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.

NC foreclosure bill SB 312 dies silently

I had sought for a representative example of emails to the legislators  and copies of proposed testimony before the hearing committees that I would review and add constitutionality challenges. Having received none from the advocacy group, I found the following event an excellent case to demonstrate the need to apply constitutional law.

A 2023 NC bill taking strong stand on HOA foreclosure rights. It was a bill containing above and beyond restrictions and actions on filing liens for failures to pay assessment.  It was read and sent to the rules committee in March without being assigned to any hearing committee, as is SOP. As I explained in “Understanding the Legislative structure,” the Rules Committee is controlled by the majority party leaders and can hold a bill from being heard, which it appears has happened.

My review and analysis rests solely on the following. The bill had good intentions but lacked any real support or concern from the bill sponsor.  It simply deleted all references in the NC General Statutes granting the HOA rights to foreclose on” dead beats.” I am not aware of any social media or news media coverage of this important bill.

In general, my recommendations on preparing and supporting favorable legislation are presented in Legislative proposals and legal memoranda, but here I apply those recommendations to this bill.

First, in a highly controversial bill as we have here, the sponsor should have included an Intent section that provides the rationale for the need for the bill to be made law. Even if not passed, the Intent section becomes part of the legislative record otherwise silence reigns.*  A host of legal authority failed to be presented to the NC General Assembly that, among other violations, raised constitutional issues of violations of the 8th Amendment against cruel and unusual punishment.

Of particular authority – persuasive authority in the courts – that carries strong weight is found in the Minnesota decision: Supreme Court finds taking excess foreclosure funds unconstitutional. 

“She brought ‘claims under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment.’ . . . Because we find that Tyler has plausibly alleged a taking under the Fifth Amendment [eminent domain] . . . we need not decide whether she has also alleged an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment.”

For a discussion of foreclosure injustice, see HOA Common Sense, No. 8: Draconian punishment and intimidation. Also see the 2019 SC bill analysis, Substantive SC HOA reform bill – end foreclosure.

 “The Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause is an incorporated protection applicable to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. . . .  The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause incorporates and renders applicable to the States Bill of Rights protections “fun­damental to our scheme of ordered liberty.”

Now is the time for all good advocates . . .

The NC legislature is still in session and bills are carried over to the following year in NC’s biannual sessions.  With a strong outcry from NC citizens and advocates the Rules Committee can place this bill back into play by assigning a hearing committee and allowing for a vote; if not too late this session then next year. (See Understanding the Legislative structure).  Support by the Sponsor, Senator Kandie Smith, is a strong endorsement.

The ball is in the NC advocate’s court.

Judicial Scrutiny standards judge claims of constitutionality

Claims regarding the constitutionality of laws are subject to judicial review. Generally speaking, and simplifying matters considerably, courts use three different standards to adjudicate constitutional claims: (1) rational basis review; (2) intermediate scrutiny; (3) and strict scrutiny. The “standard of scrutiny” applied to a particular claim is of critical legal importance and usually determines whether the claim will succeed.  

The first standard — rational basis review — is the most forgiving.  Under rational basis review, a litigant challenging a law on constitutional grounds “bear[s] the burden of proving that it does not bear a rational relation to any conceivably legitimate governmental purpose—even a hypothetical one.”  With vanishingly few exceptions, nearly all laws satisfy this standard.

The second standard, known as “intermediate scrutiny,” raises the stakes considerably.   Under this . . .  a law “must serve important governmental objectives, and . . . the discriminatory means employed must be substantially related to the achievement of those objectives.”  

The third standard of review, which is the most rigorous, is “strict scrutiny.”  Under strict scrutiny, “the government must prove that the challenged law is both narrowly tailored and the least-restrictive means available to further a compelling governmental interest.”  Strict scrutiny applies in areas such as racial and religious discrimination, and it also applies to many claims involving free speech.

# # # #

I have yet to see any valid government justification in support of the HOA legal scheme that deprives citizens of their constitutional and fundamental rights. Some have argued that it eases the state/county’s financial burden as a legitimate government interest. However, the HOA scheme must be reviewed under strict scrutiny as it damages the members’ rights and freedoms. Furthermore, the claim that the member agreed to the Declaration and surrendered and waived his rights has come under criticism as an invalid surrender in the courts.

Source: Constitutional Standards of Scrutiny (link: Supreme Court of Tennessee Blog)

Landmark FL HOA law imposes criminal conduct

FL Session Law, Ch. 229 (2023), “Homeowners’ Associations  Bill of Rights,” adds the following section imposing misdemeanor charges against certain violations for fraudulent elections.

FL § 720.3065. “Fraudulent voting activities relating to association elections; penalties.—Each of the following acts is a fraudulent voting activity relating to association elections and constitutes a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083”

This is a landmark bill that imposes criminal penalties on the conduct of the HOA and all persons involved in fraudulent HOA elections.  Recent court decisions have held the private government HOAs are public entities with respect issues concerning the governance of the HOA.

Criticism of the board’s conduct is subject to the constitutional protections of free speech. The Nevada Supreme Court opinion in Kosor ((Kosor v. Olympia Companies, NV No, 75669 (Dec. 31, 2020))  held that HOAs are public forums and referenced several California opinions serving as legal precedent.

 “[A] unit owner’s association or a planned community association (association) may not prohibit a unit owner or member (member) from peacefully assembling and using private or common elements of the community . . . legitimate and valid criticisms of your HOA and its president and board are protected from HOA lawsuits of defamation and libel.”

I find it incredible that there are homeowner rights advocates who find it difficult to see how challenges of constitutionality apply to private government HOAs. The 14th Amendment, Section 1, in part, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

Understanding the message

My posts — commentaries, annotations, reviews — contain supporting materials that include citations, quotes, analysis of lawsuits, links, and emails and communications of the parties being discussed. Readers should not ignore the endnotes/footnotes that contain these references that are included to better understand my message.

“To succeed you must accept the world as it is and rise above it“

Advocate files AZ supreme court amicus brief fighting unjust laws

We must make the injustice visible.

We must provoke until they respond and change the laws.

(Mahatma Gandhi)

An AZ supreme court amicus brief was filed by Jonathan Dessaules on behalf of the Arizona Homeowners Coalition in CAO v. Dorsey (CA-CV 21-0275) (Waiting for the Court’s decision).  Dessaules argues that the statute in question, ARS 33-1228, conflicts with the Arizona Constitution, Article 2, Section 17, and “a statute cannot circumvent or modify constitutional requirements”.

The intricate legality and constitutionality of private entities—the HOA — taking of another party’s property rights – a homeowners — is discussed in detail.  I frequently quote the brief to ensure accuracy in my review.

ARS 33-1228 “allows condominium associations to force the sale of a nonconsenting owner’s property for someone else’s private use” and is the justification for investors to shut down the HOA. However, “When a state statute conflicts with Arizona’s Constitution, the constitution must prevail.” Furthermore, it is argued that “The legislature may not enact a statute which is in conflict with a provision of the Arizona Constitution.” Consequently, the Legislature lacked the authority to enact 33-1228.

(Stay with it!) The brief goes on to say that ARS 12-1131 provides that “eminent domain may be exercised only if the use of eminent domain is authorized by this state, whether by statute or otherwise, and for a public use as defined in this article.” Public use does not allow for “forcing the sale of a holdout owner’s property to be used by the investor who owners a majority of the other units within the condominium.”

The HOA, Dorsey, counterclaimed that it wasn’t a sovereign and § 1231 doesn’t apply to private organizations, ignoring § 12-1111 that permits individuals the right of eminent domain takings. Consequently, again, it is argued that 12-1228 is invalid.

An additional powerful argument is raised that the Declaration is an adhesion contract. “A declaration is generally a ‘standardized form offered to consumers on essentially a take it or leave it basis.’” And to my long awaited legality, the brief states that “Without the contract even being presented to the purchaser for their signature,” the contract is imposed on the buyer.

Again, we see the  doctrine of “reasonable expectations” as applied to adhesion contracts. “Contracts of adhesion will not be enforced unless they are conscionable and within the reasonable expectations of the parties.” Dessaules maintains that including unconstitutional  statutes in the Condo Act is “substantively unconscionable.” Furthermore, as I have argued many times, “a waiver of a constitutional right is not within reasonable expectations of the parties.”

This is a solid amicus brief by an advocate fighting for HOA reforms to protect members’ rights and privileges.  It does not pretend to accept unjust laws.

* * * *

I would like to thank Dennis Legere, Arizona Homeowners Coalition,  for hiring attorney Jonathan Dessaules to file this important, to the point, excellent amicus brief.