I have cautioned homeowner rights advocates to be respectful of their legislators as they are the only game in town to bring about HOA reforms. But there come times to hold the legislators accountable for their abuse of discretion and power amounting to violations of the US and Arizona Constitutions, and failure to “establish justice, insure domestic tranquility . . . promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty.” (Preamble to the US Constitution).
Background
Many hours were spent in researching the facts surrounding this bill to determine the real intent behind its sponsorship and the true motivations for its support.
The AZ House GOV committee just passed this reincarnation of the failed HB 2374 by a 6-5 vote (Reps. Kavanagh, Payne, Blackman, Petersen, Rivero and Thorpe all voting in favor of the bill) with the assistance of Senator Borrelli who allowed SB 1094 to be used for a S/E replacement of HB 2374. Their reasons are completely untenable giving 1) the nature of the bill, the misleading assertions, convoluted language including double negatives, 2) unbelievable legislative intent “to clarify” a 1994 bill some 24 years later, and 3) the constitutionality of the proposed statute.
Before proceeding, it must be understood that in 2015 the Superior Court in Anderson v. SCRC held the Sun City rec center, SCRC, to be an HOA.[1] Now, 4 years later, this bill is an attempt to overturn this ruling.
In reading the bill several statements caught my attention. I will explore them one at a time.
First, there is the question of the purpose of “before January 1, 1974.” I cannot find any justification for this date, as prior dates are used to get around grandfathering problems to avoid litigation. Here the bill seeks application to ‘associations” prior to this date, under the same conditions found in today’s bill. However, Sun City was incorporated in May 1968 and SCW in Sept. 1979. Where does 1974 come from?
1. Nature of the bill et seq.
SB 1094 is an attempt to avoid my position that the original Sun City bill, HB 2374, violated the AZ Constitution being a special law for a particular entity, the 2 Sun Cities. The heart of the bill has now become permitting the “voice of the people” to be heard to reject or uphold the PUD statutes in question. In what I referred to as cute, slight-of-hand manipulation to confuse the public, the bill permits a vote of the HOA members to decide whether or not their rec center should be an HOA or not. Say what??
The bill is cleverly worded with convoluted statements containing double negatives[2] or wording amounting to a double negative. “This chapter [regulating HOAs] does not apply [to] a nonprofit corporation . . . that does not have authority. And then adds an illogical approval by the membership to not accept –to reject — the law. It seems designed to cause confusion. Read Subsections C and D carefully.
Further confusing is the redefinition of “Association” to include associations not operating as a de facto HOA to elect to become an HOA and be regulated. Say what?
Each of the 3 sections discussed is a statement that the rec centers, now “harmlessly” disguised as “associations,” are exempt from the PUD Act and regulation by the state, unless an illogical vote by the membership approves obedience to the law — we want to be an HOA — as ruled by the court in Anderson.[3] (This aspect of the bill is covered in more detail in (3) below).
- Outrageous claim of legislative intent
The PUD enabling act of 1994 is a short 2-page, 6 sections Act, of which I have a copy and have read.[4] It does not contain any statement of legislative intent. Its version of 33-1802, Definitions, remains essentially intact, for our purpose here, after 24 years. SB 1094 claims to uncover an error, an oversight into the legislative intent and seeks to clarify it and set it straight. This defense is without merit, plain and simple!
The bill in its new form remains an unconscionable support of a special law for a special, miniscule application for just 2 HOAs: Sun City and Sun City West. Furthermore, by issuing this “legislative intent” the Sponsor claims that it speaks for all the Arizona legislators aside from the 6 House GOV committee Representatives who supported SB 1094
- Unconstitutional delegation of legislative power
SB 1094 does not escape the constitutionality challenge that it is an invalid delegation of legislative authority to private persons, flying in the face of long held doctrine declaring such acts as unconstitutional. This unconstitutional delegation was dealt with in McLoughlin v. Pima County (CA-CV 2001-0198, Div. 2, 2001) concerning zoning restrictions determined by the people. In its discussion the Court quoted from several cases, and for brevity,
“However, it is a well-established theory that a legislature may not delegate it’s authority to private persons over whom the legislature has no supervision or control.”
The bill declares that a rec center (after redefining what an HOA is) is not subject to HOA regulation unless a majority of the owners want it to be as described in (1) above. The people, the homeowners, are making law! That’s a mockery of the law! It is an unconscionable bill that turns the Constitution on its head and grants more freedom to the independent HOA principalities.
It is a very astute political ploy and a surprising acknowledgement of the political and social dynamics at work within HOAs.[5] The legislative mantra, here and in other states, is that the homeowner is free to vote on amendments under the governing documents. The wording of this bill shows that the legislators know better and understand that overthrowing the HOA board is a very high barrier to overcome.
The underlying misleading picture ignores the fact there is general apathy and indifference to homeowner participation, just like with the voter outcome in our general public elections. In short, the likelihood of an approval of an amendment is very small, especially when there would be no lobbying by the HOA board to support the vote. Why didn’t the sponsor construct the bill to seek a positive response by the membership for approval, rather than allowing the law to be changed by the highly likelihood occurrence of a default vote — people not voting. It’s a rigged bill to overturn the Anderson ruling by the court.
Good ol’ fashioned politics at work “here in River City.”
Legal Disclaimer
The information contained in this written or electronic communication, and our associated web sites and blog, is provided as a service to the Internet community and does not constitute legal advice or opinion. We perform legal research and case analysis services, but we make no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained in any report, finding, recommendation or any communication, or linked to this web site and its associated sites. No document prepared by HALRIS or George K. Staropoli is to be considered a legal document to be filed in a court or in a legal proceeding. Nothing provided by HALRIS or George K. Staropoli should be used as a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. George K. Staropoli and no person associated with HALRIS, AHLIS, HOA Constitutional Government or Citizens for Constitutional Local Government are attorneys nor are employed by an attorney.
Notes
[1] Anderson v. Recreation Centers of Sun City, 1CV 2015-012458, Maricopa County (2018).
[2] “Double negatives are two negative words used in the same sentence. Using two negatives turns the thought or sentence into a positive one. Double negatives are not encouraged in English because they are poor grammar and they can be confusing.” Your Dictionary.com.
[3] Supra n. 1.
[4] See Enabling Act.
[5] See The HOA-Land culture (2019). “We must make the injustice visible” Mahatma Gandhi.
HOA Constitutional Government 
I was the first person representing AZHOC to testify against SB1094 and told the Gov. committee the solution regarding Recreational Assocations was simple. Either follow the law, (in this case the courts earlier ruling) or dissolution the recreational association and re create a new legal entity that was exempt from the Planned Community’s Act but not by passing SB1094.
Furthermore SB1094 first created under HB2374 is an example of First an obvious disregard for the 2015 Superior Court in Anderson v. SCRC ruling that held the Sun City Rec. Center, SCRC, to be an HOA. Second this topic goes far beyond just politics as usual to a public act of defiance and flagrant disregard by legislators of both the Superior Courts ruling and to their own oath of office to uphold the law. If passed and SB1094 becomes law all legislators involved and the Governor should be held accountable for creating and “granting special privileges” contrary to the States Constitution to just two housing related Association’s. Finally to be fair HOA members Statewide should start demanding of their Board to have the same privilege as granted to Recreation Associations to not be subject to the Planned Community’s Act, that’s fairness plain and simple. Fred Fischer AZHOC advocate
Good work Fred! We need more homeowner rights advocates speaking with a firm and emphatic voice to the legislators, to the media and to the public that we are knowledgeable, informed and intelligent people not to be toyed with!