Category: Opinion

Posts by GKS

HOA attorney doesn’t recommend Roberts Rules — let the boards do as they please

 In the July 23, 2010  issue of “the word” for HOA boards (CAI Carpenter Hazlewood’s enewsletter), CHDW’s Sahl correctly states the silence of the  AZ statutes on the issue of corporation rules of order.  And, in true pro-HOA support — after all they represent that separate and distinct class of owners, the directors and officers — say the board can do as it pleases.  Absent is any recommendation for  a sound and “good faith” functioning of the HOA by recommeding that, as a very good idea,  the HOA does adopt Roberts Rules of  Order. 

But, why should they when the board has the broad powers granted by the adhesion CC&Rs and state laws?  Why confine and restrict its right to do as it pleases, under these very broad grants of freedom to act, by using  Roberts?   No, no, no!  “Rules” is for the owner-members, those other guys, and not for the hired-hand managers,  directors, or  officers.   Roberts Rules, repeatedly revised, is the 134-year accepted standard for conducting board meetings by corporations, especially nonprofit corporations. 

Please understand that the Board does not function for the benefit of the “people”, the homeowner-members, as does public government, but to enforce the CC&Rs first and foremost.  Such enforcement to maintain property values is for the mutual benefit of the homeowner-members to the exclsuion of all other rights, freedoms, and privileges and immunities still available to those not living in HOAs. 

This surrender by homeowners of their privileges and immunities,  which all Americans are to enjoy, must be fully understood.  It is not diviluged to the public at large under the unspoken alliance of  “no negatives about HOAs.”

 

For more info, see  Does CAI act in good faith for the benefit of the people in HOAs?

                              Confederate Texas and HOA governments: de facto, unlawful governments

Texas & Arizona: the different meanings of ‘standing to sue’ an HOA

The question on appeal was a question of a legal standing to bring this suit against the defendants.  In general, the Texas appellate court in Webb clarified the legal status of “standing” (emphasis added),

 Standing deals with whether a litigant is the proper person to bring a lawsuit. . . . To establish standing, one must show a justiciable interest by alleging an actual or imminent threat of injury peculiar to one’s circumstances and not suffered by the public generally. . . . As stated by the United States Supreme Court, the question of standing is whether the party invoking jurisdiction has “a personal stake” in the outcome of the controversy.

 

Traditionally, courts have held that this “personal stake” must exist at the commencement of the litigation and continue throughout the lawsuit’s existence.

 

With respect to the Webb decision, the Court noted (emphasis added),  “Accordingly, unless Webb is an owner of a lot within Glenbrook Estates, she does not have standing to seek a declaration whether the Association waived enforcement of certain Covenants.”  Webb was not the recorded owner of the lot, only her husband’s name appeared on the deed, and Webb could not establish any fiduciary relationship or other representation for her husband.  Webb’s  case was dismissed due to a lack of standing to sue.

 See  Webb v. Voga, No. 05-09-00074-CV, Tex. App. Dist. 5, July 15, 2010.  (Glenbrook Owners Assn was a defendant).

NOW, TURNING OUR ATTENTION TO ARIZONA’S MOCKERY OF JUSTICE,  where the Office of Administrative Hearings adjudication of HOA disputes was declared unconstitutional  by the Maricopa County Superior Court (Meritt v. Phoenix Townhouse HOA, LC2008-000740, January 29, 2009), we find an unaddressed issue of standing to sue.  In short, after the decision and after a denial of this writer’s right to file a Motion to Intervene by Judge Murdock, an attempt was  made to bring the issue of a lack of standing to the attention of the court. The fact that the homeowner, who initiated the case, was no longer a member of the Phoenix Townhosue Assn.  On Feburary 23, 2009 I wrote Judge McMurdie, providing the evidence and saying,

 

Petitioner and real party in interest, Ron Merrit (sic), had quitclaimed his deed to his co-owned property in the Phoenix Townhouse subdivision on October 10, 2008, prior to the superior court special appeal of October 23. (Exhibit 1).  I believe this issue became moot at that point.

 I reminded the judge,

 If I had been permitted to intervene, these facts, discovered subsequent to filing the Motion to Intervene, would have been presented appropriately. Rule 60(c)(6) “does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from judgment, order . . . or to set aside a judgment for fraud upon the court.” 

 On March 2, 2009 Judge McMurdie responded with the following Minute Entry (emphasis added),

 The Court has received Intervener’s, George Staropoli, miscellaneous filings.

IT IS ORDERED striking these filings.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall not accept any filings from George Staropoli in this case.

  Apparently, the Arizona courts have a different take on this doctrine of standing to sue when it comes to HOAs.  The decision and harsh attitude of the Judge, and the absence of any government agency or official to defend the statute, allows a paraphrasing of Carl von Clausewitz’s, “War is the continuation of policy by other means” (On War):

  “The judicial system is the continuation of policy by another means!”

  Read the complete story of OAH constitutionality at

The State of Arizona will not protect buyers of HOA homes!

HOA attorney collusion and regulation of public streets

During the past Arizona legislative session, HB 2153, dealing with a re-assertion that public streets are regulated not by HOAs but by civil government, was defeated by HOA/CAI opposition and a group of HOA special interests, Sun City HOA.   Part of the argument for the bill were the realistic incidents where the HOA fined a homeowner for a car parked in front of his home, on a public street — without any attempt to verify whether the car was owned by a member of the household.  In other words, in a display of gross injustice and a  stark display of HOA power and intimidation, the HOA simply fined the homeowner. (It is well understood that some 90% of the homeowners pay up rather than go to court to fight for their rights).

 What is further unconscionable and irresponsible, and a violation of an attorney’s code of conduct, HOA attorneys would simply “pick up the paper,” file the charges against the homeowner, and of course tack on its fees, and proceed in a flagrant violation of  Rule of civil procedure, 11(A), which states, in part (emphasis added),

The signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certificate by the signer that the signer has read the pleading, motion, or other paper; that to the best of the signer’s knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law; and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.

and the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct, R42, Ethical Rule 3.1 (mimics the above Rule), and ER 3.3, Candor to Toward Tribunal, in part,

(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:  (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer . . .  (3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false.

Is this legalized extortion by the HOA attorney and HOA board, acting together?[i]

While the bill was before the legislature, an on going court case[ii] was taking place, just brought to my attention.  A homeowner was being fined for just such an occurrence.  Both the management firm and HOA attorney are Community Association Institute (CAI) members, a trade group that lobbied against the bill.  CAI advertises as being the leading educator for the HOA industry and HOA law experts.  The Arizona law firm is Maxwell & Morgan where both principles are members of the CAI Community Association College of Lawyers.

Upon being notified of parking violations, the homeowner properly informs the management firm, Rossmar & Graham, that the cited cars are not his, and provides the license plates of his 2 cars (Mar. 28, 2009 email).  Subsequently, the board denies his request to remove the fines.  According to the homeowner, the attorneys continue and file suit, and then remove their claim for the fines.  Undoubtedly, the attorney realized she was in trouble for blindly doing the HOA’s bidding. 

Most egregiously and unethically, the M & M attorney still sought attorney fees from the homeowner.  This is unconscionable and unethical.  The attorney did the board’s bidding, ran up  fees, and then found that she was involved in an unsupportable charge, but still sought her fees from the homeowner.  The homeowner has to pay for the wrongful acts of the board, and the blind acceptance of the suit by the attorney? 

And now we have a former CAI legislative action committee chair, Scott Carpenter (another CAI college of lawyers member), whose firm advises HOAs on possible loopholes in the right of HOAs to regulate parking[iii].   In an inexcusable misstatement of the public parking issue, attorney Patel fails to mention the main issue regarding regulation of public streets by public government, citing only a Missouri case, Maryland Estates v. Puckett, that affirms HOA regulation of its members, but not the public.  His reference to checking vehicle ownership is only made in regard  to the possibility of illegal towing.

The battle for HB 2153 was precisely to prevent such abuse as occurred in the Wigwam Creek lawsuit.  But, Carpenter, in his Arizona Legislative Session blog entry of January 13, 2010, “Authority Over Roadways,” only saw, “If the bill is really about parking, then enforcement of a parking prohibition in a planned community’s governing documents is the enforcement of a contractual provision and does not, in its enforcement, exert any ‘authority’ over the roadway itself.”   Clearly this is a biased advocacy statement regarding pending legislation, and hiding behind the imprimatur of an attorney, not addressing or cautioning his readers about the implications regarding the public who are not members of the HOA.

In my Commentary of April 5, 2010[iv] I stated that the purpose of the prolific advisories/advertisements were “to seek and promote loopholes and technicalities in the law and governing documents that would lead to adversarial litigation.”

Something is rotten in Denmark!  Shame on CAI, Maxwell & Morgan and Carpenter, Hazlewood.   And shame on the Arizona Legislature for seeing no evil in regard to public control of public streets, and for accepting the voice of the CAI attorneys as gospel.

Notes

[i] See, Ethical obligations of attorneys to HOA members.

[ii] Wigwam Creek North HOA v. Fuchs, CC: 2010- 49644,  Estrella Mountain Justice Court, Maricopa County, AZ.

[iii] “Enforceability of Parking Restrictions”, Nikita V. Patel, Esq., July 9, 2010 enewsletter, Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Wood, PLC.

[iv] “How good are the CAI member HOA attorneys?“,  HOA Private Government, http://pvtgov.wprdpress.com.

HOAs as an institution and its impact on society

The common definition of “institution”, for our purpose, is “ a custom, practice, relationship, or behavioral pattern of importance in the life of a community or society”, or  “an established custom, law, or relationship in a society or community.”   The degree or strength of the acceptance of the established custom or behavior pattern often results in the perception that the institution is a concrete and indestructible reality, and not dependent on one’s belief or acceptance of the  institution.  For example, marriage is an institution that has been losing its acceptance in recent time.  

The definition of an institution well applies to planned communities and homeowners associations.  As a result of the failure over 47 years to mount substantial opposition, homeowners associations have become an American institution, an accepted  way of life.  While there were “spots” of protest and informed communication over the years, it was the accumulated effect of the national lobbying organization, CAI, supported by real estate and land usage legal-academic aristocrats writing in their journals and speaking at conferences, that brought about the institutionalization of HOAs.  Homeowners associations  have become accepted as a way of life in our society and culture, and thoroughy ingrained into our society. 

Consequently, it does not come as a surprise that any substantial opposition, such as my commentaries and citations of authorities, is met with disbelief. This is normal human behavior, which occurs with any idea or facts that are contrary to one’s long term beliefs and values.  This is the effect of institutionalization.  

When confronted with facts and hard evidence to the contrary of these long held beliefs, the normal reaction is a defense of the long held belief.  After all, many aspects of one’s life are tied to one’s beliefs and values, and they cannot be dismissed out of hand.  The common reactions are:  You are crazy! You don’t know what you are talking about!  You’re a weirdo!  A radical!  The reaction is to ignore any evidence to the contrary. 

The stronger the belief, the more reactionary is the response to contradictory information.  Defensive arguments offered to retain the long held belief can rise to highly illogical and absurd defenses.  Even legislators are not immune to this aspect of human nature.  Such is the effect of institutionalization on society.   

HOAs became part of our society with the help of the special interests who did not speak, and continue not to speak, of any negatives about homeowners associations in America.  The unspoken alliance of “no negatives” has been thoroughly ingrained into our elected officials, the media, and the public at large.  Just a natural consequence of the institutionalization process.  But, an institution does not automatically carry the stamp of being ethical, moral or just.  Slavery was once an American institution.  Established practices and behavioral patterns just reflect the mindset and values held by a large majority of the society, and we well know societies can go awry from time to time.   

The only rehabilitation therapy is the continued and repeated exposure to the facts, and I mean facts backed by hard evidence, legal authority, and confronting those seeking to maintain the institution’s continued existence in our society.  Such as, presenting the other side of the issue at hand, which, as we know, was often purely propaganda and not the full truth.  (A good example would be the HOA Academy backed by a number of Arizona towns that does not inform HOA members of their limited rights when a suit is brought by their HOA, or provide information about the statutes and the demanding nature of legal Rules of Procedure). 

In time, either the established institution is now seen in a a different and unfavorable light, or society becomes divisive with the supporters taking dogmatic ideological positions, resorting to, essentially, an “I don’t care” rationale.  

De facto NJ private HOA governments granted liability immunity

While reading the NJ Superior Court case, Fernicola v. Pheasant Run HOA[i],  I was surprised to find that New Jersey statutes grant an HOA greater immunity than granted to public entities.  In this case, a homeowner was injured as a result of tripping on an uneven section of common ground sidewalk.  One adjacent slab was 2 inches  above the other, of which the HOA was well aware.  But, this was just one such incidence of an  uneven sidewalk.    The HOA was not found guilty of gross negligence.

Negligence is a wrong under a duty of care doctrine, to which  HOAs and public governments are held accountable.  In short, from my lay knowledge of the law, a complaint must show that a duty of care existed, and that the accused violated that duty resulting in damage to another caused by this failure of care.   In general, public entities are granted either absolute or partial immunity from such liability[ii], under the logic that who would work for the government if all employees were made liable for their actions.   Apparently, to even a higher degree of protection,  this logic was applied to  de facto, private, contractual government HOAs.

Following is the appropriate section of the N.J. statutes.  Note that, once again, the law defers to, and makes legal, privately drafted contractual provisions. The presumption is that all members to these CC&R servitude contracts agreed to each and every surrender of rights and protections.  Note, too, the deliberately awkward wording of subsection (b), which obscures the fact that the HOA has immunity except from any of the enumerated factors.  N.J.S.A. 2A:62A-13 provides as follows:

a. Where the bylaws of a qualified common interest community specifically so provide, the association shall not be liable in any civil action brought by or on behalf of a unit owner to respond in damages as a result of bodily injury to the unit owner occurring on the premises of the qualified interest community.

b. Nothing in this act shall be deemed to grant immunity to any association causing bodily injury to the unit owner on the premises of the qualified common interest community by its willful, wanton or grossly negligent act of commission of omission.

Under real property tort law liability[iii], there are three categories of a duty of care toward others by property owners.  We would expect this common law doctrine to apply to HOAs were it not for special laws for private organizations.  Under tort law, there is not duty of care for trespassers — they enter at their own risk.  Licensees are people you invite on to your property, such as social guests.  With this class, the owner must only inform of conditions that he is aware of. The last class, Invitees are those whom the owner invites on to the property to conduct business, or that has public services, such as a public phone, etc.  The owner has a duty to inspect and to  inform this class of people of any situations that might prove harmful, such as faulty construction, etc.  However, given the above special statute, the HOA has almost no accountability to its member-owners; they would get a better deal from belonging to de jure public government.

IT SHOULD BE CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD that these grants of special privileges to private organizations, as the various state HOA and condo laws can be described, occur without any justifications or consideration being offered to the homeowners as to enhanced rights to deal with any abuse of these special grants.

AND LET US NOT FORGET the wisdom of the NJ Supreme Court in Twin Rivers[iv] that homeowners are protected by the business judgment rule, and not to worry about constitutional protections.  The Court failed to note the this rule was also designed to protect the HOA entity and not the people from abuse, in contradiction to the principles found in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

 

Notes

[i] Fernicola v. Pheasant Run HOA, No. A-2027-08T1, N.J. Super. App. Div., July 2, 2010.

[ii] Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the government can be sued for negligent acts or omissions that need not rise to the level of willful or gross negligence. See Tort Law for Legal Assistants, Linda L. & J. Stanley Edwards, eds. p. 218 0 219(Thomsom-Delmar Learning, 3rd ed. 2004).

[iii] Id, p. 86-88.

[iv] See generally A choice for Americans: the US Constitution or authoritarian, private HOA government.