Category: Opinion

Posts by GKS

new HOA book — Neighbors At War! by Ward Lucas

Amazon review By George K. Staropoli

This review is from: Neighbors At War! The Creepy Case Against Your Homeowners Association (Paperback)

Neighbors at War! is a refreshing description of what living in an HOA (homeowners association, property owners association, common-interest community or condo association) that the average person can understand. It is not another legal treatise, or academic journal or book, but the writing of an experienced and award winning investigative reporter.

It is a long needed book for prospective buyers of HOA controlled homes or those already living in an HOA. All those state mandated documents do not tell it all, as state legislators are pro-HOA and accept the denials of homeowner rights contained in HOA adhesion contracts.


Ward Lucas ranges far and wide, from questions of constitutionality and denials of bill of rights protections to more down-to-earth issues of HOA procedures and operations. Foreclosure, no fair elections, and kangaroo hearings on violations are examples of the cases and issues that are discussed in easy to understand terms.

I’ve been repeatedly told by legislators that complaining homeowners are trying to get out of a contract, should have read the CC&Rs, and should have gotten a lawyer. And not a word about misrepresentation and fraud.


Do not fall into the trap of Buyer Beware! Read this excellent book and discover what you are not being told by the special interest national lobbying organization formed to protect, not your rights, but the HOA status quo. Neighbors at War! is a must read for informed homeowners and state legislators

Indiana AG given authority to pursue HOAs for criminal acts

My to my surprise I had discovered that a state Attorney General must have specific legislation granting the AG to act against wrongful acts by an HOA.  Homeowners contacting their AG, like myself and many others, have been told that such legislation is needed.  Fortunately one state, Indiana, stepped up to the plate and enacted a law granting the AG to so act (PL 49-2011, HE1058).

Here’s the simply and succinct wording of this groundbreaking law, the first that I am aware of.

 

(b) IC 32-25.5-3-8 applies to all homeowners associations.

Sec. 8.

(a) The attorney general may bring an action against a board or an individual member of a board of a homeowners association if the attorney general finds that:

(1) the association’s funds have been knowingly or intentionally misappropriated or diverted by a board member; or

(2) a board member has knowingly or intentionally used the board member’s position on the board to commit fraud or a criminal act against the association or the association’s members.

(b) A court in which an action is brought under this section may do the following:

(1) Issue an injunction.

(2) Order the board member to make restitution to the homeowners association or to a member.

(3) Order a board member to be removed from the board.

(4) Order a board member to reimburse the state for the reasonable costs of the attorney general’s investigation and prosecution of the violation.

Please note that this authority is restricted to criminal acts and does not permit the AG to get involved in the multitude of civil matters such as, breach of contract, rules enforcement, assessment collections or maintenance.  Basically, it’s about theft, embezzlement, misuse of funds, etc.  However, it is an important move in the right direction of the equal application of the laws and due process protections under the 14th Amendment.

This past August the Indiana AG filed suit against The Harbours Condominiums Association and against board members Kevin Zipperle, Mary Lou Trautwein-Lamkin and Sharon Chandler for allegedly breaching their fiduciary duty and committing fraud.

HOA board mentality and unconscionable CC&Rs rewrites

Homeowners living in HOAs must decide what side of the fence they are sitting on!       Whether on the side of management or on the side of the rank and file homeowner?  There is a major difference as the HOA is not a democratic community government, but a corporate form of government.  And never has a corporate form of government been described as democratic.

The business parallel of “management vs. employees” in HOAs is alive and well. Management represents the HOA entity and not the members, just as management represents the stockholders and not the employees.  Legally this fact is found everywhere.  And the HOA attorney who advises the board and rewrites CC&Rs and amendments represents management and not the interests of the members.  How many times have you seen and heard “for a more productive and effective HOA” and “for the benefit of all members collectively”?   Sounds nice, but the two are not equivalent.  The board does not speak for all the members and that’s why there is member voting.

A most egregious and unconscionable act by the board and its attorney can be found in the broad rewrite of the CC&Rs where liberties are taken in favor of the HOA.  Where the homeowner again unknowingly waives and surrenders his rights and freedoms to the HOA, because the homeowner rank and file does not hire their own attorney to explain the impact of the HOA changes.

An example of how far this unconscionable activity can go involves the rewrite of CC&Rs by an Arizona CAI member attorney firm, and member of CAI’s College of Community Association Lawyers (CCAL).   In the rewrite the attorney deleted “reasonable” with regard to attorney fees and added “all”.  The attorney also did not adopt the “prevailing party” widely accepted standard of fairness, but mandated the homeowner to pay its fees regardless if the homeowner wins.  In other words, even if the homeowner had brought suit against HOA wrongful behavior and wins, he must still pay the HOA attorney fees.  Covenants that are unconscionable and against public policy are held to be invalid.

Additionally, a festering issue at the Arizona Legislature has been the awarding of attorney fees by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).   The attorney uses the term “administrative law judge” as most homeowners would know that OAH does not pay attorney fees.  This blatant “squeeze it by and maybe they won’t notice” tactic is disgraceful.  Yet, in 99% of the cases heard at OAH the HOA has decided to hire the unnecessary attorney.  The HOA should pay for this unnecessary decision.

And yet many homeowners would go along with this “stick it to the homeowner” mentality.   Presumably because they see themselves not as the “homeowner” at issue, and therefore it doesn’t affect them.  But, the rewritten covenants apply to them, all of them.  And it also applies to the directors and officers who believe that this unconscionable conduct is good for the HOA in the long-term, and that it also doesn’t apply to them.  But, unjust and unfair covenants that openly serve the interests of their attorney cannot be seen as in the best interests of the HOA.

Homeowners in HOAs must decide where they stand.  For their rights or for unconscionable conduct and acts of bad faith by the HOA board and its attorney who is not your attorney.

HOA board mentality: ‘because we can’ and ‘because we don’t have to’

How many times has a board member come up to you and say, “Hey, see you’re building an addition?  You know, you need to submit a request for approval before you do anything.  Come on down and let’s talk about it?”  Or, “Our landscapers will be coming by on Thursday to reset the sprinkler timers.”

Why not?  Because it’s the board’s mentality: “Because we can” and “Because we don’t have to.”   This mentality develops, based on my long history in seeking justifications for many outrageous acts by HOAs, from long term indoctrination into hair-splitting the laws and covenants, a parsing of the laws, in the best interests of the HOA.  Of course, coming from the HOA attorneys.  And there are no other rational and legitimate reasons for doing so, or not doing so, especially when good faith conduct is required of officers and directors.

What ever happened to “HOAs create pleasant, harmonious, carefree living, and democracy at work?”  What ever happened to social graces?  Good neighbors?  And common friendship?  I think that the problem lies with recourse to the CC&Rs that must be enforced at all costs got in the way. 

HOAs create an unhealthy climate.  See, Why do people harm others in HOAs?,  The HOA apathy affliction: a political dynamic

 

Police ignore HOA complaints with tragic consequences

This news report addresses the repeated erratic behavior of homeowner in HOA that went ignored and a neighbor is forced to defend himself. Many times I’ve been told that the police would reject complaints of assault, harassment, charges of embezzlement and theft among other complaints. They have adopted this “hands-off” HOAs policy that denies citizens the equal protection of the law.  And, county/district attorneys often tell homeowners seeking to file a complaint to first file the complaint with the police.

Given the widespread reporting of oppressive, authoritarian HOAs acting irrationally, arbitrarily, and violating the laws, the failure of the government to provide practical protections for homeowners in HOAs is tantamount to playing Russian Roulette with the lives of people living in HOAs.

 

Clashes precede man’s killing

“Days before the incident, the homeowners association filed an injunction against Gallik, who had moved in the home in May 2007.

“According to the injunction: ‘He makes verbal threats to the association’s agents and members; walks around the community with a whiteboard chained around his neck stating ‘Death to Southshore Falls,’ has strung clothing lines along the front of the property; bathes in the front driveway and in the dwelling’s gutters to compensate for lack of running water, runs a generator from the front driveway to compensate for lack of working electricity, wanders in the common area allowing his dog to defecate in the middle of the road.’”

The injunction filed by the HOA against the problem homeowner included this statement, “The police insist such assaults and threats of violence are an association matter.”