Author: HOAGOV

"The Voice for HOA Constitutionality". I have been a long-term homeowner rights authority, advocate and author of "The HOA-Land Nation Within America" (2019) and" Establishing the New America of independent HOA principalities" (2008). See HOA Constitutional Government at http://pvtgov.org. My efforts with HOAs took me to a broader concern that was deeply affecting the constituionality of HOAs. Those broad societal and plotical concerns caused me to start this new blog for my commentaries on the State of the New America.

HOA attorney collusion and regulation of public streets

During the past Arizona legislative session, HB 2153, dealing with a re-assertion that public streets are regulated not by HOAs but by civil government, was defeated by HOA/CAI opposition and a group of HOA special interests, Sun City HOA.   Part of the argument for the bill were the realistic incidents where the HOA fined a homeowner for a car parked in front of his home, on a public street — without any attempt to verify whether the car was owned by a member of the household.  In other words, in a display of gross injustice and a  stark display of HOA power and intimidation, the HOA simply fined the homeowner. (It is well understood that some 90% of the homeowners pay up rather than go to court to fight for their rights).

 What is further unconscionable and irresponsible, and a violation of an attorney’s code of conduct, HOA attorneys would simply “pick up the paper,” file the charges against the homeowner, and of course tack on its fees, and proceed in a flagrant violation of  Rule of civil procedure, 11(A), which states, in part (emphasis added),

The signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certificate by the signer that the signer has read the pleading, motion, or other paper; that to the best of the signer’s knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law; and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.

and the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct, R42, Ethical Rule 3.1 (mimics the above Rule), and ER 3.3, Candor to Toward Tribunal, in part,

(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:  (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer . . .  (3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false.

Is this legalized extortion by the HOA attorney and HOA board, acting together?[i]

While the bill was before the legislature, an on going court case[ii] was taking place, just brought to my attention.  A homeowner was being fined for just such an occurrence.  Both the management firm and HOA attorney are Community Association Institute (CAI) members, a trade group that lobbied against the bill.  CAI advertises as being the leading educator for the HOA industry and HOA law experts.  The Arizona law firm is Maxwell & Morgan where both principles are members of the CAI Community Association College of Lawyers.

Upon being notified of parking violations, the homeowner properly informs the management firm, Rossmar & Graham, that the cited cars are not his, and provides the license plates of his 2 cars (Mar. 28, 2009 email).  Subsequently, the board denies his request to remove the fines.  According to the homeowner, the attorneys continue and file suit, and then remove their claim for the fines.  Undoubtedly, the attorney realized she was in trouble for blindly doing the HOA’s bidding. 

Most egregiously and unethically, the M & M attorney still sought attorney fees from the homeowner.  This is unconscionable and unethical.  The attorney did the board’s bidding, ran up  fees, and then found that she was involved in an unsupportable charge, but still sought her fees from the homeowner.  The homeowner has to pay for the wrongful acts of the board, and the blind acceptance of the suit by the attorney? 

And now we have a former CAI legislative action committee chair, Scott Carpenter (another CAI college of lawyers member), whose firm advises HOAs on possible loopholes in the right of HOAs to regulate parking[iii].   In an inexcusable misstatement of the public parking issue, attorney Patel fails to mention the main issue regarding regulation of public streets by public government, citing only a Missouri case, Maryland Estates v. Puckett, that affirms HOA regulation of its members, but not the public.  His reference to checking vehicle ownership is only made in regard  to the possibility of illegal towing.

The battle for HB 2153 was precisely to prevent such abuse as occurred in the Wigwam Creek lawsuit.  But, Carpenter, in his Arizona Legislative Session blog entry of January 13, 2010, “Authority Over Roadways,” only saw, “If the bill is really about parking, then enforcement of a parking prohibition in a planned community’s governing documents is the enforcement of a contractual provision and does not, in its enforcement, exert any ‘authority’ over the roadway itself.”   Clearly this is a biased advocacy statement regarding pending legislation, and hiding behind the imprimatur of an attorney, not addressing or cautioning his readers about the implications regarding the public who are not members of the HOA.

In my Commentary of April 5, 2010[iv] I stated that the purpose of the prolific advisories/advertisements were “to seek and promote loopholes and technicalities in the law and governing documents that would lead to adversarial litigation.”

Something is rotten in Denmark!  Shame on CAI, Maxwell & Morgan and Carpenter, Hazlewood.   And shame on the Arizona Legislature for seeing no evil in regard to public control of public streets, and for accepting the voice of the CAI attorneys as gospel.

Notes

[i] See, Ethical obligations of attorneys to HOA members.

[ii] Wigwam Creek North HOA v. Fuchs, CC: 2010- 49644,  Estrella Mountain Justice Court, Maricopa County, AZ.

[iii] “Enforceability of Parking Restrictions”, Nikita V. Patel, Esq., July 9, 2010 enewsletter, Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Wood, PLC.

[iv] “How good are the CAI member HOA attorneys?“,  HOA Private Government, http://pvtgov.wprdpress.com.

HOAs as an institution and its impact on society

The common definition of “institution”, for our purpose, is “ a custom, practice, relationship, or behavioral pattern of importance in the life of a community or society”, or  “an established custom, law, or relationship in a society or community.”   The degree or strength of the acceptance of the established custom or behavior pattern often results in the perception that the institution is a concrete and indestructible reality, and not dependent on one’s belief or acceptance of the  institution.  For example, marriage is an institution that has been losing its acceptance in recent time.  

The definition of an institution well applies to planned communities and homeowners associations.  As a result of the failure over 47 years to mount substantial opposition, homeowners associations have become an American institution, an accepted  way of life.  While there were “spots” of protest and informed communication over the years, it was the accumulated effect of the national lobbying organization, CAI, supported by real estate and land usage legal-academic aristocrats writing in their journals and speaking at conferences, that brought about the institutionalization of HOAs.  Homeowners associations  have become accepted as a way of life in our society and culture, and thoroughy ingrained into our society. 

Consequently, it does not come as a surprise that any substantial opposition, such as my commentaries and citations of authorities, is met with disbelief. This is normal human behavior, which occurs with any idea or facts that are contrary to one’s long term beliefs and values.  This is the effect of institutionalization.  

When confronted with facts and hard evidence to the contrary of these long held beliefs, the normal reaction is a defense of the long held belief.  After all, many aspects of one’s life are tied to one’s beliefs and values, and they cannot be dismissed out of hand.  The common reactions are:  You are crazy! You don’t know what you are talking about!  You’re a weirdo!  A radical!  The reaction is to ignore any evidence to the contrary. 

The stronger the belief, the more reactionary is the response to contradictory information.  Defensive arguments offered to retain the long held belief can rise to highly illogical and absurd defenses.  Even legislators are not immune to this aspect of human nature.  Such is the effect of institutionalization on society.   

HOAs became part of our society with the help of the special interests who did not speak, and continue not to speak, of any negatives about homeowners associations in America.  The unspoken alliance of “no negatives” has been thoroughly ingrained into our elected officials, the media, and the public at large.  Just a natural consequence of the institutionalization process.  But, an institution does not automatically carry the stamp of being ethical, moral or just.  Slavery was once an American institution.  Established practices and behavioral patterns just reflect the mindset and values held by a large majority of the society, and we well know societies can go awry from time to time.   

The only rehabilitation therapy is the continued and repeated exposure to the facts, and I mean facts backed by hard evidence, legal authority, and confronting those seeking to maintain the institution’s continued existence in our society.  Such as, presenting the other side of the issue at hand, which, as we know, was often purely propaganda and not the full truth.  (A good example would be the HOA Academy backed by a number of Arizona towns that does not inform HOA members of their limited rights when a suit is brought by their HOA, or provide information about the statutes and the demanding nature of legal Rules of Procedure). 

In time, either the established institution is now seen in a a different and unfavorable light, or society becomes divisive with the supporters taking dogmatic ideological positions, resorting to, essentially, an “I don’t care” rationale.  

De facto NJ private HOA governments granted liability immunity

While reading the NJ Superior Court case, Fernicola v. Pheasant Run HOA[i],  I was surprised to find that New Jersey statutes grant an HOA greater immunity than granted to public entities.  In this case, a homeowner was injured as a result of tripping on an uneven section of common ground sidewalk.  One adjacent slab was 2 inches  above the other, of which the HOA was well aware.  But, this was just one such incidence of an  uneven sidewalk.    The HOA was not found guilty of gross negligence.

Negligence is a wrong under a duty of care doctrine, to which  HOAs and public governments are held accountable.  In short, from my lay knowledge of the law, a complaint must show that a duty of care existed, and that the accused violated that duty resulting in damage to another caused by this failure of care.   In general, public entities are granted either absolute or partial immunity from such liability[ii], under the logic that who would work for the government if all employees were made liable for their actions.   Apparently, to even a higher degree of protection,  this logic was applied to  de facto, private, contractual government HOAs.

Following is the appropriate section of the N.J. statutes.  Note that, once again, the law defers to, and makes legal, privately drafted contractual provisions. The presumption is that all members to these CC&R servitude contracts agreed to each and every surrender of rights and protections.  Note, too, the deliberately awkward wording of subsection (b), which obscures the fact that the HOA has immunity except from any of the enumerated factors.  N.J.S.A. 2A:62A-13 provides as follows:

a. Where the bylaws of a qualified common interest community specifically so provide, the association shall not be liable in any civil action brought by or on behalf of a unit owner to respond in damages as a result of bodily injury to the unit owner occurring on the premises of the qualified interest community.

b. Nothing in this act shall be deemed to grant immunity to any association causing bodily injury to the unit owner on the premises of the qualified common interest community by its willful, wanton or grossly negligent act of commission of omission.

Under real property tort law liability[iii], there are three categories of a duty of care toward others by property owners.  We would expect this common law doctrine to apply to HOAs were it not for special laws for private organizations.  Under tort law, there is not duty of care for trespassers — they enter at their own risk.  Licensees are people you invite on to your property, such as social guests.  With this class, the owner must only inform of conditions that he is aware of. The last class, Invitees are those whom the owner invites on to the property to conduct business, or that has public services, such as a public phone, etc.  The owner has a duty to inspect and to  inform this class of people of any situations that might prove harmful, such as faulty construction, etc.  However, given the above special statute, the HOA has almost no accountability to its member-owners; they would get a better deal from belonging to de jure public government.

IT SHOULD BE CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD that these grants of special privileges to private organizations, as the various state HOA and condo laws can be described, occur without any justifications or consideration being offered to the homeowners as to enhanced rights to deal with any abuse of these special grants.

AND LET US NOT FORGET the wisdom of the NJ Supreme Court in Twin Rivers[iv] that homeowners are protected by the business judgment rule, and not to worry about constitutional protections.  The Court failed to note the this rule was also designed to protect the HOA entity and not the people from abuse, in contradiction to the principles found in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

 

Notes

[i] Fernicola v. Pheasant Run HOA, No. A-2027-08T1, N.J. Super. App. Div., July 2, 2010.

[ii] Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the government can be sued for negligent acts or omissions that need not rise to the level of willful or gross negligence. See Tort Law for Legal Assistants, Linda L. & J. Stanley Edwards, eds. p. 218 0 219(Thomsom-Delmar Learning, 3rd ed. 2004).

[iii] Id, p. 86-88.

[iv] See generally A choice for Americans: the US Constitution or authoritarian, private HOA government.

HOA made no attempt to contact soldier in Iraq before foreclosing

As a followup to the Bogcritics article, While Fighting in Iraq, Soldier Loses Home to HOA,  a June 27th article appeared in the Telegraph Herald (Dubuque, IA), reporting that the Heritage Lakes HOA has hired a PR firm to address all the publicity stemming from this foreclosure.  In short, in dispute are the HOA claims that the assessments were owed before going on duty and when Clauer was on active duty,  and that they never knew he was on active duty.  Clauer’s attorney replied that they never even attempted to call him.

 Not addressing the claims and counterclaims, and adding to the justification for HOAs having the right to foreclose, I wrote in my HOA Constitutional Government commentary, “CAI attorney advises negotiate payments in HOA short sales“,

 I have written repeatedly about the short-sighted, self-defeating, hardnosed position that the HOA does not negotiate and does not give in one inch.  That posture stems from the great fear of a slippery-slope path to a loss in absolute power over homeowners — it would be a seen as a sign of weakness.  How true that is — asking the HOA to face reality rather than to foreclose themselves out of business as the CAI lawyers have been exhorting HOAs to do over the years.

 

And this attitude is reflected in the actions by the Heritage Lakes HOA — we don’t gotta do nuthin’, cause we have the power.

See also the May 2007, Memorial Day: American soldiers are defending a New America, one without democratic protections.

CAI attorney advises negotiate payments in HOA short sales

Arizona’s Ekmark & Ekmark (CAI/CCAL member) has joined the blog world.  It’s chosen vehicle is a Bog provider called Posterous, and his blog is simply http://ekmark.posterous.com — easily confused with preposterous. 

 In its blog, advice is given to HOA boards to be realistic and negotiate for partial payments of debts, as any other organization would do when facing financial problems with a small chance of getting any money out of debtors.  In short sales situations, Ekmark informs the HOA that it must act quickly to get at least some money out of a losing situation, even though it is complicated negotiating process.

 I have written repeatedly about the short-sighted, self-defeating, hardnosed position that the HOA does not negotiate and does not give in one inch.  That posture stems from the great fear of a slippery-slope path to a loss in absolute power over homeowners — it would be a seen as a sign of weakness.  How true that is — asking the HOA to face reality rather than to foreclose themselves out of business as the CAI lawyers have been exhorting HOAs to do over the years. 

 And by the way, what about all that abdication to the HOA attorney to run up attorney fees on homeowners facing financial problems, rather than advising the board to sit and negotiate a sensible payment plan?  What advice can be given HOA boards on how to negotiate a plan.  A failure to undertake this effort would raise questions as to the real intent of the above advice on accepting partial payments. A person may get the feeling that it’s just another attempt to keep at least a part of the attorney fees coming in, since these fees are generally the bulk of the money owed by the homeowner.  And they don’t go to help the HOA!  Don’t you think HOA attorneys should cut their fees, and help be a good corporate citizen?

 What do you say CAI attorneys?   What does your corporate conscience have to say?

 NOW that I’ve said the above,  let us not forget that the HOA has no legal standing in the lender/mortgage contract.  There’s really no reason for the lender to give away even more of its money in this short sale transaction.  The homeowner may still be personally obligated to the HOA for its past debts, but that’s no concern of the lender, is it? So why would it even care about the HOA’s attempt to negotiate a piece of the action?   And if the homeowner attempts to bargain for a larger piece of the pie to payoff the HOA, even partially, he risks losing the short sale.

 No, it appears once again that the CAI attorneys are silently ascribing de jure public government attributes as if the HOA assessments were indeed equivalent to taxes.  You know, taxes must be paid!  But, the HOA is not a recognized legal form of civil government.  It cannot claim such attributes; it cannot demand payment of assessments from the short sale.  Especially without even offering to be bound to the 14th Amendment as all public entities are subject. 

 So, I ask, what is the real motivation behind this interference into short sales advice?