Dear Mr. Weninger,
My name is Haining (Frazer) Xia and we met once 5 years ago in March 2019 when you attended the Dorsey Place members' meeting to terminate the Condominium. I was one of the 6 unit owners who were deprived of their units by the San Diego based real estate fund PFP. My wife still remembered that at the end of the meeting you commented "this looks to me like a private taking.
Since then we were forced into a long and painful lawsuit to get our title back: started from the Arizona Superior Court, repealed at the Court of Appeals and finally ruled by the Arizona Supreme Court. In the past 5 years we have experienced indescribable sufferings, including PFP breaking into our unit by force, throwing out our properties to dumpsters, calling the police to arrest my wife and accusing her of trespassing and putting her in the Tempe jail. All the emotional and financial attritions on us were so huge that at moments we were so desperate that we felt like all the dark forces were surrounding us and every avenue we tried was a deadend.
On March 22, the long awaited Supreme Court ruling was finally issued in our favor by a vote of 7:0 (I am pretty sure you've read the opinion) In the Dorsey Place termination case, PFP intentionally conflated the two-step process and misrepresented the statute to give people a false impression that the majority not only has the power to terminate the condominium but also has the power to acquire the minority's units. In fact, by the statute, though the majority can vote to terminate the condominium, it can not use its majority position to force the minority to sell their units to itself. The sale must be ALL or nothing.
All media reports, either out of misunderstanding of the statute or influenced by big business, were all spreading the double misinformation that, one, the argument was about the twist between contractual right and constitutionality; and two, the AZ law does permit a forced partial sale of the minority's units to the majority. As a matter of fact, it was PFP who deliberately breached the contract as stipulated by the bylaws. To follow the contract means to follow the condo termination statute of 33-1228 which clearly forbids a partial sale. After the condo termination, all residents either become “tenants in common”, or vote to sell the ENTIRE building to a third party for the highest bidding. The Arizona Supreme Court decision made this especially clear: All means All.
This ruling is a landmark decision that has a huge impact on the whole state or even on the whole country. It stopped all predatory condo takings in the state once for all. The whole state was watching and waiting for this ruling, developers and condo owners alike. There are hundreds or even thousands of condo owners who are now relieved to know that they don't have to worry about losing their homes anymore. That is our greatest satisfaction and compensation for spending 5 years and more than half a million dollars in this tough uphill fight.
I know you've been very active at the legislation level to stop this kind of predatory practice in the valley for a long time. I also know that you have authored and sponsored house bills to provide more protections for condo owners. It would be great if we can meet in person to share more about what we experienced so to help you introduce appropriate changes in the condo termination statute.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
Respectfully yours,
Frazer Xia
Mar, 27.2024
Disclaimer:
To The Arizona Press:
All statements in my letter from Xia Haining to Jeff Weninger are true, and I shall bear all legal liability arising therefrom.
