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.

Contempt of court HOA legislation

Most current HOA reform laws inexcusably assume  that the HOA and its attorney will act in good faith; common homeowner complaints across the states have proven this to be grossly false.

It seems that meaningful HOA enforcement can be attained by filing contempt of court complaints. A “contempt” is disobedience to a court order in which the homeowner can seek jail time and personal financial penalties for the contempt. VERY POWERFUL!   

“A judge may impose sanctions such as a fine, jail or social service for someone found guilty of contempt of court, which makes contempt of court a process crime. Judges in common law systems usually have more extensive power to declare someone in contempt than judges in civil law systems.” (Wikipedia).

Disclaimer; I am not a lawyer and I am not giving legal advice or opinion. Please consult your attorney. Your state certified paralegal may be able to assist you in filing the contempt motion.

Here’s how the legal system works for HOA-Land.  The board as a whole, or president, or individual directors violate the governing documents or state laws. They refuse to correct the violations so you must sue to force compliance.  When you win in court it issues an order or an injunction to perform, etc. to the wrongdoers.  The court says in effect, I’m done.  Continued violations occur; what can the homeowner do?

The homeowner can file a contempt of court motion with the same court specifying the failure to obey the court and want you want the court to do. You can seek court punishment of the violators through financial penalties and/or jail time. The original complaint must be against the HOA individuals in order  for the contempt to be feared.

Check with your attorney or get the state/county specified contempt motion form;  follow the procedure and complete the motion.

Let’s give the Board something to fear. File those contempt motions!  No one can solve your HOA problem unless you act as required. You must act or continue to live at the suffrage of the board , or move out.

Below are examples.

To file a contempt of court, you need to1234:

Beware settlement agreements and gag orders

In reality, Life does not go according to Hoyle.

We are all quite aware that many lawsuits are settled with a gag order attached, especially when CAI is involved (not in this lawsuit).  To my surprise and disbelief, in Arizona, a gag order is not material to an agreement between to parties in a lawsuit.

A recent Arizona appellate decision involved a court ordered settlement conference in which the parties verbally agreed to the terms of the settlement and a written agreement was prepared to be submitted to the court. The homeowners removed the HOA’s version with respect to a gag order, informing the HOA they did not agree to the gag order. The court was informed that the digital recording of the settlement conference was not available for an unknown reason, whereupon the court then ordered litigation and a hearing as to the settlement agreement.  H’mmmm!

The trial court held that the HOA’s version was valid, which not surprisingly was appealed. Following Arizona’s precedent, the court would support the trial court’s ruling “if the trial court’s disposition is correct for any reason.” It seems that the judicial system back’s its own kind – judges make no mistakes. The justification for upholding the HOA’s version was found in Rule 80(a) of the rules of civil procedure.  

First, the fact that the parties agreed to put the agreement in writing doesn’t count if there is an agreement.  Second,

The law “favors enforcement when it is clear that the parties intended themselves to be bound,” and “absent or uncertain terms are not fatal to the enforceability of an otherwise binding contract.

In other words, picky, picky no matter what impact it has on the parties. How can the court hold that an agreement was reached when there are 2 versions and only one party signed? Yes, the judicial system has its flaws!  BEWARE! 

Source: Robertson v. Sierra Pines, CA-CV 23-0069 (ARIZ. App. Div1 (9-14-2023).

Can and will constitutional scholars reply to 4 HOA questions?

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. 

As of this date, these questions remain unanswered by CAI, by state legislatures and attorney generals, by constitutional think tanks such as the CATO Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Federalist Society, and by the many constitutional scholars. Is it because any response would be seen as an attempt to defend the indefensible as it would require a rejection of the Constitution and a recognition of the HOA community secession from the Union.  State governments, including the judiciary, exhibit a willful blindness that makes the Constitution a meaningless piece of paper that can be ignored by private contracts unassailable from government interference.

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?

Once again  I await their replies.

Cc:  HOA Constitutional Government