Category: Opinion

Posts by GKS

CAI is worried about homeowner reasonable expectations

I am confused by two CAI Arizona supreme court briefs in defense of the HOA in CAO v. Dorsey;[i] one by Scott Carpenter and the other by Krupnik,  a former Carpenter attorney and, along with Scott, a member of the CAI attorney’s group, the College of Community Associations Lawyers (CCAL).  In my view dealing with CAI over 23 years in several states, it reflects the awareness by CAI of the potential loss of its dominance over HOA boards and state legislatures.

The CAI Krupnick brief

In Krupnick’s brief, she argues that condos are a creature of state law otherwise they could not exist. We all know that state HOA laws and Acts favor the HOA against member rights.

“Sui generis presents a view of HOAs as private government principalities supported by your state legislature and is used to justify special laws for a special organization, the HOA. But the condominium is a unique form of real property ownership and . . . are created and governed by specific statutory schemes that deal with ownership, administration, transfer, and termination of commonly held property interests. More fundamentally, it is that statutory scheme, not the common law, that frames the issues in this controversy”[ii]

Does that make them state actors —  arms of the state?[iii] Existing constitutional law is inadequate to support this model of local governance [sui generis] and so, in violation of US and state constitutions,  we see all those HOA/PUD/condo “Acts” in almost every state.  These Acts constitute a parallel supreme law of the land with sharp contrasts to the US Constitution.

Krupnik stresses state laws control and “reasonable expectations”[iv] is not involved. “the amendment to A.R.S. § 33-1228 . . . does not significantly impinge on the parties’ reasonable expectations.” Her argument is that it would create problems for the administration of the HOA to have so many grandfathered clauses as the governing documents are amended from time-to-time. Gee, for over 247 years we have lived with the protection of grandfathered clauses in the public domain. What’s the problem?  The fear mongered survival of the HOA and CAI’s member income stream, that’s what!!

In my early days a CAI member emailed me saying: “What are you doing, George? We have a good thing going here.”

The CAI Carpenter brief

I focus on an important aspect of this brief.

Carpenter follows Krupnick’s argument on the need for uniformity, citing a precedent which held that “majority and minority owners alike were subject to a uniform set of rules which were consistent with the parties’ collective expectations at the time of contract.” Adding, “If left unchecked, the Opinion will very quickly leave Arizona community associations struggling to discern which versions of the state’s robust statutory  schemes apply to which owners in their communities.”

Carpenter raises a valid question, one that I concluded with in my commentary on CAO, should the HOA need to ask each owner if he agrees to be bound by  state law? And also asked for agreement to reasonably expected future amendments to forced sale in a takeover scenario. How can one agree to something ill defined?   This is a question to mislead the focus of the lawsuit.  Carpenter ignores contract law that requires a bona fide meeting of the minds and an  understanding of the explicit terms, and any assertion to be bound by iffy amendments in the future is without validity.

Obviously, contract law implicitly raises the question of surprises and a true meeting of the minds. No putting one past the other party in a violation of good faith. We know that there is wide misrepresentation in the selling process!

“By focusing on the amorphous concept of an owners’ reasonable expectations at the time they took title subject to an association’s declaration, the Court of Appeals has ignored an important reality: the statutes which apply to owners and associations must be applied uniformly, unless they contradict a pre-existing express term of the contractual covenants.”

He is arguing that ex post facto HOA amendments are valid, and the constitutional protections  do not apply to private contracts. After all, according to CAI HOAs are sui generis and have their own “constitution” outside the US Constitution. Carpenter makes the anguished plea — my interpretation –

“By creating an untenable and unworkable rule which deeply burdens associations and the owners who comprise them, the Court of Appeals’ Opinion will make it nearly impossible for any future association to effectively terminate their condominium.”

Poor baby! It’s a cost of doing business under the HOA legal scheme, but CAI wants more favorable treatment.  It’s an HOA defect because of the limited number of payees to support the HOA —  the members who are severally and jointly responsible for the viability of the HOA. (If Pete can’t pay, we’ll get it from Joe or Mary who can pay).  Is that a reasonable expectation of members?? I don’t think that have any idea of their financial obligations.

Please note that five other amicus briefs were filed in favor of the homeowner, CAO, including one by the Cato Institute and one by Arizona’s Goldwater Institute.  Only CAI opposed the appellate decision.

Notes

[i] CAO v. Dorsey, CA-CV 21-0275 (Ariz. App. Div.1, 2022).

[ii] Why aren’t HOAs held as state actors based on USSC criteria? (2019).

[iii] Id. The US Supreme Court has held state laws  that are “supportive”, “cooperating,” “encouraging,” and “entwined” in both public policy . . . and in the “management and control” of the HOA create state actors.

[iv] See HOA constitutional “takings” and reasonable amendments.

HOA constitutional “takings” and reasonable amendments

Awaiting an Arizona Supreme Court decision is a case involving a fairly common event in which investors buy up a majority of the condo units and vote to dissolve the condo. The owners are then subject to a forced sale against their will. In Cao v. Dorsey[1] investors owned 90 of 96 units but a homeowner challenged this forced sale under constitutional grounds.[2]  I address one constitutional issue here.

With respect to the governing AZ statute on these “takeovers,” the Court  held,

[We] hold that the statute [ARS 33-1228] is constitutional when applied to condominium owners who bought a condominium unit subject to terms that incorporate the statute. We also hold, however, that if there have been substantive post-purchase changes to the statute, the version of the statute in place at the time of purchase controls.

The statute allows for amendments to the CC&Rs, as commonly stated in the CC&Rs, based simply on the vote of the required approval percentage of owner votes, which the investor controls. The plaintiff argued that  the statute “is an unconstitutional taking of private property.” The Court clarified the law,

“Generally, ‘[t]aking one person’s property for another person’s private use is plainly Prohibited’. . . . Without an exception to the general rule, A.R.S. § 33-1228 is unconstitutional on its face.”

The meaning of “takings” refers to the constitutional prohibition of eminent domain takings of property interests when the property owner contests to the taking by the government. My argument criticizing the HOA’s right to take personal property with no compensation to the objecting owner can be found in HOA principalities where there’s no ex post facto or eminent domain protections (2009) and  Homeowners do not have HOA ‘eminent domain’ protection (2022).

A discussion followed as to what version of the law applied as it was amended after the plaintiff’s purchase.  Getting to the heart of the matter, the Court stated,

“[W]e will not ‘allow substantial, unforeseen, and unlimited amendments’ to the Declaration, as that ‘would alter the nature of the covenants to which the homeowners originally agreed.’ . . . We ‘will not subject a minority of landowners to unlimited and unexpected restrictions on the use of their land merely because the covenant agreement permitted a majority to make changes to existing covenants.’”

In short, no surprises and no adding new elements to the Declaration – CC&Rs without member approval. Future amendments, however, “cannot be ‘entirely new and different in character, otherwise they would exceed the reasonable expectations of the owners.’”  Furthermore, statutory amendments do not apply when, 

“the statutory amendments did not merely refine the statutes, correct errors, or fill in gaps, but substantively altered owners’ property rights beyond the “owners’ expectations of the scope of the covenants. . . . And substantive amendments to the Condominium Act cannot later be incorporated into the agreement without renewed consent.”

The Court vacated the trial court decision in favor of the HOA and sent the case back to the superior court based on its holdings. The decision has been appealed to the Supreme Court and we are waiting for its opinion.

What does this case mean?  What is all the hullabaloo about?  How important is a favorable supreme court decision? TEMENDOUSLY IMPORTANT! That’s why CAI is not only the HOA’s attorney but has also filed an amicus brief.  The holding of homeowner reasonable expectations regarding amendments opens the door to further challenges as to just what is reasonable in today’s HOA land agreements.  The opposition can say, “well, it is common that a development can be expected to be bought out, and therefore the holding is mute, not applicable anymore.”

The broader issue for advocates is to apply reasonable expectations to misrepresentations in the selling process that is intentionally designed to hide not only takings by the HOA but violations of the equal protection of the law. In the case of CAI, has its conduct over the years amounted to a coercive monopoly to keep control over the HOA-Land? How about the real estate agents and department looking the other way and concealing the facts?

It’s up to the homeowners and advocates to pursue these challenges that will open the doors to HOA reforms of substance.

Notes

[1]  CAO v. Dorsey, CA-CV 21-0275 (Ariz. App. Div.1, 2022). I would like to thank Dennis Legere, Arizona Homeowners Coalition,  for bringing this case to my attention and for providing me with the court filings. He has filed an AZ supreme court amicus brief  with attorney Jonathan Dessaules.

[2] This is the first of several planned reviews and case memoranda addressing the appellate court decision. To follow will be  reviews of the amicus briefs by AZ Homeowners Coalition,  The Goldwater Institute for the homeowner), and CAI (for the HOA), and the eventual supreme court decision.

The HOA legal scheme is ab initio unconstitutional

TO:     Legislative leaders in every state

The HOA legal scheme based on the Homes association Handbook is ab initio unconstitutional

In March 2006 I wrote Christopher Durso, editor of the Community Associations Institute’s (CAI) monthly house organ, Common Ground, asking four questions in regard to the constitutionality of HOA’s  (CID, POA, planned unit development, etc.) legal scheme.  My concern was that CC&Rs are a devise for de facto HOA governments to escape constitutional government as presented in  the 1964 “bible” that brought forth the legal scheme, The Homes Association Handbook. 

Replacing democratic local governments with authoritarian private governments:  Is this good public policy? 

“Public policy today rejects constitutional government for HOAs allowing them to operate outside the law of the land. The policy makers have failed to understand that the HOA CC&Rs have crossed over the line between purely property restrictions to establishing unregulated and authoritarian private governments.”

Here are the four questions:

 1. Is it proper for the state to create, permit, encourage, support or defend a form of local government of a community of people, whether that form of government is established as a municipal corporation or as a private organization that is not compatible with our American system of government?

2. Is it proper for the state to permit the existence of private quasi-governments with contractual “constitutions” that regulate and control the behavior of citizens without the same due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment; that do not conform to the state’s municipal charter or incorporation requirements; or do not provide for the same compliance with the state’s Constitution, statutes or administrative code as required by public local government entities?

3. When did “whatever the people privately contract” dominate the protections of the US Constitution? The New Jersey Appeals Court didn’t think so (CBTR v. Twin Rivers, 2006). Does “constructive notice,” the “nailing to the wall,” the medieval method of notice, measure to the requisite level of notice and informed consent to permit the loss of Constitutional protections?

4. Please state what, if any, are the government’s interests in supporting HOAs that deny the people their constitutional rights?

Please respond  to these fundamental questions of HOA constitutionality.

Is CAI a coercive monopoly? Definitely YES!

Consider the FTC’s lawsuit that Amazon is a coercive monopoly.

The US government and 17 states are suing Amazon in a landmark monopoly case reflecting years of allegations that the e-commerce giant abused its economic dominance and harmed fair competition. Because of Amazon’s dominance in e-commerce, sellers have little option but to accept Amazon’s terms, the FTC alleges.

Amazon is “squarely focused on preventing anyone else from gaining that same critical mass of customers,” FTC Chair Lina Khan told reporters Tuesday. 

In a release, Khan accused Amazon of using “punitive and coercive tactics” to preserve an illegal monopoly. “Amazon is now exploiting its monopoly power to enrich itself . . .  Today’s lawsuit seeks to hold Amazon to account for these monopolistic practices and restore the lost promise of free and fair competition.”

These charges of monopoly and coercive tactics can be applied to the Community Associations Institute’s (CAI) long pattern of conduct with respect to the domination of the homeowners associations industry. In my 40-page complaint to the DOJ in January 2023 I laid out the case that CAI must have its conduct curtailed in the interest of free competition in Housing and in educational services used to maintain its monopoly.

 My recommendations to regulate CAI’s activities to allow for the voice of others to be heard, especially from owners of HOA homes who suffer under the monopoly, as included in my complaint, are listed here:  The need to regulate CAI monopoly.

“A. Regulations on CAI’s monopolistic activities

“B. Regulations on HOA activities in support of CAI monopoly”

What is needed now?  Support my anti-trust complaint against CAI!

The loss of American spirituality: a lesson for HOA leadership

Institutionalized religions have failed the people, focusing on bible interpretations and ritual; government has failed the people, adopting “God is dead” public policy. What has become of the Golden Rule? “In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you.” (Matthew 7:12).

“When someone has been given much, much will be required in return; and when someone has been entrusted with much, even more will be required.” (Luke 12:47-48).

The Gospel of Wealth (1889), Andrew Carnegie,* a lesson for HOA leadership and boards of directors.

“This then, is held to be the duty of the man of wealth: To set an example of modest, unostentatious living, shunning display or extravagance . . . to consider all surplus revenues which come to him the man of wealth thus becoming the mere trustee and agent for his poorer brethren . . . which, in his judgment, is best calculated to produce the most beneficial results for the community . . . doing for them better than they would or could do for themselves.”

It is easily demonstrated that the HOA legal scheme has not created a better community or a better America.

* Andrew Carnegie was an American industrialist and philanthropist. Carnegie led the expansion of the American steel industry in the late 19th century and became one of the richest Americans in history. He became a leading philanthropist in the United States. His 1889 article proclaiming “The Gospel of Wealth” called on the rich to use their wealth to improve society, expressed support for progressive taxation and an estate tax, and stimulated a wave of philanthropy.