In Kosor the NV appellate court upholds HOAs as public forums

In January of this year I posted the Nevada Supreme Court’s opinion on HOAs as public forums and the president as a limited-purpose public figure (NV supreme court upholds HOAs as public forums).  Last month on an appeal (Olympia v. Kosor, No. A-17-765257-C (Nev. Ct. App. 2021) from the remand, to  let the trial court hear the case on above issues, the appellate Court upheld the supreme courts findings and opinion.

The tremendous constitutional question of free political speech on issues of HOA governance was upheld. Finally! In doing so, the Court also held, citing several cases that [note 1],

  • [the HOA]  “is a quasi-government entity ‘paralleling in almost every case the powers, duties, and responsibilities of a municipal government.’”
  • the Nevada Supreme Court has found the [the HOA] Board to be in the nature of a quasi-government entity largely paralleling the powers, duties, and responsibilities of a municipal entity and its meetings similar in function to a governmental body.
  • homeowners’ associations open meetings are public forums as such associations play ’a critical role in making and enforcing rules affecting the daily lives of [community] residents.’”  
  • “the HOA meetings at which Kosor made certain of the statements at issue were ‘public forums’ … because the meetings were ‘open to all interested parties, and … a place where members could communicate their ideas. Further, the…meetings served a function similar to that of a governmental body.”
  • In deciding this Motion, this Court also concludes Plaintiffs at least constitute limited-purpose public figures.
  • The test for determining whether someone is a limited public figure includes examining whether a person’s role in a matter of public concern is voluntary and prominent.” [as is the case with HOA boards and presidents]
  • the issues Defendant raised involve efforts to encourage homeowner participation in and oversight of the governance of Southern Highlands, “an inherently political question of vital importance to each individual and to the community as a whole.”

. . . .

Your HOA cannot stop your free speech if you argue Kosor! Just be careful about making harsh, accusatory statements that violate elements of defamation that will  defeat your free speech.

NOTE 1. Damon v. Ocean Hills Journalism Club, 102 Cal. Rptr. 2d 205, 214 (2000); Cohen v. Kite Hill Cmty. Ass’n, 191 Cal. Rptr. 209, 214 (1983); Pegasus v. Reno Newspapers, Inc., 57 P.3d 82, 91 (2002).

Fair HOA voting at risk in CA – SB 391

In April of this year I urged support (CCHAL in Calif. stands up to CAI) for CCHAL’s (Center for California Homeowner Association Law) opposition to California’s SB 391 that would allow online vote counting with no meaningful homeowner oversight. Another defeat of fair elections as expected in a community claiming to be democratic. At that time, Marjorie Murray CCHAL President, wrote:

“’The Community Associations Institute (CAI) and the property managers (CACM) are still “stretching the truth’ about SB391 (to put it politely.) CAI and CACM keep publishing ads saying  ‘SB391 gives HOAs the right to hold teleconference meetings during an emergency.’ This is FALSE.”

Yesterday Murray wrote in her urgent call to action email,

“SB391 is a dangerous bill – it’s being marketed by the association industry as one that “engages homeowners in governance” when what it really does is strip owners of the right to transparency and accountability in elections.

“SB391 IS NOW ON THE SENATE FLOOR AND WILL BE VOTED ON NEXT WEEK.  BE READY TO PHONE YOUR SENATOR TO URGE ‘NO ON SB391/MIN!”  Please PHONE, don’t email.”

Get with it Californians! Your voice is needed as legislators pay attention to the widespread  voice of homeowners affected by the bill.

Advocate HOA practical education webinar

After viewing Raelene Schifano’s first webinar I was impressed with her detailed knowledge and involvement in HOA issues. Her education series dealing with the nitty-gritty of HOAs is much needed and should be helpful to the average HOA homeowner.  She’s undertaking practical and knowledgeable proactive steps toward HOA reforms. While based in WA state, I strongly believe all concerned homeowners seeking information from an advocate and not from your HOA or its attorney, especially if he’s a CAI member, to listen up.

From her promo:

“HOA Fightclub302

“I will offer this educational series every Saturday, August 14th at 11:00am CST. I allow everyone to participate and offer solutions. Hope to see you there.”

The writing is on the wall for HOA reforms

Although the Arizona Supreme Court has not yet decided to hear Tarter v. Bend (CV 21-0049), my 44 page Pro Se amicus curiae brief is a matter of public record, regardless.  The case about a defamation suit by the HOA president, also an attorney and a limited-purpose public figure, raised constitutional issues of public speech with respect to questions of HOA governance. 

Selected excerpts follow.

As with the issue in Dombey (Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc) . . . failing to present the question of Tarter’s status as a possible public figure denied the jury from considering the issues of protected free speech on public issues.

Kosor (NV) was sued on the basis of his criticism  and distribution of a pamphlet and letter at a board meeting seeking a seat on the board of directors.

“Because we conclude that each of Kosor’s statements was “made in direct connection with an issue of public interest in a place open to the public or in a public forum,” we reverse the district court’s decision to the contrary and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

The impetus behind this view can be laid to the heavy lobbying of state legislators, judges, the public and the media by the Community Associations Institute (CAI). From its 2016 white paper,

“Most legislators do not thoroughly understand common-interest communities or who their patchwork legislation is actually protecting. . . . Legislative responses to individual constituents contribute to community associations being perceived as over-restrictive micro-governments focused on covenant enforcement.”

In response to my Arizona Supreme Court pro se amicus brief in Gelb v. DFBLS (CV-10-0371-PR) CAI attorney Jason Smith wrote,

“It is clear from the that the amicus curiae [referring to me] simply wants to impose constitutional protections on members in homeowners associations. The law has never supported that proposition.”

[I called to the Court’s attention a question of a SLAPP lawsuit against Brendt.]  The issue of an HOA SLAPP lawsuit against a member is in the interest of general public and of statewide importance, and also of national concern, the impact on community associations is certainly substantial. This Court should, sua sponte, consider Tarter’s legal action as a HOA politically motivated strategic lawsuit  against member participation.

I urge the Court to apply the long overdue correction  of  Plessy v. Ferguson by Brown v. Bd of Education to the long overdue and needed corrections to the unconstitutional HOA legal scheme.  As with Brown, America’s culture and environment has changed dramatically from 1964’s Homes Association Handbook and the formation in 1973 of Community Associations Institute (CAI) to deal with rising HOA problems and constitutional concerns after only 9 years. 

Why HOA members fail in court – failing to know the enemy

In Nuclear Verdicts, not specifically addressing HOA cases and speaking to defense attorneys, author and defense attorney Tyson sees the failure to succeed  as a failure of the defendant to get angry.  “YOU are the solution to what has been wrong with our legal system.”  In keeping with the mission of a homeowner advocate’s cry of “fightclub,” Tyson’s Nuclear Verdicts’  mission “is about fighting individuals and groups who are attempting to take advantage of our legal system.  There are people every day who make false and exaggerated claims . . . .”   

I have applied his general statements to HOA-Land.  Tyson is quite on the mark with the many instances of HOA attorney conduct in the courtroom.  And on the failure of homeowners to appropriately and strongly respond. “Bad lawyering [on the part of the homeowner’s attorney] is much more common” than the HOA attorney’s “stretching their claims beyond what is real and verifiable.”  The homeowner attorney  “is surprised, or unprepared, or just not as good as the” HOA attorney. Tyson sums it all up with, “So how do you fight injustice? First of all you need to get angry! You need to stop complaining and do something about it.? 

. . . .

I have read dozens of trial and appellate court cases and opinions across the states, and have personally witnessed the conduct of HOA attorneys and board members in court. My research is consistent with Tyson’s position. I offer my own views for those seeking to go to court to take heed of, and to just DO IT!

My conclusions as to why homeowners lost in court fell into several causes, the chief being the failure to know the enemy, as Sun Tzu wrote in the Art of War. Other causes, as I saw them, 1) insufficient evidence and documentation provided to the court, 2) failing to state a claim, in other words, the HOA broke no laws or violated the governing documents but just exercised its discretion as was its right, 3) attorney lack of expertise and knowledge of HOA  case history, and 4) member afraid to argue the case as warranted for one reason or another.

I possess, as well as on other advocate websites including CAI’s pages on it amicus briefs and case history reviews, a wealth of information on knowing the enemy. Failing to provide this information to your attorney that will enhance your chances of success and to lessen his “learning time,” saving you money, can harm the chances of your winning in court.

“YOU are the solution to what has been wrong with our legal system.”

I’d like to thank Sonia Bendt for understanding this need to cooperate and work together, and who sent me Tyson’s book realizing it would be very helpful to all homeowners going to court.

Robert F. Tyson, Jr, Nuclear Verdicts: defending justice for all, Law Dog Publishing (2020).