Category: Opinion

Posts by GKS

HOA Kindle books

I have compressed and summarized my research on HOA constitutional  issues over ten years and have produced several Kindle books for a comprehensive understanding of the issues.  The historical basis for the current version of utopian societies begins with a review of The Homes Association Handbook of 1964, and the history of Community Associations Institute.

I’ve tried to bridge the gap between the writings of the academic,  political scientists and the people, and present and clarify the constitutional issues facing the curent HOA hegal scheme.

The following Kindle ebooks are available for downloading

2.

The Foundations of Homeonwers Associations and the New
America REVISED by George K. Staropoli (Kindle Edition – Oct 14,
2009) – Kindle eBook

Buy: $5.95
Auto-delivered wirelessly

3.

Establishing the New America: independent HOA
principalities by George K. Staropoli (Kindle Edition – Jul 17,
2008) – Kindle eBook

Buy: $15.95
Auto-delivered wirelessly

4.

Understanding the New America of HOA-Lands by George Staropoli (Kindle Edition – Sep 24, 2010) – Kindle eBook

Buy: $8.95
Auto-delivered wirelessly

Court holds HOA elections are a matter of public interest

A California appellate court held that HOA elections are a matter of public interest and annual meetings are a public forum. Candidates are limited public figures with respect to the elections. Therefore, the anti-SLAPP law applied with respect to statements made by the candidates and their speech is protected.  A defamation lawsuit based on statements made by the candidates must survive a motion that the lawsuit was made to stifle public participation.

 

In Cabrera v. Alam the court held,

 

We reverse and remand with directions to grant the anti-SLAPP motion. Defendant carried his burden of showing the defamation claim was based on protected activity under section 425.16, subdivision (e)(3). We hold defendant’s statements were protected activity because they were made in a public forum at a homeowners association’s annual meeting and concerned an issue of public interest, namely, the qualifications of a candidate for office in the association. Plaintiff failed to carry her burden of showing a probability of prevailing on the merits of the defamation claim. Having thrust herself into the controversy surrounding the election of the association’s board of directors, she became a limited purpose public figure who was required to show defendant made the allegedly defamatory statements with malice. Plaintiff failed to produce any evidence showing defendant made the statements knowing them to be false or recklessly disregarding their falsity.

 

Another step toward the recognition of the reality that HOAs are indeed de facto governments and need to be recognized as state actors, and brought under the protections and prohibitions of the US Constitution.

CAI acknowledges “unconstitutional taking”, but not from homeowners

CAI-CLAC (CA CAI lobbying committee) has apparently discovered the meaning of “an unconstitutional taking” when it object to the new California law, SB 209, that permits homeowners to install electric vehicle charging stations in HOAs. CAI argued in its July 26, 2011 email release (not shown under HOT BILLS on its website), “a very significant problem remained unresolved in that the measure essentially condones an unconstitutional governmental “taking” of property that is commonly owned by all the members for the benefit of one. (My emphasis). I’m impressed that CAI acknowledges constitutional law.

 

However, CAI, that national leading HOA educational organization — as it likes to promote itself, but is truly a business trade group to help its members make $$$$ — has no quarrel with the taking of homeowners’ constitutional rights, freedoms, liberties, privileges and immunities as a result of the application of the common law of servitudes over constitutional law. The taking of constitutional rights and freedoms, and the violation of the equal application of the law and due process protections for homeowners in HOAs by constructive notice — the simple posting to the county clerk’s office — binds buyers to the CC&Rs sight unseen, never mind the absence of explicit consent.

 

CAI seems to take this fascist state approach, where the goals of the state, the HOA, come before individual rights, is an absolute, sacrosanct, untouchable right conferred upon the HOA, without regard to the US Constitution. The justification for the legitimacy of the HOA government is the lame excuse that the homeowner remains in the HOA and does not leave its jurisdiction, thereby giving his implied consent to be governed and to the surrender of his rights. But, the HOA is not a de jure public government that functions without any contract. The HOA is a contractual arrangement, and this application of public doctrine is an constitutional taking of the homeowners’ private property rights.

 

Sadly, state legislators see no evil, no rejection of the US Constitution, and the courts allow this secession from the Constitution to prevail. What is the purpose of a constitution if any two people can sign a document that says we reject the Constitution? What is happening to America?

 

As we discovered with regard to Arizona’s secessionist feelings earlier this year, Art. I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the Constitution prohibits compacts between the states without the consent of Congress: “No state shall, without the consent of Congress . . , enter into any agreement or compact with another state”. And to allow private citizens to do so makes a mockery of the Constitution and the American system of government.  Are we already in The New America of HOA-Land? 

 

Read on CAI, read on and learn more about constitutional law.

HOA justice: dues must be paid no matter what!

This Pennsylvania case explains why homeowners cannot withhold HOA payments even when in a dispute. Understand that while a dispute over a credit card charge may be put on “hold” by filing a certified letter, this FDCPA protection does not apply to HOAs. (Nor can your unpaid assessments be wiped out by bankruptcy).
The trial court’s Opinion correctly sets forth why the substantive and procedural law supports the grant of the Motion [summary judgment for the HOA], and cites Mackenzie [PA case] for its legal explanation that: assessments are due and payable by the homeowners; the issues raised concerning the propriety or legality of those assessments are neither properly litigated in a suit for the collection of those assessments nor properly withheld for such reasons; and the homeowners contesting the assessments must seek remedies other than self-help or non-payment, such as a declaratory judgment action. [In short, a “must pay” no matter what rule.] As a matter of settled substantive law, the Opinion explains why these ancillary issues raised by Appellants cannot be used as a defense against non-payment.

Footnote 8, in part, further explains, “Although Appellants’ ancillary [not directly related to the case] issues allege improprieties and/or illegalities of the assessments, such issues are not a defense for non-payment and cannot be used to delay payments that are due as a matter of law to the Association.”

Fawn Ridge Estates HOA v. Carlson, (Pa. Cmmw., No. 1462 C.D. 2010, July 25, 2011. (Not for precedent).

Why isn’t this very serious legal doctrine, one with important issues of a surrender of one’s rights to the HOA — one that the average person would expect to be just, fair and therefore a valid law — not  disclosed to the potential HOA home buyer? This disclosure is made more important because the HOA obtains its powers under an adhesion contract that suppresses the rights and freedoms available to the people who do not live in an HOA.

It will be made part of The Truth in HOAs Disclosure Agreement.

The hostile face of Arizona’s DFBLS to HOA dispute resolution

So I now ask, as the DFBLS website still informs viewers that there may be a fee increase, placed there soon after SB 1148 became law, “Why is there this heightened concern for HOA filing fees and not other fees? Have the pro-HOA special interests been at work making suggestions to, or whispering in the ears of, DFBLS Director Palma to increase the fees as part of their effort to stop justice for homeowners in HOAs? The same group that lost 42% of their cases before OAH, who had finally brought down the 2006 law as unconstitutional, and now threatens to do so again with SB 1148.

 

Please note that DFBLS is not listed inder ARS 41-1092(7), definitions by name of agency, as a “self-supporting regulatory agency”  . . . In fact, according to its minutes, the arguments for a fee increase were rejected by the JLBC on November 15, 2006.

Under the DFBLS web page, Homeowners Associations, why is there no information being provided to homeowners who may seek to file a complaint, except to have them read the law? Why is there no email contact provided for the public? For a $50 fee, DFBLS provides plenty of information under its mobile home obligations. And much, much more under its Fire Marshall and Manufacturing obligations.

Why is DFBLS presenting this hostile face to homeowners in HOAs seeking justice under the law?

Read the complete Commentary at DFBLS Hostility