Tag: Arizona

AZ 1984 SC opinion ignored living constitution

The Arizona Supreme Court opinion in Planned Parenthood AZ v. Mayes (1984 law) is consistent with their predominant belief in Originalism. These Justices did not accept the view that the Constitution must adapt to society as exists today and be a Living  Constitution. This controversial issue was not discussed in its opinion.

Today a majority of U.S. Supreme Court justices are either self-described originalists or strongly lean toward originalism. Yet less than 50 years ago, originalism was considered a fringe movement, hardly taken seriously by most legal scholars.

Originalism is the theory that judges are bound to interpret the Constitution as it would have been interpreted in the historical era when it was written. Understood this way, originalism is the idea that judges must follow the law as written and not merely ignore it or reinterpret it to their liking.

Originalism is usually contrasted as a theory of constitutional interpretation with Living Constitutionalism. Living constitutionalists believe that the meaning of the constitutional text changes over time, as social attitudes change, even without the adoption of a formal constitutional amendment pursuant to Article V of the Constitution.

The AZ opinion is a sharp contrast to recent US Supreme Court opinions over the past years:

  • Brown v. Board of Education (society has changed and separate but equal is unsupported; 1954)
  • Roe v. Wade, 1973, overturned 2022. (women have privacy rights to abortion)
  • Affordable Care Act (“Fans of judicial inventiveness will applaud once again,”2010)
  • Citizens United (corporation freedom of speech  and can fund campaigns; 2010)
  • Hobby Lobby (separation state and religious beliefs; contraceptives, 2014)

CAI amicus brief: candor to the tribunal

Still think CAI is on your side and can be trusted to act in good faith?  Here’s the latest CAI propaganda bordering on a violation of the Rules of the AZ Supreme Court, R42, E.R. 3.3, (found in Rules in every state):

“Candor Toward the Tribunal: (a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:

(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;”

(3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. 

(b) A lawyer who represents a client . . .  and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.”

In CAI’s amicus brief to the AZ Supreme Court in CAO v. PFP Dorsey (Case No: CV-22-0228-PR, 2024), we see repeated half-truths about who CAI represents and what are its purpose and functions.  Some excerpts from “Interest of CAI as Amicus Curiae” (emphasis added),

  • is an international organization dedicated to providing information, education, resources and advocacy for community association leaders, members
  • CAI’s more than 43,000 members include homeowners, board members
  • serving more than 74.1 million homeowners
  • CAI is representing not only itself, but also its tens of thousands of members on this important issue.

CAI misrepresents its position and status.  It’s a miniscule organization and no way close to the estimated AARP’s 66% of 55 plus persons. The shortcomings include:

  • Failure to state it’s a business trade nonprofit, 501(c)6 and not an educational (c)3; (everybody knows does not count)
  • As a business trade entity, it is not allowed to have HOAs, the consumer of CAI’s member services, as members;
  • Not informing the court that “individual volunteers” constitute a minority class of membership, and
  • Failure to inform that the Management of CAI is controlled by a Board of Trustees in which its “volunteers” members are only 13% of the Board that is dominated by the management class;
  • ·         a 15-member Trustee Board supported by 2 groups of 12 representatives and the Homeowners Leadership Council  of only 6 representatives;
  • The current Trustees Board has a president from Dubai and a president-elect from the US, both managers; 6 more managers; 2 “HOA managers,” 2 lawyers and 3 others. (See Board of Trustees).
  • Failure to inform that no HOA board of directors, to my knowledge, has granted CAI the right to represent or speak for the HOA before government tribunals;
  • ·         Exaggerating its scope of influence and alleged representations when its total membership is less than 36% of HOAs or persons living in an HOA.  (Based on 2007 & 2012 data, See HOA homeowner membership in CAI is a mere 36%; Who controls CAI and its 50 state HOA lobbying committees?)
  • ·         As of this writing, CAI claims 45,000 members; 75.5 million residents, and 365,000 HOAs. With an estimated population of some 331 million people, 23% live in an HOA  — .06% of HOA residents are CAI members!

Would you consider the brief being honest and forthwith to the Court?

HOA reform advocates: the enemy is us

Let me start by saying that I have the utmost respect to the handful of persons, advocates, who have actively supported HOA reforms of substance over the years, and have had some success.  To all others I say, the enemy is us.

I well understand the reasons and justifications of people refusing to get actively involved. Personally, talking over the phone and through emails, that most do not have the temperament, want someone to solve their own personal issue with an attempt to expand it nationally, fear retaliation, fear legal issues and the government, and just don’t care about government issues in general.

The numerous social media reform groups, some old but most are new less than 3 years, have not only failed but have  resisted the establishment of a unified,  bona fide and legitimate, national entity; argued as far back by Evan McKenzie when interviewed by Shu Bartholomew, to the best of my recall, sometime before 2004. Today, I must regrettably say some groups make this claim, but they are in name only.

And so, the many Davids believe that they can defeat the mighty Goliath of CAI. The newbie leaders who rise from time to time and disappear a few years later, start by believing that CAI acts in good faith and they can work things out for the protection of homeowner rights. They quickly discover that they have been had, been played with, and realize they are helpless to withstand the entrenched CAI. Today, many who are beginning to be actively involved realize the dominance of CAI over their legislature.

Watch AZ CAI lobbyist at work, 2010, before committee dodge questions, make false statements, and avoid hard questions. Who Controls public streets? HOA or municipality? Part 2 of 3 (youtube.com). (Early quality video).

As the adage goes, as a figural demonstration of one’s commitment to reforms, “put your money where your mouth is.” However, in reality, I have asked people to buy my book, HOA Constitutional Government, as a demonstration of national commitment on a national website, Amazon, but have received token response.

In my announcement I  clearly stated, and still abide by it, that if there were such a legitimate national reform group I would assign all my royalties to that organization.  $15.00 is a trivial show of commitment but will be effective for recognition of national support. BUY NOW! Amazon books.

Taking a positive perspective, I noticed over the past few years a growing trend toward legislation and court decisions in several states affirming constitutional and fundamental rights of HOA members. That’s a good sign that advocate messages and communications are having an effect. 

Now is the time to strike while the iron is hot! Get unified, get organized, get focused, and stop the HOA social media reform groups’ fragmentation of me first, NIMBY policy.

AZ bill returns homestead protection against HOA claims.

We must make the injustice visible. We must provoke until they respond and change the laws.[1]

Arizona alert – strike everything HB 2648 (2024)  returns homestead protections against HOA claims.  

“ARS 33-1807 and 33-1256. “B. THE COMMON EXPENSE ASSESSMENT LIEN PRESCRIBED BY THIS SECTION IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION.”

Let’s go back into the forgotten history of the homestead exemption in Arizona, starting in 2004,[2] 2007[3] and 2023.  The issue was and is the use of statutes to mimic the common boilerplate of the CC&Rs:   Statutory vs consensual lien. “A 12 item list is presented mimicking the CC&Rs, a common tactic to legitimize contractual challenges to the governing documents.”[4]

In 2004, still learning the ropes, I did not follow up on the state actors controversy based on the ARS statutes saying (my emphasis), “‘The association has a lien on a unit for any assessment.” 

“Representative Farnsworth made quite clear that ARS33-1807(A), which opens with, ‘The association has a lien . . . . is a statutory lien and not a consensual lien – the homeowner has no choice in the matter whatsoever.” (emphasis added).”

This can only be interpreted as a mandatory statute making the HOA an arm of the state, acting in place of the state – a state actor.[5] No, and, if, or buts! It is not a consensual lien if mandated by the state!

A second argument raised many times subsequent to 2004 questions the validity of a genuine consensus – “an agreement to be bound.”  In short, the argument raised in Common Sense[6],

“First, the application of contract law to the CC&Rs agreement reveals the many invalid aspects of the CC&Rs as a bona fide contract.  It is obvious from a simple review of contract law.  Yet, courts have held that the CC&Rs are a contract or are to be interpreted as a contract, and have even analyzed the meanings of CC&Rs in the same manner as a contract. But, the courts do not question the validity of the CC&RS contract with respect to contract law.  The courts resort to equitable servitudes law, which simply requires the acceptance of a deed in order to bind the home buyer to the CC&Rs sight unseen.”

On this point alone, HB2468 must be strongly supported. The controversy of statutory vs consensual is avoided to the relief of homeowners.

It is the Achilles heel of CAI’s reason for being  — cruel foreclosure and no homestead exemption as a punishment to coerce obedience.

Notes

[1] Mahatma Gandhi, fighting for India’s independence from British rule, 1948.

[2] HOA Homestead Exemption Exclusion (SB1470) (2023) (A 2004 look back and a comment by Fred F).

[3] See, The constitutionality of legislation: AZ Gov. vetoes homestead exemption bill (2007);

Arizona SB1330 restores lost homestead protection in HOAs (2007).

[4] See, All state “may/shall” statutes imply HOAs as state actors.

[5] See in general, Are HOA state actors created by statutory use of shall/may? (Section 2, paragraphs 5 +). (2019).

[6] HOA Common Sense, No. 4: Consent to be governed

All state “may/shall” statutes imply HOAs as state actors

The use of the words “shall” and “may” have generally accepted meanings in state laws and statutes. Their use in bills and laws relating to HOA-Land raises the highly controversial question of: Are HOAs state actors?  “The overlooked impact and consequence of this word is to legalize activities and actions that were all-to-fore not legal rights granted to the HOA.”[1]

Arizona’s HB 2575 creates HOAs as state actors with the slick use of the legal differences between these terms. BUT, as applied to sui generis HOAs, implicitly create state actors. The bill introduces a new section (emphasis added) with, “ARS 33-1820. Powers of the association. Subject to the provisions of the declaration, the association may:” A 12 item list is presented mimicking the CC&Rs, a common tactic to legitimize contractual challenges to the governing documents. Very clever!

Item 4 is particularly onerous because of the use of the introductory “the association may.” A 12 item list is presented mimicking the CC&Rs, a common tactic to legitimize contractual challenges to the governing documents. Very clever!

Item 4 was particularly onerous because it permitted the HOA Board to lobby in the name of the members.

“[the association may ] 4. Institute, defend or intervene in litigation or administrative proceedings in its own name on behalf of itself or two or more members on matters affecting the association or planned community or the members’ interests.”

After 3 sessions ending with “ret on cal,” (retain on calendar)  I emailed my may/shall state actor argument (as summarized here) to the legislative leadership resulting in the sponsor’s amendment rewording item (4). In relevant part, “the association may not institute, defend or intervene in litigation or arbitration in its own name on behalf of itself or a member.”

Thus, a potential constitutionality challenge was avoided as I had instituted in 2013, and won, with the help on a nonprofit legal organization, Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest (ACLPI).[2]

Although the bill passed out of the House with the other argument that the 12 items also reflect an implied state arm it was a major victory 1) on a broad constitutionality issue and 2) a punch in the nose to CAI who actively sponsored this bill, according to the AZ Homeowners Coalition.  CAI can be beat!

There are other arenas to challenge and expose CAI for what it is and stands for.  I present some 56 events over 24 years that serve to guide what worked and what did not work for advocates to successfully challenge the Evil Empire. Organized into 4 sections: On Reform Legislation, On The Bill of Rights, On the Judiciary, and On Civics.[3]  Available on Amazon, paperback or Kindle.

References

[1] See in general, Are HOA state actors created by statutory use of shall/may? (Section 2, paragraphs 5 +). (2019).

[2] Suing the AZ Legislature: AZ Attorney General admits SB 1454 HOA to be invalid and without effect.

[3] Read the book, HOA Constitutional Government: the continuing battle.