Category: Opinion

Posts by GKS

The role of the HOA apathy affliction in circumventing public policy

In my prior Commentary, See The HOA apathy affliction: a political dynamic, I wrote about the HOA attorney driven recourse to complete rewrites of the CC&Rs that works because of the apathy affliction that is thriving in HOA-Land.  I would like to now add that this approach, in general, is an intentional violation of your state’s public policy.

Public policy is expressed in many ways by the actions or inactions, and statements or non-statements by government officials in the executive, judiciary and legislative branches. What bills are made law or not passed, and the intention of the legislature, when and if explicitly stated, makes public policy. 

In Arizona, for instance, HB 2441 (2011 session) was submitted and aggressively supported by the CAI chapter. It contained, among other things, a provision for the minority control of the CC&Rs amendment process by allowing as low as 33% of the all members to approve an amendment. While the Apache Wells rewrite contains a very vague and loose requirement for amending the CC&RS in contrast to the detail by-laws amendment process, it lacks homeowner protections.  There are no requirements for notice, meeting at which the voting is to take place, no approval requirement, etc.  (The prior 1987 CC&Rs required a majority approval of all the members).  The 50% vote is misleading as to homeowner protections without all of the above in place, as has occurred in the Fourth Amendment rewrite with respect to the minority approval of special assessments (See below and the prior Commentary link)..

10.4. Amendments. At any time this Declaration may be amended by an instrument in writing, executed by the then Lot Owners of more than fifty percent (50%) of the Lots in the Project.  Any amendment approved pursuant to this Section 10.4 of this Declaration shall be signed by the President of the Association and shall become effective upon recordation of the same with the County Recorder of Maricopa County, Arizona. Any such amendment shall certify that the amendment has been approved as required by this Section 10.4.

 

But, when it comes to approving special assessments (Section 7.5 of the CC&Rs), which could be almost any amount like the assessments to pay off an $8.5 million loan for a suspect administrative building in 2007, the rewrite allows for a 25% approval of any special assessment. (The prior 1987 CC&Rs required a majority ratification of the special assessment by all the members).  The point that I wish to make is that the special assessment rewrite is only one example of how minority control fails to protect the homeowner.

Another example is the attorney self-interest covenant, 10.2, Administrative Law Proceedings, which states in part,

In the event the Association is required to incur any expense, including attorneys’ fees and costs, as a result of the direct or indirect actions of any Owner, the Association shall be entitled to recover all such expenses incurred, including all attorneys’ fees and costs, against the applicable Owner, regardless of whether formal proceedings are actually filed, pursued or awarded . . . .

 The public policy of the State of Arizona was made clear in 2006 when ALJs were permitted to hear HOA disputes, and no attorney fees were allowed to be awarded in these hearings. The CAI attorneys managed to have the law declared unconstitutional, which resulted in a reaffirmation of the legislative intent in 2011 to provide for ALJ adjudication without attorney fee.  The intent of the legislature was explicitly stated in the new bill.

 The inclusion of section 10.2 in the Apache Wells CC&Rs rewrite can only be viewed as another intentional slap at Arizona public policy, and one in the best interests of the HOA hired-hand attorney.  The covenant for minority approval of special assessments, given the history of special assessments at Apache Wells, is another act of bad faith and disregard for public policy. 

 The recourse to CC&R amendment rewrites with the reality of the apathy affliction so prevalent in HOA-Land is a devise to circumvent public policy in order to achieve goals and objectives not in the best interests of the homeowner.  The Restatement of Property: Servitudes, Section 3.1, Validity of Servitudes,    “A servitude [covenant running with the land] . . . is valid unless it is illegal or unconstitutional or violates public policy.”  It is only the acts and actions of the people within HOAs that can return them to the American way of life.

 Read the related Commentary, Why do people harm others in HOAs?

The HOA apathy affliction: a political dynamic

Everyone is unhappy with the pronounced apathy among those living in HOA-Land, where the lack of homeowner protections works for the power-elite, the board and its attorney.  CAI has complained many times about apathy when homeowners complain about the conduct of their boards.  CAI also complains how it can’t make “necessary” changes to the CC&Rs to bring them current with the laws.

Because of this apathy, homeowner advocates who are aware of the inequities of their HOA predicament cannot get their good neighbors — those who pay their dues and obey the rules — to support them in their efforts to obtain justice for all members. 

A recent approach being used by CAI in Arizona is to call for the complete rewrite of the CC&Rs to make the HOA a better place, the ostentatious reason, while including even more oppressive covenants and covenants that are highly favorable to the HOA attorney and its income stream.  In order to accomplish this, recourse is made to playing loosey-goosey with the strict Arizona laws for amending the CC&Rs. 

The law requires a written explanation of each and every change being made, which can be cumbersome, but the law is there to protect the homeowners. It’s a cost of making sweeping amendments all at once.  But the homeowners say and do nothing except to sign away their rights as good team players.

The political impact of these sweeping changes is made real by the apathy of the majority of the homeowners to agree to whatever the board proposes with the blessings of the HOA attorney, who wrote the revised CC&RS.  They can affect your pocketbook, your property rights, and your already weak voting rights.

A common change, minority control, was defeated in the 2011 legislative session that permitted minority control of the amendment process, thereby giving the political machine in power basically complete control of the HOA and over its apathetic members.  This political tactic relies on homeowner apathy to succeed.  It removes a vote of all the members and the long held doctrine of a supermajority vote, usually 67%, and replaces it with a majority vote of only those voting. 

Even with a 50% quorum as little as a 25% approval can affect the rights of ALL members, whether they agree or not.  And with the pro-HOA laws and unconscionable adhesion CC&Rs contract, the members will be just pawns in the hands of the board – just pay your dues and shut up, or else!

Homeowner apathy is a serious affliction in HOA-Land.  Under the current environment, it is the homeowner who must stand up and fight for his rights, in the HOA and at the legislature to change the laws.

Read about the Fourth Amendment to the Apache Wells CC&Rs, one real example. Just scroll down.

Columbia Association: the iconic HOA private government ploy to circumvent the Constitution

In the ExploreHoward.com letter to the editor, CA should not be exempted from Homeowners Association Act, the reader is told that this master, master HOA is seeking legislation to have it declared not to be an HOA.  The writer strenuously objects, saying,

The purpose of the proposed legislation is to immediately exempt CA [Columbia Association] from some of the protections afforded Columbia residents by the Consumer Protection Act, and to exempt CA from all future amendments to the HOAA [HOA act]. . . .  The real purpose of CA’s attempted subversion of the residents’ protections is based on CA’s refusal to disclose the annual compensation of all of its employees, as required by the Consumer Protection Act.

The CA attorney’s defense is, according to the letter, “that CA has enough protection for residents in its bylaws and other documents so that statutory protections are unnecessary.”  Didn’t we hear that in Twin Rivers where the NJ Supreme Court said homeowners were protected by the business judgment rule, so no need to get all riled about the loss of constitutional protections?

What is CA all about?  Howard County, MD contains the city of Columbia with its Columbia Association, a mega, mega, master association that resembles a large city rather than a subsection.  Its Pubic Information Guide refers to CA as

A nonprofit public benefit corporation” — which has no legal definition or standing — with “nine villages and Town Center are organized into 10 village community associations . . . . Each of Columbia’s nine villages and Town Center has a community association, which is an independent, incorporated, nonprofit civic association. 

 The Articles of Incorporation, along with the Covenants of the nine villages, provide CA with all of the rights, powers and authority it needs to carry out its purposes. The two documents empower CA to collect the annual charge and promulgate rules governing the use of facilities, the integrity of architecture and aesthetics, and so forth. The documents themselves can be consulted for further information. (Part II, How CA is Organized and How It Works).

 CA has a 2012 budget of over $67 million.

The way this private government works is that the HOAs are mandatory HOAs with covenants running with the land.  In their “Covenants,” CC&Rs for everybody else, there is the tie-in wording granting the non-profit corporation, CA, control over the HOA communities.  The HOAs elect representatives to the CA board.  It is similar to other master private governments.

Since all entities are private contractual arrangements, Columbia Association is an independent principality on the scale of the charter organizations of the 1600s through 1800s.  You may recall two of the most notable enterprises: The British East India Company (operating mainly in India) and the Dutch East India Company (controlled what is now known as Indonesia).

Here and now, CA makes use of the various subdivision HOA covenants running with the land, the CC&Rs, to entrap homeowners into bondage under their de facto but unrecognized private government.  And it has to resort to newspeak by referring to them as “villages” and the CC&Rs as “covenants.”

 

Insurer denies HOA coverage in Trayvon death

This position by the insurer points out that the HOA board is NOT 100% protected for wrongful acts.  Especially for those that are grossly negligent or intentional acts.

Homeowners should step outside the HOA attorney greated box that implies that the HOA can do no wrong, and remember that laws other than those HOA or Condo Acts  also apply to HOAs:  Restatement of Servitudes, tort law, and corporation law.

From the COURTHOUSE NEWS SERVICE Aug. 6, 2012

 

ORLANDO (CN) – Traveler’s Insurance sued Trayvon Martin’s mother and The Retreat at Twin Lakes Homeowners’ Association, where her son was killed, claiming it has no responsibility to defend the HOA or cover the teenager’s death.

Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America sued The Retreat at Twin Lakes Homeowners’ Association and Sybrina Fulton, as representative of her son’s estate, in Federal Court.

The Retreat at Twin Lakes’ Neighborhood Watch captain George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin to death on Feb. 26. The shooting set off a national furor, as police initially let Martin’s killer, George Zimmerman, go free after questioning him. Martin was black; Zimmerman is not.

Travelers claims that on March 30, it issued the HOA a “claims-made, nonprofit management and organization liability insurance policy.

Fulton then sought monetary damages against the HOA’s policy with Travelers for her son’s death.

Travelers claims it is not liable because of the policy’s “wrongful act” exclusion.

Travelers claims the exclusion states:

“‘The insurer shall not liable to make any payment for loss in connection with any claim made against any of its insureds: 1) based upon, arising out of, directly or indirectly resulting from, in consequence of, or in any way involving bodily injury, sickness, mental anguish, emotional distress, disease or death of a person, provided that this exclusion shall not apply to allegations of mental anguish or emotional distress if an only to the extent that such allegations are made as part of a claim for wrongful employment practices.’

“Travelers is in doubt of its rights under the policy and, by this petition, seeks a declaration of its rights and obligations with respect to the claim and demand made by Fulton upon Travelers and The Retreat at Twin Lakes as a result of the fatal shooting or Martin, and a finding by the court that under the above-referenced policy of insurance Travelers has no duty to indemnify or defend The Retreat at Twin Lakes in connection with the Fulton claim because coverage is precluded by the above exclusion.”

Zimmerman was rereleased on $1 million bond in August his first bond of $150,000 was revoked.

State Judge Kenneth Lester ordered Zimmerman back to jail after finding that Zimmerman and his wife Shellie misled the court about how much money they had.

Shellie Zimmerman was arrested and charged with perjury days later, and released on a $1,000 bond. She was to be arraigned July 31 but her attorney Kelly Sims filed a written not guilty plea.

George Zimmerman has pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder and claimed self-defense under Florida’s so-called “stand your ground law.”

Judge Lester last week refused to recuse himself after Zimmerman’s attorney Mark O’Mara asked him to. O’Mara accused Lest of making “gratuitous, disparaging remarks” when he set Zimmerman’s second bond, according to wire reports. Lester denied the motion as “legally insufficient.”

Insurer Says It Should Not Have to Pay for Trayvon Martin’s Death

HOA foreclosure ratio of 36 times violates the 14th Amendment against cruel and unusual punishment

Matt Tomsic wrote an important article in the Charleston Region Business Review on HOA foreclosures with some revealing statistics.  SPECIAL REPORT: YOUR HOME, THEIR RULES.  For example, 68% of the foreclosures were for $5,000 or less in Charleston County, SC.

I wrote the author for some additional statistics. What he had available was just median values for debt owed the HOA and home value, which were $4,500 and $160,000, respectively.

 

That amounts to a punishment of 36 times the debt owed. The US Supreme Court in State Farm v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003) set criteria of punitive damages exceeding 10 times actual damages constitutes a violation of the 14th Amendment against cruel and unusual punishment. In the jargon of today, HOA foreclosure is the iconic instance of cruel and unusual punishment. And the HOA did not advance any hard cash like a bank to justify foreclosure rights.

 

BUT, your elected representatives see no evil and continue to support the real estate industry’s business interests, with the people being the pawns and “marks” in the con game.