The legislature does no wrong when enacting HOA laws, or does it?

Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio

A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.

What’s that you say, Mrs. Robinson

Joltin’ Joe has left and gone away.

(Hey, hey, hey . . . hey, hey, hey)

 

(from the song, Mrs. Robinson, Simon & Garfunkel, 1967)

Franklin Delano Roosevelt recognized that a country in crisis needs to confront the illusions that led it astray and return to the values that can form a firmer foundation.

(Rediscovering Values On Wall Street, Main Street and Your Street, Jim Wallis, 2010)

 

As many state legislatures are now dealing with HOA reform legislation, I examine the question of unconstitutional bills being made law, and the failure of legislators to understand their acts under the “due process of law” restrictions of the 5th and 14th Amendments.  Essentially, the legislature cannot enact laws that favor one group over another without an explicit, valid justification for such laws. The legislature must cease protecting HOAs at the expense of the rights and freedoms of its citizens who live under these regimes.

Looking at our current condition in every state with HOA “Acts”, we must understand that, conforming to the historical pattern for civilizations and nations, the US is on the downside of its “life-cycle.”   The people, and their elected representatives, have forgotten its reasons-for-being — the values, principles and beliefs that founded this experiment in representative democracy.   We have become a nation under the rule of man, not law, as well demonstrated by  our concern for who gets  to be the next US Supreme Court Justice, the next person to determine and to make law.

As formerly held with respect to kings and emperors of long along, we have returned to the notion that the legislature can do no wrong and is above reproach, as well demonstrated by the legal doctrine that all laws are presumed to be constitutional.  The oversight by the courts is a myth in reality, because a strong burden is placed on the people to prove beyond a doubt that the law violates the Constitution.   And the legislative Rules committees that are obligated to check the constitutionality of a bill is also a myth.  In short, we have returned to “The sovereign can do no wrong.”

Due Process of Law constraints

However, the fundamental due process of law obligations set forth in the Constitution do impose restrictions on legislative free-wheeling law making.  Essentially, “due process of law” requires not only proper procedures be followed, but the law at issue must be valid and legitimate.  To enforce a law solely as to the procedural processes would make a mockery of legitimate government, if the law to be enforced is unconstitutional itself.  This point is made quite clearly and empathetically by Timothy Sandefur (Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Winter 2012, p. 337),

“One can easily imagine such a legislature enacting a statute vesting lynch mobs . . . to adjudicate and punish perceived wrongs . . . or a statute assigning automatic death penalty for such vague ‘crimes’ as being ‘uppity.’”

For those readers who believe that this statement is wholly unbelievable and unreal, it is quite close to what is occurring with HOA statutes across the country. They easily amount to special laws for special groups without a legitimate government justification and interest.  Justifications that would pass the requisite judicial scrutiny other than just “a reasonable government interest.” (The silence by the legislatures and government officials as to a legitimate government interest for HOA laws only confirms the lack of any valid justification. See Rights of Man, Thomas Paine.)

Legitimate Law Making

What then, does due process of law impose on the legitimacy  of legislature lawmaking?  Sundefur argues that, “The Due Process Clause was written to ensure that government does not act without reasons, nor for insufficient, corrupt or illusory reasons.”  (p. 287); “This obligates the government to act in a lawful manner.” (p. 290).  He defines a lawful act as “a use of the state’s coercive powers in the service of some general rule that realistically serves a public, not a private end” (my emphasis), and is “a prohibition against government acting in an arbitrary way.” 

In other words, where there is no rational purpose or explanation for the law, as we see with many HOA laws, the law is not legitimate.

“Legislation that singles out a particular business . . . for no legitimate reason or uses irrelevant distinctions as an excuse for treating people differently . . . exercises government power in an arbitrary way.” (p.308).

We are well aware that many statutes deny homeowners rights that they would otherwise enjoy if they were living outside the HOA regime.  (I will skip the arguments concerning a valid contract under contract law, the lack of genuine consent, and the superiority of servitudes law over constitutional and contract laws that allows for the surrender of rights and freedoms under these conditions.)  We know that many HOA statutes can be seen as punitive, such as foreclosure rights; fines without proper due process; granting of “open” liens; allowing HOA fines to accumulate while adjudication of a dispute begins or is occurring; and the mandate that assessments be paid regardless of any dispute with the HOA.

 Sandefur argues that statutes of this type that “burden a group for no other reason than that the victims exercise too little political influence to defend themselves . . . are more like  punishments than law,” and maintains that “Legislation of this sort is arbitrary, based on no other principle except the ipse dixit of force.”  That is, Sandefur is saying, by the mere pronouncement or enactment by the legislature without any justification of supporting arguments – an ipse dixit – the legislature is commanding obedience to the law.

 

If angels were to govern men

Allow me to address the question of why. Why is this happening, especially with HOA statutes?  First, we have forgotten that the structuring of government was based on the realities of human nature, and not on some idealized standard of behavior that the people must strive to attain.  (This level of behavior, for example, would be the unrealistic demand that if HOA members would only get involved in HOA government all problems would go away.)

Second, as Madison wrote, “If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”   The “presumption of constitutionality” doctrine stands in contradiction to the realities of this country and the structuring of government.  It allows the legislators, like HOA boards, to be unaccountable for their acts in passing all sorts of laws without regard to the restrictions of the due process of laws clause.   It is just another example of Sandefur’s argument that ipse dixit laws go unchecked because the people have too little political influence. 

As an aside, as I now write,  Arizona’s HCR 2104 would require every bill  to state the authority under the Arizona Constitution that would  allow this legislative action.  Sadly though, the bill was not meant to go anywhere as it is a “vehicle” or placeholder bill.  It has been sitting, not even heard, in the Judiciary  Committee, and the session ends in April.

And the worst due process of law offense of all is for the legislatures and courts to stand aside and allow these de facto, authoritarian governments to exist outside the social contract known as the Constitution of the United States of America.

How far will independent HOA principalities go in usurping police powers

In this Illinois case, Poris v. Lake Holiday POA, the HOA was held to unlawfully assume civil police powers.  Here’s the extent to which the HOA gave the false impression of municipal police officials and their legitimate use of police powers. The private HOA security officer detained the homeowner for about 4 minutes while checking his license info, but admitted he was not a cop.

 The following covenants can easily be viewed as an intentional impersonation of municipal police powers. Note the similarity in verbiage to civil government criminal code and authority (paragraph numbers are from the court’s opinion).

 [covenants]

 ¶ 5 The board is authorized to adopt rules and regulations that the board deems necessary for the best interests of the Association and its members. The board promulgated several rules pertinent to this case. The board adopted a rule authorizing “private security officers” to enforce the Board’s rules and regulations, including the power to “issue citations for violations.” Another rule prohibits members from obstructing officers:

 “No person shall knowingly resist or obstruct the performance by one known to the person to be a public safety officer of any authorized act within his or her official capacity. No person shall fail or refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of any public safety officer authorized by the Lake Holiday Property Owners Association. A request to examine personal identification, such as a driver’s license, in addition to a member’s amenity pass shall be honored. CLASS A VIOLATION.”

¶ 6 The board also approved a rule to regulate speed on Lake Holiday property: “Unless otherwise posted, the speed limit on all Lake Holiday roads shall be 25 miles per hour. Speed limits shall be strictly enforced. Violations from 1 to 10 mph over the posted speed limit are CLASS C VIOLATIONS. From 11 to 15 mph over the posted speed limit are CLASS B violations. From 16 mph or over the posted limit are CLASS A VIOLATIONS.”

 A Class A violation carries a $200 penalty for a first offense. A Class B violation is punishable by a $100 fine for a first offense. The fine for a Class C violation is $50 for a first offense.

 ¶ 7,(in part)

All officers are required to wear a badge, uniform and “duty belt.” A “duty belt” may “include weapons that the officer is certified to carry on duty.”

 [end covenants]

 ¶ 16 Neither Clifford nor any employees of the Association’s security department have been given police powers by the La Salle County sheriff’s office. Clifford has never been given any authority or permission by any police agency or the La Salle County Board to stop vehicles, use overhead lights, use radar to measure the speed of vehicles or make audio and video recordings on Association property.

 ¶ 28 The security officers employed by the Association are attempting to assert police powers. They have neither the right nor the power to do so. They have only those powers that ordinary citizens have. See Perry, 27 Ill. App. 3d at 239. The practice of stopping and detaining drivers for Association rule violations is unlawful.

 ¶ 35 The Association is not a commercial enterprise in the business of “keeping people secure and free from danger.” Rather, it is a property owners’ association created “[t]o promote and enhance the civic and social interest of the owners of real estate in Lake Holiday Development in so far as those interests relate to the maintenance of Lake Holiday.” Thus, the Association is not a “security company.”

 ¶ 53 Here, Podnar activated his overhead lights, causing plaintiff to pull over and stop. Podnar exited his vehicle, wearing a uniform, badge and duty belt containing weapons. He told plaintiff to wait in his car and took possession of plaintiff’s driver’s license. Plaintiff remained in his car for several minutes until Podnar returned his driver’s license, issued him a citation and told him he was free to leave.

 ¶ 54 Under these facts, plaintiff was restrained by Podnar. . . . Since plaintiff’s liberty was restrained, the first element of false imprisonment was met.

 Poris v. Lake Holiday, 2012 Ill. App. LEXIS 42; 2012 IL App (3d) 110131 (Jan 24, 2012)

 See commentary by Evan McKenzie at Case shines light on how much power private security has when policing neighborhoods (Feb. 24, 2012),

 

CA court upholds HOA suit against real estate agents

This important 2012 California case deals with, among other issues, a real estate agent’s duties to buyers in HOAs. The court found the realtors, acting in a dual agency capacity for the developer and builder, had violated their fiduciary duties to buyers by failing to disclose material facts: false budget numbers to induce buyers, failing to disclose material, public reports showing soil issues.

The Calif. appellate court held:

The statute gave ‘associations the standing to sue as real parties in interest in all types of actions for damage to common areas, including breach of implied warranty causes of action.’

The Realtors were dual agents in that they also represented the HOA members as buyers’ agents. Re/Max acted as dual agent in the sale of three parcels in Glen Oaks Estates, and Dilbeck acted as dual agent in the sale of one parcel in Glen Oaks Estates.

In sum, [the statute] does not replace dual agents’ fiduciary obligations to their buyer clients. . . . The Realtors breached their fiduciary duties as buyer’s agents by failing to disclose certain transactional documents, concealing facts . . . .

GLEN OAKS ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION v. RE/MAX PREMIER PROPERTIES, INC.
As an aside:

In general, the normal real estate transaction, where there’s no dual agency, involves a selling agent representing the seller, and a different buyer’s agent representing the buyer. In Arizona, for example, the agent owes a fiduciary duty to his “client,” which is defined as the person who makes the commission payment to the agent. The agent “shall disclose in writing to all other parties any information the licensee possesses that materially or adversely affects [the sale]”, but the agent must “deal fairly with all parties.”

However, in almost 100% of the sales the buyer’s agent gets paid from the selling agent under a “co-broke” arrangement. The buyer’s agent then, according to R4-28-1101 of the Commissioner’s Rules, would have a fiduciary duty to the seller as that’s where he gets paid. Isn’t that a contradiction in the laws that creates a conflict of interest in the buyer’s agent? (Of course, the powers that be don’t see it that way – would confuse the issue). So, who’s really looking after the buyer’s interests? It appears dual agency does.

Furthermore, can a licensed agent who is required to take courses in agency, contract and real estate law hide behind the fact that he knows nothing, and therefore doesn’t have material HOA information in his possession? Would that be a reason for the media and government agencies and officials apparent role in an “unspoken alliance of nothing negative about HOAs”? If so, something is rotten in Denmark!

What would Pareto say about HOAs as “superior” decisions?

Are you familiar with Pareto’s Law, or Pareto Superior transaction? In the higher brainy types people like to talk about economics and wealth distribution, and government efficiency (I think CAI talks about efficient government in its materials).  Here’s what Pareto had to say.

(As these brainy types like  overly broad concepts and formulations, a “point” as used below, designates some measure of the conditions or status of society or government.  A “move” represents some government decision).

(i.) Pareto Superiority = A move from one distribution point to another is said to be superior when at least one party is better off and no one else is worse off. (This includes moves that benefit all parties; the essential concern is that no one is worse off after the move compared to welfare before the move.)

(ii.) Pareto Inferiority = A move from one distribution point to another is said to be inferior when at least one party is worse off (even if all others are better off).

(iii.) Pareto Optimality = There is no superior move possible from the current point of distribution. All possible moves are inferior in nature. Thus, no move can be preferred or defended by policy makers.

For us lowly folk, just focus on who benefits and who gets hurt. (In the world of servitudes, the law talks of the burden and benefited estates).  I can say quite empathetically that most of the HOA legislation cross this country are definitely Pareto Inferior decisions as many people are mandated to give up benefits for the benefits of HOA life, with its unequal application of the laws. Who can argue that no one is worse off by most HOA legislation?

But, what do I know?

HOA bills and the legislative “system”

I thought it a good time to summarize how your state legislature works. I’ve referred to the need for a champion, which implies, if not opposition, but having to deal with the legislative “system.” And there is a System. I will use Arizona as a model, understanding that other states will vary somewhat. For example, the Texas Legislature meets every 2 years. They do not use Committee of the Whole (COW) as the first Floor vote, but “second read.” California has sessions lasting for 2 years. Check your legislative website for your state’s process.

 

The System – the power of the majority party

The majority power rules and control the System. The President of the Senate and Speaker of the House determine the committees, what bills are heard where, who the Chair will be, and who are the members.

The committee chair determine whether or not his committee will hear a bill referred to it. I believe he can be overruled by a vote of the members, but that would be like going over the head of your boss, a No-No. At the request of a bill’s sponsor, he can hold the bill until the next meeting because the sponsor doesn’t have the votes. The sponsor can also “give up the ghost” and kill his bill.

Next step may be a Rules committee, a perfunctory committee supposedly passing on constitutionality, but just another place where the Chair can prevent a bill from proceeding to a floor vote.

(The Caucus vote, if passed out of Rules, is a nonbinding “courtesy” discussion meeting of the separate parties.)

Next we have what is called the Calendar, or Calendars for COW and Third Read. They are “ files” under the President’s or Speaker’s control who decide if and when the bill moves to the COW/second read vote. If passed at this point, these leaders can then decide, again, if the bill will proceed to a third read/ final vote of the House or Senate.

If passed out of the first branch, the process starts all over again in the second house.

Your champion must get support of all these players, or not run into serious opposition from the power players. He/she needs your emails and voice sent to the committee members and even to all the legislators if HOA reform bills are to succeed — especially the controversial bills. Over the years I’ve seen bills die at every one of the above stages. I have seen HOA bills held for weeks by the Speaker or President, who finally succumbed to public outcry and allowed the members to vote the issue, all of which passed with flying colors. The System is political, understanding that the majority party members also voted overwhelming to pass the bill.

At this early stage in Arizona, of the 16 HOA bills, 1 was Held, and 1 is sitting in the COW waiting for a floor vote. It had passed the committee by a 5 – 2 vote, but was objected to for a direct floor vote, which does not allow discussion. It has been sitting on the COW calendar for 3 weeks, waiting at the pleasure of the President of the Senate for a Floor vote. The bill would impose treble damages to HOA boards if the court found the lawsuit to be selective in nature against the homeowner. (Is that any worse that the right to take away one’s home for $50 after 1 year?)  Yes, discussion is important, but it must be allowed to occur if the democratic process is to work.

Yes, Virginia, there is a Legislative System.