在长达6年的房地产诉讼中，亚利桑那州最高院公然违宪

【作者：Jie Cao】

在过去的六年里，我们在美国亚利桑那州经历了一系列匪夷所思的诉讼，本以为在2024年州最高法院裁定我们胜利后，后续将进展顺利。没想到今年8月20号，州高院发出了一个荒谬的判令（Order），直接违法、违宪。我们相信将这一案件公之于众，能引发对美国司法公正的思考和讨论。

案件所涉及的法条（statute）并不复杂，其内容不到两页纸（亚利桑那州法ARS33-1228）。根据该法条，当公寓（Condo）被终止时，经业主投票决定，公寓可以整体（而非部分）在市场上出售。

2019年4月，我们在亚利桑那大学附近的Dorsey Place公寓的单元被要求出售，而且是卖给控制该公寓多数单元的一家加州房地产基金公司Pathfinder Partners ("PFP")。我们根据州法要求公寓整体出售，即PFP也必须在市场上出售其所拥有的全部单元。但对方完全无视我们的要求，于11月15日将我们的单元在Maricopa县政府进行了非法更名登记。被逼无奈之下，我们于2019年11月20号在亚利桑那州初级法院提出诉讼，要求恢复我们的产权。2019年12月，PFP无视正在进行中的诉讼，直接破门、换锁、损毁、丢弃所有家私家电和个人物品并物理控制了该单元。2020年1月8号，当我在物业办公室与县治安官（sheriff)联系时，PFP招唤Tempe市警察到场，恶意诬告我非法侵入（criminal trespassing)，导致我被捕入狱。

我和我先生于上世纪八十年代到美国留学。本人在退休前曾是纽约州和华盛顿州的执业律师。我们在事情之初曾天真地以为，如此简单的案子只要到了法院，就会轻松解决。没想到一年之后，州初级法院未经提供任何判决意见而粗暴地驳回我们的所有诉求，认可了被告的强买行为。我们因此将此案告到州上诉法院，然后打到州最高法院。2024年3月，我们终于拿到了州高院支持我们的一致（unanimous）判决。该判决认为，州法条33-1228禁止公寓终止时强迫部分单元出售，即2019年的强买是非法的。案件被移送至初级法院重新审理（remand)。

本来非常简单的法条，一个高中生都可以轻松明白的事情，却耗费了我们四年多的时间和数十万美金的律师费，并给我们带来无穷无尽的精神和身体上的折磨。虽然如此，我们还是高兴，以为腐败/无能可能只是蔓延于下级法院，最高院的法官可能还是具备职业操守和专业素质的。但是，我们很快就被狠狠地打脸。

接下来发生的事情，可谓荒谬绝伦。在没有庭审合意（hearing）、没有判决意见（opinion）以及没有任何事实依据的情况下，州高法院于今年8月份下达判令（order），一反去年3月份的判决，认定被告2019年的强买有效。

该判令的荒诞包括2个方面，违反了美国宪法第5和第14修正案对政府剥夺私人财产（private taking)的限制和对审判的程序正义（due process）的要求。只有对产生公共利益的项目，政府在满足一系列法律规定下才能对私人财产进行剥夺和征用（private taking），而对于与公共利益无关的私人财产，政府是无权剥夺的。对于政府无权做的事，政府更无权授权一个私人公司去做。所以该法令是彻头彻尾的违宪和教科书级的政府越权（government overreach)。作为程序正义的一个基本原则，法庭只能就双方向它提交的诉讼请求作出裁决，而不能就没有呈堂的请求作出裁决。我们在州高院所请求的，仅仅是裁决ARS33-1228是否允许部分单元的强买强卖，并没有提及其他诉求。只有在最高院解决了“强买是否合法”这个核心法律问题后，初级法院才会进入对其他诉求的审理并进行事实聆讯及核查，并作出是否和如何给予法律赔偿的决定。但州高院竟公然藐视程序正义，强制终止原本在初级法院即将重新开始的审理，剥夺了我们享受公平审理（fair try）的法律权利。

这一判令，完全违背了最高院自己在2024年作出的一致判决、同时违反了州法ARS33-1228的明文规定，是对宪法所保护的私人财产权的严重侵犯，也是对程序正义的公然违反。至此，在经历了近六年的漫长诉讼和支付了近百万美元律师费后，在没有任何法庭聆讯或事实核实的情况下，我们不仅失去了我们的单元，也失去了在法庭上指证被告违法和侵权并获得赔偿的可能。我们的财产被剥夺，我们的法律权利受到践踏，而这一切都在法的名义下进行。

本案例并不只是我们一家的事，而是事关整个亚利桑那州。在我们之前已经有数百上千人的房产被强占，我们只是唯一敢于站起来说不的一家。我们以为我们的努力不仅可以自救，而且还有益于所有亚利桑那州人民。但我们低估了黑暗势力，我们没有意识到我们所面的并不是只是一家PFP，而是整个房地产业。我们以为面对强大的对手，我们还有法律，但其实法律并不在我们一边，它总是站在能够控制法律的一方。这个案件将对亚利桑那州造成不可估计对损害，正如我们对律师在最后对高院对请求中所言：

“因此，该命令在未来的每一起（公寓）终止案件中都会被引用。它不仅会损害立法机构在ARS33-1228条中所确立的重要保护措施，还会暗中推翻本法院去年在此案中的判决，并损害全州公寓业主的财产权。开发商将完全不受该法规或判决的约束”。

上述案件只是我们所经历的一部分，我们还受到被告的威胁、构陷和迫害，并卷入多个相关诉讼。各种荒谬与心酸，这里无法一一列举。各种房地产基金在亚利桑那州已使无数民众失去家园，然而每一次，警察、法院和媒体都站在他们一边。有朋友说我们是与恶龙搏斗的勇士，但是，我们是血肉之躯，怎能和资源无穷、寿命无限的房地产基金相抗衡？又如何能与把控国家机器的政府抗衡？我们的唯一希望就是能有机会曝露美国司法的不公，也许这就是我们这六年所遭受的磨难的真正意义吧。

为了隐私和避受生活被打扰，我多年一直尽量避免将此案件公布于众，但现在看来，公众才是获得正义的唯一选择。我们希望您能帮助我们一同传播，让更多的人了解亚利桑那州发生了什么，美国发生了什么。为躲避对方和法庭对我们的迫害，我们已经移居亚洲。有兴趣进一步了解的读者可与 rangerc2008@gmail.com联系。

感谢您的关注，希望听到您的反馈。

Jie Cao

2025年9月

Arizona Supreme Court Openly Violates the Constitution

(for immediate release)

Over the past six years, my husband and I have endured a series of unbelievable lawsuits in Arizona. We thought that after the Arizona Supreme Court ruled in our favor in 2024, the process would proceed smoothly. However, on August 20 of this year, the state’s highest court issued an absurd order that is both illegal and unconstitutional. We believe bringing this case to public attention will spark reflection and discussion about judicial fairness in America.

The statute involved in this case is straightforward and less than two pages long (ARS§ 33-1228). It stipulates that when a condominium is terminated, a vote by the owners can authorize the sale of the entire property—rather than just a portion—in the market.

In April 2019, our unit at the Dorsey Place condominium near the University of Arizona was mandated for sale, specifically to Pathfinder Partners ("PFP"), a California real estate fund company that controls the majority of the condominium. We invoked state law, demanding that the entire condominium, including all of PFP’s units, be sold on the market. However, PFP completely ignored our request and, on November 15, illegally registered our unit under its name with the Maricopa County government. Forced into action, we filed a lawsuit in Arizona Superior Court on November 20, 2019, seeking to restore our property rights. In December 2019, despite the ongoing litigation, PFP broke into our unit, changed the locks, damaged and discarded all our furniture, appliances, and personal belongings, and physically took control. On January 8, 2020, while I was contacting the county sheriff from the property's rental office (a public domain), PFP called in Tempe police, falsely accusing me of criminal trespassing, leading to my arrest and imprisonment.

My husband and I came to the United States as students in the 1980s. Before retiring, I practiced law in New York and Washington states. At the outset, we naively believed that such a simple case would be easily resolved in court. To our shock, a year later, the Superior Court summarily dismissed all our claims without providing any opinion, effectively endorsing the defendants’ forced purchase. We appealed to the state Court of Appeals and then to the Supreme Court. On March 22, 2024, we finally secured an unanimous ruling from the Supreme Court in our favor. The court held that A.R.S. § 33-1228 prohibits the forced sale of individual units during a condominium termination, declaring the 2019 forced purchase impermissible. The case was remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings.

What should have been a simple application of a law understandable to a high school student ended up costing us over four years and hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, inflicting endless mental and physical torment. Nevertheless, we were relieved, believing that corruption or incompetence might be confined to lower courts, and that the Supreme Court justices might still uphold professional integrity and competence. We were quickly proven wrong.

What followed was utterly absurd. Without a hearing, a written opinion, or any factual basis, the Arizona Supreme Court issued an order on August 20 of this year that reversed its March 2024 ruling, validating the defendants’ 2019 forced purchase.

The absurdity of this order lies in two aspects, violating the 5th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution regarding restrictions on government taking of private property (private taking) and the requirement on due process. Only for projects that serve a public interest can the government, under a series of legal provisions, take and appropriate private property. For property unrelated to public interest, the government has no authority to seize it, let alone delegate such power to a private company. Thus, this order is a blatant constitutional violation and a textbook example of government overreach. As a fundamental principle of due process, a court can only rule on the claims submitted by the parties and not adjudicate unpresented issues. Our request to the Supreme Court was solely to determine whether A.R.S. § 33-1228 permits the forced partial sale of individual units, with no other claims raised. Only after the Supreme Court resolved the core legal question of the forced partial sale’s legality would the Superior Court proceed to hear other claims, conduct factual inquiries, and decide on legal damages. Yet, the Supreme Court blatantly disregarded due process, forcibly vacating the impending rehearing in the Superior Court and depriving us of our legal right to a fair trial.

This order completely contradicts the Supreme Court’s own unanimous 2024 ruling and violates the explicit provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1228. It constitutes a severe infringement on the constitutional protection of private property rights and a flagrant violation of due process. After nearly six years of protracted litigation and nearly a million dollars in legal fees, without any court hearing or factual verification, we have not only lost our unit but also the opportunity to prove the defendants’ illegal actions and seek compensation in court. Our property has been stripped away, our legal rights trampled, all under the guise of law.

This case is not just about us but concerns the entire state of Arizona. Hundreds, if not thousands, of properties have been taken before us, and we are merely the only ones dared to stand up and say no. We thought our efforts would not only serve ourselves but also benefit all Arizonans. However, we underestimated the dark forces at play. We did not realize we were facing not just PFP but the entire real estate industry. We naively believed that while facing a powerful opponent, we still had the law on our side, but in reality, the law is not with us—it always sides with those who can control it. This case will cause immeasurable harm to Arizona, as was warned by our lawyer Eric Fraser in his final motion to the Supreme Court:

"It will therefore be cited in every future (condo) termination case. It will not only undermine the important protections the legislature established in A.R.S. § 33-1228, but also effect a silent reversal of this Court’s Opinion last year in this case and undermine property rights for condominium owners throughout the stateDevelopers will have zero incentive to follow the statute or the Opinion. "

The above is only part of what we have endured. We have also faced threats, framing, and persecution by the defendants, and entangled in multiple related lawsuits. The absurdities and heartaches are too numerous to list here. Real estate funds have left countless residents homeless in Arizona, yet each time, the police, courts, and media stand with them. A friend called us warriors battling a dragon, but we are mere mortals of flesh and blood—how can we contend with a real estate fund with infinite resources and lifespan, or a government that controls the state apparatus? Our only hope lies in exposing the injustice of the judicial system in Arizona, maybe this is the true meaning of the suffering we’ve endured over these six years.

For privacy and to avoid disruption to our lives, I have long avoided publicizing this case. However, it now seems that the public is our only path to justice. We hope you can help us spread the word, letting more people know what has happened in Arizona and America. To escape the persecution from the opposing party and the courts, we have relocated to Asia. Interested readers or media can contact me atrangerc2008@gmail.com.

Thank you for your attention. I look forward to your feedback.

Jie Cao

September 2025

--------------------------