27, 2017 deadline for the answering brief, after which the appeal would be decided on the opening brief alone.

Download source file
2017-10-18_004_answering-brief-deadline.pdf
Source 5 2017-11-29

Set For Determination

Type: Court/source PDF

Minute entry noting briefing was complete and no oral argument was requested, and setting the administrative review for determination.

Download source file
2017-11-29_005_set-for-determination.pdf
Source 6 2018-01-19

Record Appeal Ruling Affirming ADRE Penalty

Type: Court order/minute entry

Record appeal ruling by Judge Patricia A. Starr affirming the Department's final decision and the $5,000 civil penalty, entered as final judgment under Rule 54(c).

Download source file
2018-01-19_006_record-appeal-ruling-affirming-adre-penalty.pdf

FAQ

Does Arizona require a condominium association to audit its finances?

Yes. Under A.R.S. § 33-1243(J), a condominium association must have its annual financial statements audited or reviewed within 90 days after the end of its fiscal year. In this case the association failed to complete the audit of its 2014 financials on time, which is the violation that led to the penalty.

Can the State penalize an HOA that ignores a member's records request?

Yes. A member can file a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, which is heard by an administrative law judge at the Office of Administrative Hearings. Under A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A) the judge may order the association to comply and may levy a civil penalty for each violation. Here the judge ordered the association to pay Barbara Printy’s filing fee and a $5,000 civil penalty, and the Superior Court affirmed.

Does fixing the problem at the last minute erase the violation?

No. The association did not hire an accountant until August 2016 and gave Barbara Printy the completed audit on October 11, 2016 — the day before the scheduled hearing. Judge Starr held that this eleventh-hour compliance, after three ignored requests, did not make the penalty improper or excessive.

Was the $5,000 penalty excessive?

No. An administrative penalty is excessive only if it is ‘so disproportionate to the offense as to shock one’s sense of fairness’ (Schillerstrom v. State). Because Printy made three separate requests over roughly a year and the association responded only after she filed a petition, the court found the $5,000 penalty was not excessive.

The association argued the penalty was too high because the hearing could not have cost $5,000. Why did that fail?

Reading A.R.S. § 32-2199.02 together with A.R.S. § 32-2199.05, Judge Starr held that civil penalties are deposited in a fund that offsets the administrative-hearing function in general, not on a case-by-case basis tied to one hearing’s cost. The association cited no legal authority for its contrary reading, so the argument failed.

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 / citationMaricopa County Superior Court No. LC2017-000142
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateJanuary 19, 2018
Judge / panelHon. Patricia A. Starr
PartiesOlive Grove Village Association, Inc. (Appellant) v. Barbara Printy (Appellee)
Governing law
  • A.R.S. § 33-1243(J)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.05(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
  • A.R.S. § 12-901
  • A.R.S. § 12-905(A)
  • A.R.S. § 12-910(E)
  • A.R.S. § 12-913
Topics
Meetings & RecordsDisclosureBoard GovernanceProcedure
Outcome / holding

Affirmed. A $5,000 civil penalty imposed on a condominium association for failing to complete and provide its annual financial audit as required by A.R.S. § 33-1243(J) was lawful: it does not conflict with the administrative law judge's penalty authority under A.R.S. § 32-2199.02, and it is not excessive where the association ignored three requests over roughly a year and produced the audit only the day before the hearing.

Primary public sourceView hosted source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package6 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap13 roadmap entries
Video overviewNo video embed currently configured
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions5 questions
Featured download links1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Barbara Printy, an owner in a Phoenix condominium community, asked Olive Grove Village Association three times — in April 2015, October 2015, and March 2016 — for a copy of its annual financial audit. The association neither completed the audit of its 2014 finances within the 90 days required by A.R.S. § 33-1243(J) nor gave Printy a copy. In March 2016 she filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate alleging violations of the CC&Rs, the bylaws, and § 33-1243(J). The association did not hire an accountant until August 2016 and handed Printy the completed audit on October 11, 2016 — the day before the administrative hearing. The administrative law judge granted the petition and ordered the association to pay Printy's filing fee plus a $5,000 civil penalty, which became the Department's final decision. The association appealed to Maricopa County Superior Court. Judge Patricia A. Starr affirmed, holding the penalty neither conflicted with A.R.S. § 32-2199.02 nor was excessive, and entered final judgment under Rule 54(c).

Key Issues & Findings

The Superior Court reviewed the Department's final administrative decision under the Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions Act (A.R.S. § 12-901 et seq.). Under A.R.S. § 12-910(E), a reviewing court affirms an agency action unless it is unsupported by substantial evidence, contrary to law, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion; the court does not retry the facts or substitute its judgment for the agency's where factual questions and agency expertise are involved (Siler v. Arizona Dept. of Real Estate).

The association first argued that the $5,000 penalty conflicted with A.R.S. § 32-2199.02, which authorizes an administrative law judge to order compliance and levy a civil penalty for each violation. Reading that statute together with A.R.S. § 32-2199.05 — which directs penalty monies into a fund that reimburses and offsets the costs of the administrative-hearing office — the court interpreted statutes de novo and held that the penalty is meant to support the administrative-law-judge function in general, not to be measured against the cost of a single hearing. The association cited no authority for its contrary reading and offered only its disbelief that costs could exceed $5,000, so the argument failed.

The association also argued the penalty was excessive. An administrative penalty is excessive only if it is 'so disproportionate to the offense as to shock one's sense of fairness' (Schillerstrom v. State), and whether the reviewing court would have imposed the same sanction is immaterial (Bear v. Nicholls). Because Printy made three separate requests, received a different answer each time, and the association audited its books only after she filed a petition and produced the audit at the eleventh hour, the court found the penalty was not excessive. It therefore concluded the Department's order was supported by substantial evidence, was not contrary to law, and was neither arbitrary and capricious nor an abuse of discretion, and affirmed.

Why It Matters

This ruling shows that Arizona's financial-transparency rules for community associations have teeth. A condominium association must have its annual finances audited or reviewed on time under A.R.S. § 33-1243(J), and an owner who is stonewalled can take the dispute to the Arizona Department of Real Estate, where an administrative law judge can impose a civil penalty for each violation. Just as importantly, the decision confirms that an association cannot escape a penalty by fixing the problem at the last minute: producing the overdue audit the day before the hearing did not wipe out the violation or make a $5,000 penalty excessive. For owners facing boards that ignore records and audit requests, the case is a concrete example that persistence through the administrative process can produce real consequences for the association.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Dynamite Mountain Ranch v. Yang: ADRE Appeal Dismissed with Prejudice (LC2016-000528)

Posted on by

Administrative Appeals | ADRE Dispute Resolution | LC2016-000528

After an adverse administrative ruling before the Arizona Department of Real Estate, Dynamite Mountain Ranch HOA appealed to Superior Court. When no settlement stipulation was filed on time, Judge Patricia Ann Starr first dismissed the appeal without prejudice in July 2017; the parties later stipulated to dismissal with prejudice, which the court granted in January 2018.

Last updated September 17, 2026. Case: Dynamite Mountain Ranch Homeowners Association v. Lotay Yang, Sun Strand LLC, and Arizona Department of Real Estate, Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2016-000528 (minute entries use LC2016-000528-001 DT); related Office of Administrative Hearings / ADRE matter; Hon. Patricia Ann Starr.

Download order dismissing appeal with prejudice Download minute entry regarding service of process Download administrative review orders Source-file index FAQ

Scope note: This page covers Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2016-000528, an administrative appeal filed on December 21, 2016. Dynamite Mountain Ranch Homeowners Association appealed an adverse administrative decision rendered by the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) in favor of property owner Lotay Yang and Sun Strand LLC. After the parties reported a settlement but filed no stipulation within the court’s 45-day deadline, Superior Court Judge Patricia Ann Starr dismissed the appeal without prejudice on July 18, 2017. The parties then filed a joint stipulation for dismissal with prejudice on January 16, 2018, which the court granted on January 19, 2018, concluding the litigation and leaving the administrative resolution intact. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

The Superior Court entered a final order of dismissal with prejudice pursuant to the parties’ joint settlement stipulation, terminating the association’s administrative appeal of the adverse ADRE ruling.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Dynamite Mountain Ranch Homeowners Association (Plaintiff/Appellant)
    Homeowners association in North Phoenix that appealed an administrative decision rendered by ADRE.
  • Larry D. Langley (Counsel)
    Counsel of record representing Dynamite Mountain Ranch Homeowners Association.

Respondent Side

  • Lotay Yang (Defendant/Appellee)
    Property owner who defended administrative proceedings and reached a settlement leading to dismissal with prejudice.
  • Sun Strand LLC (Defendant/Appellee)
    Entity affiliated with the real property at issue in the administrative dispute.
  • Arizona Department of Real Estate (Defendant/Appellee)
    State regulatory agency overseeing HOA dispute petitions.
  • Ryan Matthew Krench (Counsel)
    Office of the Arizona Attorney General
    Assistant Attorney General representing the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Neutral Parties

  • Hon. Patricia Ann Starr (Judge)
    Maricopa County Superior Court
    Superior Court Judge who presided over the administrative appeal and signed the dismissal order.

What happened

Dynamite Mountain Ranch HOA filed a Notice of Appeal for Judicial Review of Administrative Decision against Lotay Yang, Sun Strand LLC, and ADRE.

The court addressed service issues regarding out-of-state California addresses for Yang.

Assistant Attorney General Ryan Krench appeared for ADRE.

On April 27, 2017, the HOA notified the court that the parties had reached a resolution and that a stipulation would be filed. When no stipulation was filed within the 45-day deadline the court set on May 23, 2017, Judge Patricia Ann Starr dismissed the appeal without prejudice on July 18, 2017.

The parties then filed a Joint Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice on January 16, 2018, and on January 19, 2018 Judge Starr granted the stipulation, dismissing the appeal with prejudice.

Video overview of the case record

An AI-generated video overview of Dynamite Mountain Ranch Homeowners Association v. Lotay Yang, Sun Strand LLC, and ADRE (Maricopa County Superior Court No. LC2016-000528). HOA appealed adverse ADRE administrative decision, reached settlement, and dismissed appeal with prejudice. 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 Dynamite Mountain Ranch Homeowners Association v. Lotay Yang, Sun Strand LLC, and ADRE. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked records below.

Audio overview generated with Google NotebookLM from the case’s court filings.

Procedural timeline

2016-12-21

Dynamite Mountain Ranch HOA files Notice of Appeal for Judicial Review in Maricopa County Superior Court (LC2016-000528).

2017-04-27

HOA files notice that parties reached a resolution of the dispute.

2017-05-23

Judge Patricia Ann Starr orders that any stipulation and proposed order be filed within 45 days; absent that filing, the appeal will be dismissed without prejudice.

Download source
Minute Entry Resolution Notice
2017-07-18

No stipulation having been filed, Judge Patricia Ann Starr signs a formal order dismissing the appeal without prejudice.

Download source
Minute Entry Case Dismissed
2018-01-16

The parties file a Joint Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice.

View all 5 source documents for this case ↓

Complete source-document index

This index contains 5 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.

Source 1 2017-01-05

Administrative Review Orders

Type: Court order/minute entry

Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.

Download source file
2017-01-05_001_administrative-review-orders.pdf
Source 4 2017-07-18

Minute Entry Case Dismissed

Type: Court order/minute entry

Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.

Download source file
2017-07-18_004_minute-entry-case-dismissed.pdf

FAQ

What was the underlying dispute in Dynamite Mountain Ranch v. Yang?

Property owner Lotay Yang and Sun Strand LLC were involved in an administrative dispute with Dynamite Mountain Ranch Homeowners Association before the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) and the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). Following an adverse ruling, the association appealed to Maricopa County Superior Court.

What procedural hurdles occurred during the appeal?

The HOA encountered difficulty serving the property owner at out-of-state California addresses and local Phoenix properties, prompting the court to review alternative service methods under Arizona administrative appeal rules.

How did the Superior Court appeal conclude?

The parties reached an out-of-court settlement resolving the underlying community dispute. When no dismissal stipulation was filed within the court’s 45-day deadline, Judge Patricia Ann Starr dismissed the appeal without prejudice on July 18, 2017. The parties then filed a Joint Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice on January 16, 2018, and on January 19, 2018 Judge Starr signed a formal order granting it, dismissing the appeal with prejudice.

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 / citationMaricopa County Superior Court No. LC2016-000528
Court / tribunalSuperior Court
Decision / key dateJanuary 19, 2018
Judge / panelHon. Patricia Ann Starr
PartiesDynamite Mountain Ranch HOA (Appellant) v. Lotay Yang, Sun Strand LLC & ADRE (Appellees)
Governing law
  • A.R.S. § 12-904
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.01
Topics
ProcedureCC&RsBoard Governance
Outcome / holding

The Superior Court entered a final order of dismissal with prejudice pursuant to the parties' joint settlement stipulation, terminating the association's administrative appeal of the adverse ADRE ruling.

Primary public sourceView hosted source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package5 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap7 roadmap entries
Video overviewDynamite Mountain Ranch Homeowners Association v. Lotay Yang, Sun Strand LLC, and ADRE
Study / briefing material1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions3 questions
Featured download links3 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Dynamite Mountain Ranch Homeowners Association appealed to Maricopa County Superior Court (LC2016-000528) seeking judicial review of an administrative decision issued under the auspices of the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) in favor of property owner Lotay Yang and Sun Strand LLC. Represented by attorney Larry D. Langley, the association challenged the administrative ruling under Arizona's Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions statutes. Following initial procedural proceedings regarding out-of-state service on Yang and representation of ADRE by Assistant Attorney General Ryan Matthew Krench, the association reported that the parties had reached an agreement to resolve all outstanding disputes. On January 19, 2018, Judge Patricia Ann Starr granted the parties' Joint Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice, formally concluding the litigation.

Key Issues & Findings

Under Arizona administrative appeal practice, parties retain the ability to negotiate settlements and terminate judicial review through voluntary stipulations. Following the completion of service and initial appearance of state counsel, the association and property owner settled the underlying community governance claims, warranting dismissal with prejudice under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 41 and the JRAD Rules.

Why It Matters

The case illustrates the typical lifecycle of administrative appeals brought by HOAs against owners following hearings before the Department of Real Estate, demonstrating how Superior Court appeals frequently serve as negotiating levers that culminate in stipulated dismissals.

← Back to Superior Court cases