Category: Opinion

Posts by GKS

So. Carolina HOA study committee misses the point

As a follow up to my “State legislature not concerned” commentary, the SC HOA Study Committee released its recommendations on HOA legislation.[1]   On the issue of, “Education for Homeowners and Board Members,” a committee member recommended CAI as a source for HOA education in general. Apparently, with all due respect, he is not fully aware of CAI’s history and its views on maintaining authoritarian private governments.

This property member representative offered, “Education is already available. According to one source, “CAI (Community Associations Institute) webinars offer specialized, professional training without leaving your home or office. . . . Homeowners should have reasonable access to an organization such as Community Associations Institute (CAI) or a knowledgeable State agency to obtain unbiased, accurate information.

Fortunately, the recommendation was not to have a private entity, including CAI, provide HOA education.

“While the Community Association Institute (CAI) and other private entities offer educational resources to homeowners and managers, state government cannot place the sole responsibility of educating homeowners and board members on a private entity.”

The committee recommended that several state agencies “to seek reliable and unbiased information available from private entities” and to publish and make such programs by private parties available online. So, the door is still open for CAI biased influence given the current climate that CAI is the only source and has no self-interest.

There is an abundant supply of information to inform the legislators of the true nature of CAI, its 42 year history of failure, and its policy to keep HOAs as authoritarian private governments.[2] But the problem is is to first educate the legislators in line with HOA Common Sense: rejecting private government. This requires a source to provide alternate perspectives on HOA governance: civil government, local government, constitutional law, and city managers.

A simple HOA bill would just have to say,

The association hereby waives 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.

There is much to be accomplished in order for meaningful HOA reforms to occur. If advocates continue to fail to speak out and ignore, as I have urged, the principles of constitutional government as applied to HOAs, the outcomes over the years will also continue.

 “We must continue to provoke until they respond and change the laws.” Gandhi.

 

References

[1] STUDY COMMITTEE ON HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS, Dec.18, 2015 (http://www.scstatehouse.gov/CommitteeInfo/HomeownersAssociationStudyCommittee/HOAStudyCommitteeFinalReport12182015.pdf).

[2] See Will the real CAI standup: its contradictory beliefs, pronouncements and goals and CC&Rs are a devise for de facto HOA governments to escape constitutional government. In general see, Unconstitutional delegation of power to HOAs, HOAs violate local home rule doctrine and are outlaw governments; and Privatopia: Homeowners Associations and the Rise of Residential Private Governments, Evan McKenzie, Yale Univ. Press, 1994; Community Associations: The Emergence and Acceptance of a Quiet Innovation in Housing, Donald R. Stabile (Greenwood Press, 2000).

 

state legislature not concerned about the plight of HOA members

Dianna Wray does an excellent, detailed and historical presentation of the unchecked and unregulated power of de facto HOA governments operating outside of constitutional protections – the lack of due process and the unequal equal protection of the law. Without mentioning the above, Wray presents several stories of Texas HOA abusive power that strikes to the heart of homeowner mistreatment and injustice, as the legislature ignores his plight as if Texas were a banana republic. And rightfully so, she extends these unthinkable conditions to occur in all states.

The author warns her readers that,

HOAs are almost completely unregulated and the law is heavily weighted on the side of the homeowners’ associations — they almost always win. In Texas there is no regulatory agency overseeing homeowners’ associations. Most county attorneys and district attorneys won’t get involved with an HOA unless there’s evidence of criminal wrongdoing, and the website of the Texas Attorney General’s Office explicitly states that the office does not investigate homeowners’ associations and advises homeowners to get a private attorney. Most private attorneys conclude that the business just isn’t worth it.

And that goes for all state attorney generals.

She quotes Texas attorney David Kahne (co-author of the AARP bill of rights for homeowners, among other things).

Typically by the end of the lawsuit, it’s been such a hassle, most of the lawyers representing homeowners swear they’ll never do it again. . . . It’s lawsuits over grass growing in the driveway cracks and people who have fallen behind on their dues because of real problems in their lives and then they end up with thousands of dollars of debt, most of it owed to the attorneys.

Wray adds that Evan McKenzie argues,

that HOAs erode homeowner rights because they create a system in which the HOA is never held accountable for its actions. ‘Why do people think you can live in an urbanized area without any form of government except for these privatized entities that are under no legal obligation to uphold your rights?  (My emphasis).

Readers of this commentary must understand, and must understand very well, that the laws on the books in all states are grossly inadequate for the purpose of compliance.  When laws, like HOA laws, fail to provide effective enforcement penalties against perpetrators, like HOA boards, they are merely recommendations and suggestions.  The legislators are relying on the good will of HOA boards, attorneys and managers to voluntarily comply not only with the letter of the law, but with the intent as well.  The record clearly shows that this is not so!

Obviously in disregard of the above criticisms of the HOA-Land legal structure, HOA supporters respond with the same ol’ platitudes. From the HOA attorney,   “Believe me, a lot of people complain about HOAs, but the alternative is chaos . . . It seems like I have a really mean, nasty job, but if somebody doesn’t do it, suburbia would collapse.”  

From the Houston Texas CAI chapter Executive Director,

Without HOAs, common areas wouldn’t be kept up and people could paint their front doors scarlet, park boats on their lawns, put up countless yard signs, keep any number of pets and have six-foot-tall topiary rabbits in their front yards, destroying the look and value of neighborhoods.

They are resorting to fear-mongering!

These supporters, including CAI, are saying that they do not trust their fellow Americans and concerned people must resort to authoritarian contracts and strict enforcement of the rules in order to have a healthy, desirable and joyful community. Can you believe that? Talk about breeding hostility and division among your neighbors. One false move, a report by any “kindly” neighbor, can bring down the wrath of the HOA enforcers.

The author reminds of events in Texas long forgotten or not known to the people, even in Texas, of the battles of Winonah Blevins (2002) and Geneva Kirk Brooks (2004), pioneers in the fight for homeowner rights. Before these cases, won by the homeowners, there was the outrageous Texas Supreme Court decision in Inwood v. Harris (1987) in which the Men in Black ignored the explicit wording of the Texas Constitution regarding foreclosure protections and permitted Inwood to foreclose on Harris. (A few years later, apparently in response to the growing outcry of the court’s shameful special interest decision, the legislature amended the constitution to validate the Harris decision.)

 While the article is lengthy, it is not a manual of how to get along in HOA-Land and remain happy by just following the rules. Or a list of “should-be” or “ought-to-be” statements that are unattainable and beyond the norms of society, like you must accept the surrender of individual liberties for the greater good. It deals with the reality before homeowners and the intentional failure by state legislatures — in all states — over the years to stand by the people and not the special interests.

It is a “telling it like it is,” or that it could easily be that way at any time in your HOA with a changing of the HOA board, or a new attorney, or a new management firm. The homeowner, as presented in Dianna Wray’s well written article, lives at the suffrage of the board; helpless to defend themselves against HOA abuse without a costly battle. Remember that well!

 

Tipping Point: In Huntington Village, the Community Association has All the Power, Dianna Wray, Houston Press ( http://www.houstonpress.com/news/tipping-point-in-huntington-village-the-community-association-has-all-the-power-7998755, Dec. 15, 2015).

HOA claim of a loss in property value

A recent Arizona appellate court case provides some light on the alleged “loss of property value” argument generally made by HOAs in response to a homeowner’s action. In this straight-forward decision (Mason v. Whisper Ranch HOA,  CA-CV 2015-0053 (Ariz. App. Div. 2 (2015)) a homeowner objected to the addition of a detached garage by his neighbor, claiming among other things, a loss in his property value.

In spite of the approval of the HOA, the plaintiffs sued the neighbor and HOA were sued. In a memorandum decision, which means no new law was involved, the court held that the plaintiff failed to document the alleged decrease in his property value. Damages, which this was one, must be documented as to the amount. However, the appellants had to first prove damages which could only be shown by numbers. (If damages were acknowledged by both parties and a method of calculations cannot be applied, then a general number may be used).

How can the loss in value be calculated? Well, one can use real estate “comps” – comparative values – to set a value of the property. While this can be debated because of so many and, ifs or buts, it’s the only acceptable rational method. But then, can this method be used to show a loss in value (or increase for that matter)? Can a panel of “experts” be used to arrive at a change in value? Fat chance!

Must the plaintiff wait to get a bona fide offer? If so, does he have a bona fide offer before the neighbor’s new garage?

Even if the neighbor painted his house pink, how do you decide the loss in value, if any? (I am aware of a homeowner in Phoenix who did paint his house pink in an angry response to commercial development next to his property. His home did sell after, I’m sure, his price was reduced by the amount required to repaint the house an acceptable and conforming color. No impact on neighbors.)

Of, course, the HOA has other grounds for suing, like nonconformity to the overall aesthetics of the HOA.   The point is, make the HOA prove any loss in value!

Judicial error regarding HOAs as mini-governments and state actors

Two cases directly dealing with HOAs as mini or quasi governments by means of state actions tests have come to my attention: Brock v. Watergate and Westphal v. Lake Lotawana.[1] (The question of an HOA being a state actor is not raised, but that a specific act of the HOA is a state action. The questions are fundamentally different.) The decisions were based on the public functions (company town) test and one of the US Supreme Court criteria, the “close nexus” test.[2]

Here the question of an HOA being a municipality is linked to showing a comparison with company towns (established by corporations to provide housing for their employees) under the public functions test, which was held to be a municipality. The Court then makes the giant leap to hold that since the HOA was not a company town, and therefore not a municipality, none of its actions can be considered a state action. The Court’s illogical conclusion is that no act of a private entity can be considered a state action, because the entity is not a municipality! This attitude makes a mockery of state action/actors laws that protect citizens from quasi-governments. (Think about this after reading the excerpt below.)

The 1987 Florida Brock opinion, just 4 years after the court quoted Wayne Hyatt’s opposing view in Cohen Hill (see note 2), held that:

A homeowner’s association lacks the municipal character of a company town. In the case of an association, the homeowners own their property and hold title to the common areas pro rata. Moreover, the services provided by a homeowners association, unlike those provided in a company town, are merely a supplement to, rather than a replacement for, those provided by local government. As such, it cannot be said that the homeowners association in this case acts in a sufficiently public manner so as to subject its activities to a state action analysis. Moreover, the association’s maintenance, assessment, and collection activities are not sufficiently connected to the State to warrant a finding of state action. The state cannot be implicated in the association’s activities solely because the association is subject to State law. We conclude that the association in this case does not stand in the position.

(The Court did not realize that most HOA common areas and facilities are not owned by the members, but by the HOA corporation. The members are third-party beneficiaries. The second sentence above is not accurate.)

In further shocking dicta (unsupported legal authority for statements) in the above quote (see To Be in note 2), the Court declared that HOA services are merely a supplement to local government and that as a supplement its acts are insufficiently municipal in nature. Say what?

Well, I got news for the Court. Applying the “common meaning of the word doctrine” shows that “to supplement” means “to complete, add to, or extend by a supplement” and a “supplement” means “something added to complete a thing, supply a deficiency, or reinforce or extend a whole.”  With this definition the HOA would be a part of local government to complete it or supply a deficiency.  The HOA is a municipality!

Sadly, the narrow focus on individual and separate acts and actions to determine the involvement of the state in the functions and activities of the HOA is misguided.  Rather, it is the collection of the numerous acts of the HOA that should be used to determine whether or not the HOA is an arm of the state and stands in place of the state.  Consider for example, does local government supplement state government?  Does town local government stand in the place of state government?

However, based on the irrational argument used in Brock, as quoted above, the Court ruled that the HOA “does not stand in the position of a government.”

 

In the 2003 Missouri Lake Lotawana opinion, the Court reversed the trial court’s ruling, asking for a declaratory judgment, using the irrational opinion in Brock and held that the plaintiff’s allegations “require state action, and that, here, there is no state action because the Association is not a state agent. . . . the trial court is effectively saying that Mr. Westphal can have no claim because the Association is not a state actor.”

On the other issues the plaintiff directly alleged state action, arguing that,

[T]hat the Association’s conduct is state action because the Association is a quasi-governmental entity.  He maintains that the Association ‘operates as a ‘mini-government’ because it raises money through dues, has an elected governing body, enacts rules and regulations, and enforces such rules through the court system. In support of this argument, Mr. Westphal relies on [Chesus and Terre du Lac].[3]

Referring to the two cases, the Court concluded,

While both cases discuss how a homeowner’s association operates as a “quasi-governmental entity,” neither is authority for the concept that an association’s “quasi-governmental” actions are state actions. Mr. Westphal fails to cite any authority to support his argument that the action of a quasi-governmental entity is state action.

First, the Court selectively only used the term “quasi” and ignored “mini” as in stated Chesus. “Mini,” of course, speaks of a small municipality, yet a municipality. Both cases simply, without further ado, quote the same Wayne Hyatt statements as I quoted in To Be (see note 2) that contain both words.

And the Court is technically correct with regard to a lack of a court finding, but taking such a view makes a mockery of the law and is highly illogical. As argued since “quasi” means “like,” then any action of a quasi-government must be, a quasi-state action. The degree of “quasi” must extend to state actions, too. Stop the “word games”!

“Quasi” must be defined, but not in terms of the public functions test or private entity devise. It must be defined in accordance with our constitutional system of government that cannot allow for outlaw governments to stand alongside constitutional local government.

This commentary, somewhat technical at times, demonstrates the failure of the courts to address the fundamental issues that HOAs are mini-governments, and that by the collective functions and actions of HOAs there is clear and convincing evidence to make the case that they are indeed state actors. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

(As a reminder, I am not a lawyer and I simply offer my views on HOA-Land.)

Notes

[1] Brock v. Watergate, 502 So.2d 1380 (Fla. 4 Dist. App. (1987); Westphal v. Lake Lotawana, 95 S.W.3d 144 (Mo. App. 2003).

[2] See in general, To be or not to be a mini or quasi government? Hyatt said ‘yes’; Do state HOA Statutes Establish HOAs as State Actors?

[3] Chesus v. Watts, 967 S.W.2d 97 (MO. APP. 1998);  Terre du Lac Assn v. Terre du Lac, Inc., 737 S.W.2d 206 (MO. App. 1987)

To be or not to be a mini or quasi government? Hyatt said ‘yes’

The controversy over whether or not HOAs are mini-governments or quasi-governments needs to be fully understood.  While I have written extensively on this topic,[1] allow me to take another peek into the controversy.

As an eye opener to many, I have extensively quoted Wayne Hyatt’s[2] 1976 statement on HOAs as mini-governments, as cited in the 1983 California case, Cohen v. Kite Hill.[3]  (My emphasis).

 

In a thoughtful article[4] . . . Hyatt and Rhoads note the increasingly “quasi-governmental” nature of the responsibilities of such associations: “The other essential role directly relates to the association’s regulatory powers; and upon analysis of the association’s functions, one clearly sees the association as a quasi-government entity paralleling in almost every case the powers, duties, and responsibilities of a municipal government. As a ‘mini-government,‘ the association provides to its members, in almost every case, utility services, road maintenance, street and common area lighting, and refuse removal. In many cases, it also provides security services and various forms of communication within the community. There is, moreover, a clear analogy to the municipal police and public safety functions. All of these functions are financed through assessments or taxes levied upon the members of the community, with powers vested in the board of directors, council of co-owners, board of managers, or other similar body clearly analogous to the governing body of a municipality. Terminology varies from region to region; however, the duties and responsibilities remain the same.”

“Because each owner automatically becomes a member of the association upon taking title … the association has the power, and in many cases the obligation, to exert tremendous influence on the bundle of rights normally enjoyed as a concomitant part of fee simple ownership of property.”

“With power, of course, comes the potential for abuse. Therefore, the Association must be held to a high standard of responsibility: “The business and governmental aspects of the association and the association’s relationship to its members clearly give rise to a special sense of responsibility upon the officers and directors…. This special responsibility is manifested in the requirements of fiduciary duties and the requirements of due process, equal protection, and fair dealing.” [Sound familiar?]

Yet, this recognized international figure’s statements were ignored and not cited in a number of subsequent decisions. Instead, the courts preferred the antiquated, non-HOA decisions of the 1946 and 1948 “company town,” public functions test decisions in Marsh v. Alabama and Shelly v. Kraemer. These decisions predated the current HOA concept and legalities created in 1964 and were relied on.[5]  Like the “walking dead,” Marsh should be shot in the head and put away for good!

Now, to fully understand the issue we need to play the lawyer game and examine and parse the meanings of words and phrases.  Sorry, we must because that’s what HOA attorneys do — they can’t help it.

What is a mini-government? A quasi-government?  Following the recognized common meaning of words doctrine, “mini” means small and “quasi” means like.”  So, are we talking about small public governments? If so, I think this term answers the question that HOAs are small public governments.

Or are we talking about governments like public governments?  “Like” implies not really, but has the feel, or aura, or legalities of a public government.  If so, to what extent does a government become a public government?  How much “likeliness” is needed?  To what extent should homeowners have “like” constitutional protections?  All of them or some?  Or just some that give the appearance of constitutional rights and freedoms?

It seems that HOAs already have a number of “like” protections, but totally deficient and failing to protect the people.  They treat the HOA members as if they are “like” US citizens, having surrendered their citizenship.  This cannot be tolerated in a nation that prides itself as the ideal democratic country in the world.  Not at all!

It’s time to stop playing the HOA lawyer “word games” and accept the reality that HOAs are outlaw governments and must be held accountable under the Constitutional, as is required of all other governing bodies including those under Home Rule statutes.

References

[1] See in general: Do state HOA Statutes Establish HOAs as State Actors? (2007); The Constitutionality of state protected homeowners associations (2009) (Discussion on Hyatt’s view); HOA Case History: state actors or mini/quasi government (2011).

[2] Wayne Hyatt was a prominent figure in the promotion of HOA-Land as well as an important person in creating CAI in 1973, serving as its second president.

[3] Cohen v. Kite Hill, p. 5-6, 142 Cal App 3d 642 (1983), citing Raven’s Cove Townhomes, Inc. v. Knuppe Development Co. (1981) 114 Cal.App.3d 783, 799 [171 Cal.Rptr. 334]). Cohen has been cited in Terre Du Lac Ass’n, Inc. v. Terre Du Lac, Inc., 737 S.W.2d 206 (Mo. App. 1987); Damon v. Ocean Hills Journalism Club, 85 Cal. App. 4th 468 (2000).

[4] “Concepts of Liability in the Development and Administration of Condominium and Home Owners Associations” 12 Wake Forest Law Review at page 915, (1976).

[5] Brock v. Watergate, 502 So.2d 1380 (Fla. 4 Dist. App. (1987) (close nexus dicta); Midlake v. Cappuccio, 673 A 2d 340 (PA. Super. 1996); S.O.C. v. Mirage Casino-Hotel, 43 P 3rd 243 (Nev. 2001); Westphal v. Lake Lotawana, 95 S.W.3d 144 (Mo. App. 2003) (“Mr. Westphal fails to cite any authority to support his argument that the action of a quasi-governmental entity is state action.”)