Category: Opinion

Posts by GKS

NV agency opinion: stop making homeowners pay HOA attorney fees

The purpose of the homeowner in an HOA is to pay and pay and pay.     Donie Vanitzian, a homeowner rights advocate and author, said it back in her 2002 book, Villaappalling! Destroying the Myth of Affordable Community Living,

When homeowners move into [an HOA] they have only: Obligations to pay out money. . . They also pay out when and if the board tells them, ‘You have to pay’  . . . . Should you disagree with the board’s order (agenda or whim) to pay, you still have to pay to prove that you don’t have to pay.  (P. 296).

This message was recently taken to heart by the Nevada Real Estate Dept. (RED) in response to a request for an advisory opinion by homeowner rights advocate, Jonathan Friedrich.  This issue is a common, and one example of the broader issue of, “the homeowner pays and pays everything.”  Friedrich asked: “Does NRS 116.3115(6) give an association the right to charge a unit’s owner an attorney fee when the association’s attorney attends a hearing against a unit’s owner?”

The RED concluded,

Exercising the due process right to a hearing on an alleged violation under NRS 116.31031 is not in and of itself “misconduct,” “willful misconduct,” or “gross negligence.” Associations should not be using NRS 116.3115(6) to pass on any attorney fees resulting from a hearing, especially where the association imposes a fine to the maximum extent possible under NRS 116.31031. NRS 116 specifically provides for attorney’s fees to be provided to prevailing parties under NRS 116.4117 in civil actions to enforce the governing documents or NRS u6. The court is not required to award attorney’s fees even if an association is the prevailing party. Association board members who chose to have an attorney present at alleged violation hearings do so at the expense of all the unit owners. Such expense cannot be passed on to a particular unit owner.

Let’s look into some of these money making practices, not for the HOA, but for the HOA attorney, which serve to intimidate the homeowner by means of legalized extortion – demanding payments under the threat of harm or injury.

Understand that the modus operandi here – the reason for doing – is fostered by the legal HOA scheme that allows the HOA attorney to control and strongly influence board decisions in its favor.  (Relying on expert advice will relieve the director of any personal liability).  And that is to go to court under the justification, “You can’t let the masses get away with anything as it undermines your authority to rule.”  My words, but to the point.  So, why not adopt a hostile, no holds barred approach which generates income for the attorney. And, making this approach more appealable to the board by pointing the HOA legal scheme, the attorney tells the board, “Don’t worry, you can charge all this back to the homeowner.”

Another  prevalent tactic occurs in an attempt to work out issues with the board on matters of alleged fines or late assessment payments.  The homeowner is often told to talk to the attorney and not anyone else, where the attorney tacks on his usual fee of $150 – $300 per  transaction.   Shades of  banana republic justice!  This amounts to legalized extortion —  pay to resolve our charges even before a hearing on the merits takes place.  But, we all know the hearing is just window dressing  — we’ll give you a fair hearing before saying, “Guilty.” Makes you wonder why the HOA attorneys do not fight for a fair and just due process procedure like that offered by the Office of Administrative Hearings in Arizona, doesn’t it?

I congratulate the Nevada RED for its just and fair opinion, and Jonathan Friedrich for seeking the opinion.  We need justice for homeowners from our state protective agencies to put a stop to these obvious HOA banana republic tactics.

We need to seriously look into the roles of the HOA attorneys and their overbearing advice to go to court no matter what.   And many times these court actions are frivolous and violate rules of civil procedure relating to  a meaningful action  based on an examination of the facts and the law by the attorney.

HOA member Declaration of US and State citizenship

 I am proposing that the following be  urged as a bill in your state, which requires a mandatory statement of HOA member citizenship. (Revised August 1, 2015).

Declaration of US and State citizenship

With the understanding that the association, as a private entity and not a subdivision of the state, and as a de facto but unrecognized private government, is not subject to the restrictions and prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution that otherwise protects the rights of the people against actions by public government entities;

and that the governing documents in all legal practicality serve as the subdivision’s constitution, taking precedence over state laws and over the state and US Constitutions unless specifically denied by any such laws or legal precedence;

Therefore, the members of the association, having not waived or surrendered their rights, freedoms, privileges and immunities as citizens of the United States under Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and as citizens of the state within which they reside, the CC&Rs or Declaration for any planned community, condominium association or homeowners association shall state that, or be amended to comply,

The association hereby waivers and surrenders any rights or claims it may have under law and herewith unconditionally and irrevocably agrees 1) to be bound by the US and State Constitutions, and laws of the State within which it is located, as if it were a subdivision of the state and a local public government entity, and 2) that constitutional law shall prevail as the supreme law of the land including over conflicting laws and legal doctrines of equitable servitudes.

Furthermore, any governing documents of an association not in compliance with the above shall be deemed amended to be in compliance, and notwithstanding the provisions of any law to the contrary, a homeowners’ association shall be deemed to have amended its governing documents to be in compliance.

Are HOAs part of this country, this community, or are they secessionist?

“While Terry believes HOAs wield far too much power, Marta Gore has a different opinion. “We all want our property values to increase. In order for them to increase, we all have to hold to a certain standard,” said Gore.”

And that requires, as history has well demonstrated, strict enforcement of the rules to coerce obedience to the objectives of the state[1], which flows not from the US Constitution, but from the HOA organic law based on The Homes Association Handbook and UCIOA[2]. Wait, wait . . . do you hear the refrains of Deutschland uber alles, the adopted hymn of HOA-Land?

HOAland, HOAland über alles,

Über alles in der Welt,

Wenn es stets zu Schutz und Trutze

Brüderlich zusammenhält.

. . . .

HOAland, HOAland über alles,

Über alles in der Welt!

HOAland, HOAland above everything,

Above everything in the world,

When, for protection and defence, it always.

takes a brotherly stand together.
. . . .

HOAland, HOAland above everything,!

Above everything in the world!
“Gore is with Texas Community Association Advocates; an organization that represents hundreds of HOAs in Texas. The McKinney resident says a few abusive HOAs give the rest of the industry a bad and undeserved reputation.”

Why are they continually opposing reforms to hold the rogue and intentionally wrongful HOAs accountable to the state, and to demand good corporate citizenship.  Are they saying that it’s not the job of our HOA, that it’s not in the CC&Rs?

 See Powerful HOAs Leave Many Texans Feeling Homeless

References

1. HOA Gestapo tactics — the slippery slope steepens

2. Legislative protection of HOAs: replacing US organic law with HOA organic law

Findings of the 2011 Colorado HOA problem report

The findings of the Colorado HOA problem identification report are as follows, and substantiate the fact that HOA democratic governance is sorely lacking:

 

What we discovered was that the complaints we received primarily involved the board of director’s failure to follow corporate governance rules and procedures of the HOA; the transparency of the board of directors, particularly as it related to the finances of the HOA; and harassment and bullying of homeowners by the board of directors and management company by arbitrary fining, preclusion from providing input into the associations’ affairs, and verbal harassment. These complaint types were much more serious than the aforementioned three P’s because they substantially interfered with a homeowner’s ability to enjoy his property and to have avenues of democratic participation in the HOA to remedy their issues.

An additional and perhaps one of the more troubling complaint types the Office heard was that the HOA board or manager was harassing, discriminating or retaliating against homeowners. Many homeowners felt that their boards had singled them out and were arbitrarily fining them for violations, when they were not in violation; engaging in selective enforcement of covenants; and precluding them from participating in meetings. . . . A frequent complaint heard was that older board members were discriminating against younger homeowners or where older homeowners felt they were discriminated against by younger board members.

 Another troubling subset of complaints involved diversion, fraud, and theft. . . .  The most frequent complaint types filed against managers mirrored those pertaining to HOAs, including access to records, transparency and communications, not communicating with homeowners, harassment and selective enforcement of covenants

 

And the report makes the following, not unexpected, observation, which can apply to all HOA legislation in all states (emphasis added).

 

The drafters of SB-100 and SB-89 obviously understood the need for statutory protections to homeowners, but the issue homeowners are having is not that the law does not address their specific issues, rather the law does not provide a realistic or economic means to seek redress.

 

 The lack of such realistic means for redress can be found in the public policy of each state to support and protect the HOA even against unjust and unconstitutional denials of homeowner rights and freedoms.  One very effective and proven means is to provide for effective penalties against HOA violations of the laws and governing documents in the name of the people.  That means sufficient fines and even misdemeanor charges as warranted, especially when considering such penalties are imposed for wrongdoing by a government official or agency.

 References

1.       Colorado report on HOA problems needs to be corrected.

2.       “Hannaman Report”, (Similar report in NJ, 2002).

3.       The StarManPub  videos on the Florida House HOA hearings (2008).

 

Colorado report on HOA problems needs to be corrected

The Colorado real estate department issued its first report on the state of HOAs and condos for 2011, raising some questions of integrity. A total of all the complaints in the chart shows 893 complaints, or almost twice as many as proclaimed. In fact, totaling the listed percentages show almost a doubling to 194.2%. See the chart link below, where “adj pct” is the “normalized” percentages.

The normalized analysis shows that all the complaint types that can safely be attributed to governance issues, the top 16 in the table, make up 84.3% of all complaints. And, those 4 explicitly stated management complaint,  amount to 31.1% of all complaints.

If those in power refuse to face the reality before them, then they live in a delusional world where effective reforms can never occur. And where there are unjust laws, then the government is seen as illegitimate and not representative of the people who are the State of Colorado.

See Colorado report