Tag: 14th amendment

As an HOA member, “Are you a citizen of the United States of America?”

“Are you a citizen of the United States of America?”, asked Trump in his news speech today[i].  And he added, “There was a time when you could proudly declare  ‘I am a citizen of the United States’.”

In 2012 I raised the issue of HOA members being US and state citizens in my proposed Arizona bill[ii].

Therefore, the members of the association, having not waived or surrendered their rights, freedoms, privileges and immunities as citizens of the United States under Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and as citizens of the state within which they reside.

As part of the bill I declared,

The association hereby waivers 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.

Very disappointedly, there was no outcry, there was no demand to assert citizenship by HOA members or homeowner rights advocates.  That says a lot, doesn’t it?  I am not sure as to whether the HOA legal scheme and members shunting the Constitution contributed to the Washington dysfunction, or was it just a top-down, a trickle-down public sentiment pervading HOA members?

 

Discover the truth about HOAs!  Read The HOA-Land Nation Within America exposé on sale at Barnes & Noble (BN.com);  Amazon.com, KDP Unlimited & Lending; Google HOA-Land Nation. Join the many others who have received a copy of the eBook or paperback and open a broad discussion.

Notes

[i] See Video of speech, FOX10. The only site I could find that recorded Trump’s opening words. Not even on the official WH website.

[ii] See “Declaration of US and State citizenship” in HOA member Declaration of US and State citizenship. The bill was not sponsored or backed by advocates.

 

Beware of unsupported legal arguments and opinions when in court

All too often judges make decisions on HOA cases, making new law and new contract meanings, with unsupported statements not related to the case on hand. For example, in a question of signage, a court may state that the HOA is not a mini-government and offer no legal authority for that statement. It is referred to as a dictum (dicta) and is non-binding. However, it is used as if it were indeed a court proven and decided fact.

In the Nevada Supreme Court decision in Sanzaro v. Adiente HOA, Nev. No. 61288 (Oct. 16, 2015) we have a good example that deals with the question of proper notice. (“Proper notice” is a 14th Amendment due process requirement.) Here, arbitrators ruled that Sanzaro had “constructive notice” — here we go again, no need to read the notice — that no dogs were allowed and charged the homeowners with $17,000 in legal fees (and I thought arbitration was the best solution to HOA decisions). The district court upheld that decision, finding that the homeowners had “not shown by competent evidence any deficiency that would warrant the relief being sought.”

As it happened, the homeowners, at purchase time, were told to see the HOA webpage for a copy of the rules, but the web page rules were not the latest with the dog restriction. The HOA insisted that sending a welcome letter about the web page with its rules amounted to constructive notice. In other words, like with the CC&Rs, the homeowners were told that there was another document affecting them. Go get it and read it.

The Court found “that arbitration awards are reviewed to determine whether the arbitrator’s decision represents a ‘manifest disregard for the law’ . . . the error of accepting respondents’ [HOA’s] contention that appellants [homeowners] received proper “constructive notice” of the amended rule . . . or that such notice was even properly achieved in light of appellants’ arguments and evidence to the contrary, demonstrates a manifest disregard for the law.”

In regard to CC&Rs, most state laws and CC&Rs require a mailing or personal delivery of the changed rules, or other governing documents. Nevada is one of them. In other words, constructive notice does not trump statutory notice. Some allow constructive notice of amendments by simply filing with the county clerk — BEWARE!!!!

Of course, in regard to the CC&Rs, there are no provisions in the CC&Rs requiring the delivery of the documents to a new buyer. While some states require delivery of the governing documents before closing, this requirement is waived or the documents are not read to the detriment of the buyer.

The important point is that arguments used against homeowners by HOA lawyers must be based on evidence and legal authority and not on a vague statement, like 95% of the people in HOAs like HOAs. The HOA lawyers claim to be the experts; get them to prove it and demand the legal basis for their statements.

Protecting HOA political free speech on matters of general community interest

Should matters of concern and interest to the general HOA member-community be protected from suits designed to stifle participation in HOA governance?  Homeowners in HOAs should be protected from these suits, called SLAPP suits, just as the general public is protected in most states that have anti-SLAPP laws.

The question becomes: will the courts hold issues of HOA governance to be a matter of general public interest and concern?  A failure of the courts to do so puts HOA governments solidly into the category of independent principalities, where members are not permitted free speech on community public issues, especially about their governing body, the HOA.

The expected defenses are 1) that HOAs are private, contractual governing bodies not subject to the 14th Amendment protections, which the members have agreed to obey; and disregarding the Ruiz opinion above,  2) the local HOA community cannot be considered as a public body that is interested in and concerned with matters of public interest; it’s a local, private matter.

There are several California cases holding that HOA concerns amount to public speech because it affects the community at large.  The following are anti-SLAPP suits.

“A SLAPP suit (strategic lawsuit against public participation) is a lawsuit brought primarily to chill a party’s constitutional right of petition or free speech. The anti-SLAPP statute was enacted to prevent and deter lawsuits that chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances and provides “an efficient procedural mechanism to obtain an early and inexpensive dismissal of nonmeritorious claims” arising from the exercise of those constitutional rights. . . . . The resident’s front lawn is a public forum for purposes of the First Amendment. . . . Moreover, it is now well established that the anti-SLAPP statute protects private conversations as well as those occurring in a public forum.” (Santa Barbara).

“’Public interest’ within the meaning of the anti-SLAPP statute has been broadly defined to include, in addition to government matters,  ‘private conduct that impacts a broad segment of society and/or that affects a community in a manner similar to that of a governmental entity.’ (Ruiz; according to California statutes).

[My emphasis]

“[W]e hold the trial court properly determined the anti-SLAPP statute applied because the evidence showed the alleged defamatory statements were made “in a place open to the public or in a public forum” and concerned “an issue of public interest. . . .  The two locations where the alleged defamatory statements were made–at the Board meetings and in the Village Voice newsletter [HOA] –were open to the public and constituted “public forums.” Additionally, because each of the allegedly defamatory statements concerned [*11] the manner in which a large residential community would be governed, they concerned “issue[s] of public interest.”  (Damon).

“A homeowners association board is in effect ‘a quasi-government entity paralleling in almost every case the powers, duties, and responsibilities of a municipal government’ (citing Cohen v. Kite Hill Community Assn).”  (Damon).

My quick survey of state anti-SLAPP laws shows AZ, IL, HI, GA and MD as having strict laws relating to only issues before the legislature or a law, as petitioning rights.  A host of other states contain the much broader right to file an anti-SLAPP suit for issues of public interest. They are: CA, FL (as of 7/2015), IN, LA, OR, RI, TX, VT, and WA.  Check current status.

Case references:

  1. Santa Barbara Beach Club HOA v. Freeman, 2d Civil No. B212972 (Cal. App. 2nd 2010)
  2. Ruiz v. Harbor View CA, 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 133 (2005)
  3. Damon v. Ocean Hills [an HOA], 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 205 (2000)

Letter to Sen. Rubio on necessity of national HOA reforms

August 10, 2015

open email letter

Dear Senator Rubio,

In 2008 as FL Speaker of the House you created the Select Committee on Condominium and Homeowner Association Governance (FL legislative HOA committee gets subpoena power).  I attended the Tampa hearing and edited the public domain video of the hearing.  These clips can be found at http://YouTube.com/HOAGOV.

Your help, as candidate for the presidency and as the future President of the United States, is needed to return some 20% of Americans to the American Zone. HOAs are unconstitutional private governments strongly supported by special interests with the help of state legislatures, as you may well know.  Please understand that HOAs can function as local state entities that will provide due process and the equal protection of the laws to homeowners who were mislead about what HOA life is really all about.  It is a national issue!

For your easy reading, and that of your staff, the fundamental constitutional defects are presented in 3 documents that contain substantial legal authority and evidence.

Please read:

The future of America is the continued social and political decay of the principals and values that founded this great nation unless you continue HOA reforms on a national level.  America must be protected from constitutional rejection by means of alleged private contracts that cross the line from property interests to the creation of private governments, governments that are not subject to the 14th Amendment!

You can awaken the people to the silent special interest and state support and acquiescence of private authoritarian governments by calling attention to the un-American HOA legal structure during your campaign.

Respectfully,

George K. Staropoli
602-228-2891

NJ bill A469 a step toward regulatory agency oversight of HOAs?

NJ bill, A469 (former A1730), sponsored by NJ Speaker Pro Temp, Jerry Green, attempts to detail certain state protections for owner-members of HOAs.  Detailed protection is needed as a result of the vague and broad language of the statutes and governing documents that cause 1) unknowledgeable owners who complain to be “blown away” by HOA “officials,” including attorneys, and 2) unnecessary law suits just to clarify language that the HOA attorneys know misrepresent legal doctrine.

For example, “attorney-client privilege” is abused to apply to legitimate corporate records that are not attorney work products; and the misleading, contractual “after notice and opportunity to be heard” phrase regarding complaint hearings that short circuits the legitimate due process protections specifying confrontation of witnesses, providing evidence and the questioning of witnesses by an independent tribunal.

Among other things, the bill addresses due process by DCA (Department of Community Affairs) and fair election procedures, another vague and unspecified process in the governing documents.  It further takes the proactive step, as I’ve alluded to in my writings on HOAs as a government entity, with the pronouncement that, “Any governing documents of an association not in compliance with this section . . .  shall be deemed amended to be in compliance” (C.45:22A-43.c); and “Notwithstanding the provisions of any law to the contrary, a homeowners’ association shall be deemed to have amended its governing documents, including its bylaws” (45:22A-46.e.) (my emphasis).

In addition, additional regulatory powers are granted to DCA, “The Commissioner of Community Affairs shall promulgate any rules and regulations that may be necessary to effectuate the provisions of [this bill]” (C.45:22A-48.b).

Relevant excerpts from this bill can be read at Excerpts.

Some call it government interference in a democratic society.  Others, including yours truly, see it as legitimate police powers of the government to protect its citizens. As stated in this bill in its closing “Statement” (“legislative intent” statement), “This bill clarifies the intent of the Legislature that P.L.1993, c.30 (C.45:22A-43 et seq.) be viewed as an enabling act for homeowners’ associations of non-condominium types of planned real estate developments . . . .” (My emphasis).

In fact, the Planned Community Act states,

 “45:22A-22. Public policy

“The Legislature in recognition of the increased popularity of various forms of real estate development in which owners share common facilities . . .  deems it necessary in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare . . . that dispositions in these developments be regulated by the State pursuant to the provisions of this act.

“45:22A-24. Administration of act. 4.

“This act shall be administered by the Division of Housing and Development in the State Department of Community Affairs, hereinafter referred to as the “agency.”

Does NJ law make HOAs an arm of the state, state actors, or an unconstitutional delegation of legislative powers to a private entity? 

In short NJ law has created a state regulatory agency and is now proposing to grant it further legitimate authority under its police powers in the “interest of the public health, safety, and welfare.”  An “enabling act,” as the statutes are clearly being designated, is required to grant powers and authority to state agencies.  State agencies are “arms of the state” subject to the 14th Amendment.

If deemed not, then do the NJ statutes provide sufficient control and oversight of private entities by the legislature?  I believe a resoundingly not!  A469 attempts to move in this direction, but more is needed.

I argued this issue in regard to HOAs in general in Supreme Court says corporations cannot be used to evade Constitution and Regulatory agency enforcement of HOA violations.