Author: HOAGOV

Excerpt from letter to California’s Law Review Commission.

In Memorandum 2006-25, Dispute Resolution has been introduced as a new area of concern, still without first establishing those rights belonging to the homeowners, and those prohibitions on the restriction and denial of those rights by the association board or state laws. In other words, the Homeowners Bill of Rights is still placed on “Reserved” status. What I find alarming in MM06-25 is the determinations by CLRC of the existing methods of justice and due process for homeowners: civil action without any state involvement.

Civil Action to Enforce Governing Documents
Section 1354 provides for judicial enforcement of an association’s governing documents. That section is continued without substantive change in proposed Section 5125.

Civil Action to Enforce Statutory CID Law
In order to provide clear guidance on the issue, proposed Section 5130 would authorize a civil action to enforce any provision of the Davis-Stirling Act.

Where is the State of California in this entire affair? It has imposed the Davis-Stirling Act on homeowners that permits the taking of his home for sums that are often a fraction of the value of the home lost in foreclosure. That also sanctions and makes legal actions by associations boards that place restrictions on a citizen’s constitutional rights without appropriate due process. What the state offers, instead, is a civil action — a “leave me out of it, but obey the law” attitude with no bill of rights protections for the homeowner. This can no longer be tolerated if America and California are to continue to lie claim to be democratic, the land of equal laws where fundamental rights and freedoms are guaranteed. Civil action amounts to a bar against justice much as the imposition of poll tax in the South in the 1950s used to prevent blacks from registering to vote. Justice for the average homeowner cannot be had a price which he cannot afford while the association is allowed to use member dues to hire a lawyer. Why not provide a law that the associations must subject themselves not to a general Ombudsman fee, but to fee for a general litigation fund for homeowners to fight association abuse?

The complete letter can be found at CLRC.

Excerpt from letter to California’s Law Review Commission.

In Memorandum 2006-25, Dispute Resolution has been introduced as a new area of concern, still without first establishing those rights belonging to the homeowners, and those prohibitions on the restriction and denial of those rights by the association board or state laws. In other words, the Homeowners Bill of Rights is still placed on “Reserved” status. What I find alarming in MM06-25 is the determinations by CLRC of the existing methods of justice and due process for homeowners: civil action without any state involvement.

Civil Action to Enforce Governing Documents
Section 1354 provides for judicial enforcement of an association’s governing documents. That section is continued without substantive change in proposed Section 5125.

Civil Action to Enforce Statutory CID Law
In order to provide clear guidance on the issue, proposed Section 5130 would authorize a civil action to enforce any provision of the Davis-Stirling Act.

Where is the State of California in this entire affair? It has imposed the Davis-Stirling Act on homeowners that permits the taking of his home for sums that are often a fraction of the value of the home lost in foreclosure. That also sanctions and makes legal actions by associations boards that place restrictions on a citizen’s constitutional rights without appropriate due process. What the state offers, instead, is a civil action — a “leave me out of it, but obey the law” attitude with no bill of rights protections for the homeowner. This can no longer be tolerated if America and California are to continue to lie claim to be democratic, the land of equal laws where fundamental rights and freedoms are guaranteed. Civil action amounts to a bar against justice much as the imposition of poll tax in the South in the 1950s used to prevent blacks from registering to vote. Justice for the average homeowner cannot be had a price which he cannot afford while the association is allowed to use member dues to hire a lawyer. Why not provide a law that the associations must subject themselves not to a general Ombudsman fee, but to fee for a general litigation fund for homeowners to fight association abuse?

The complete letter can be found at CLRC.

The report referred to in the eEditorial of April 20, 2006, National Lobbyist for HOA Principalities, has been substantially expanded and revised.

Read the Report.

This has been a ground breaking session for homeowner advocates with the Legislature passing three substantive HOA reform bills, all signed by Governor Napolitano. Senate bills SB1007 and SB1008, sponsored by Senator Waring, and House bill, HB2824, sponsored by Representatives Farnsworth and Gorman provide important due process protections for homeowners.

Among other things, SB1007/1008 would require the HOA to provide the homeowner with a “bill of particulars” regarding alleged violations, including any witnesses and other supporting documents. The home owner must file a certified letter seeking this information, if not provided. The HOA is prohibited from taking any action unless it complies with what amounts to a “mandatory disclosure” of its allegations.

HB2824 allows the homeowner to take his complaint to the Office of Administrative Hearings for adjudication in a laid-back environment where those Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply. These rules have been used as defensive tactics by HOA attorneys against homeowners representing themselves. This process should help homeowners to receive justice in many instances of HOA board abuse of the law and of the governing documents that are found in all those media headlines.

This legislation should serve as a model to the legislatures of others states that the time has come to restore homeowner rights and to stop protecting the business interests of the special interests.

Is it clear to all that when these associations of associations, and the national lobbying trade group, CAI, contact the government that they are not speaking for the homeowners, but a distinct class of HOA membership and as a vendor, a hired-hand? Is it clear that no membership meeting was conducted electing representative and platforms to take before the various governmental commissions and agencies? As we would expect in a truly democratic process that takes place with our public elections? Is it clear that association board members are not the representatives of the homeowners, especially when those CC&Rs do not grant the boards any such powers? To presume that these powers are “implied powers” stretches the imagination; after all, the homeowner still thinks he bought a private home, period.

Is it clear that there is a movement to adopt the undemocratic, authoritarian private constitutions as state imposed constitutions or charters, not subject to the states’ municipality laws, and being promoted as uniform association laws under the model Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act (UCIOA)? UCIOA does not require constitutional protections for these de facto territorial governments! The legislatures in the states of New Jersey, Texas, Colorado, Maryland and Nevada, just to name a few, are considering imposing what is not just a real estate issue, as the promoters would have you believe, but constitutional government and the application of the US Bill of Rights issues. Not one promoter of planned communities or homeowners associations is an authority on political science or government, but just have land planning and real estate backgrounds. And this is not just an accidental oversight, but the deliberate and planned marketing of a defective concept under the American system of government.

What is happening to America? The states must stop protecting homeowners associations and hold their boards and agents, accountable as any other form of government within the United States.