Tag: Arizona

The Lone Ranger still fights for HOA constitutionality

“(Common Ground, May/June 2006, Christopher Durso, Editor).

“CCLG’s [Citizens for Constitutional Local Government] founder and president, George Staropoli, for example, originally agreed to an interview but later changed his mind. In a brief phone call during which he’s quiet and almost courtly, he explains that Common Ground is CAI’s ‘house organ,’ and that he’d be more comfortable with a debate or similar format where he could express himself at length, without the risk of being quoted out of context. He asks that his prolific writings on the CCLG website speak for him, although a week or two later he sends an ‘open e-mail questionnaire to CAI’ containing four questions that sprout from CCLG’s mission.”

####

 As of this writing, the four questions, also sent to the Arizona Legislature, have not been answered by any party.  Why not?

“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. 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?”

Staropoli lists a selection of unsolicited testimonials over his many years of HOA activism.  

His latest activity in January 2024 was the publication of “Seeking HOA Constitutional Government: the continuing battle, Collected Writings.” It contains in one volume some 56 writings — emails, social media postings, and articles — presenting 24 years of historical events, case histories, legislation and related documents by proponents of the HOA status quo.

Will the AZ Legislature reject the Constitution: does the HOA control public streets?

Thanks to Dennis Legere of AZ Coalition, AZ HB 2470, as far as I can tell form LegiScan, there are no amendments to this bill. Interpretation: caps are new provisions; strikeouts are deleted.

“33-1818. Community authority over public roadways  A. For any planned community for which the declaration is recorded  after December 31, 2014 and Notwithstanding any provision in the community  documents, after the period of declarant control A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY  ACCEPTS THE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF COMMUNITY ROADWAYS FROM THE  DECLARANT, an association has no authority over and shall not regulate any  roadway for which the ownership has been dedicated to or is otherwise held  by a THAT governmental entity.”

Sections (B) and (C) of ARS 33-1818 are deleted in their entirety. Note that there is no “IF” qualifier meaning that the bill is a mandate for state action. The bill states the law for all HOAs.

As of this date its sitting in the Rules committee. It must pass Rules in order to go to the floor for a House vote. Then again in the Senate. Therefore, advocate Call To Action is to email the House Rules Committee members and argue to pass on the bill for a floor vote. Let all the Representatives have their democratic say.

Historically, this control of public streets issue  started back in 2014. A comprised solution was found in  2014 (I was then involved with Sen. Barto) that split who controls into 2 time zones. If HOA formed after 2014 the municipality controls, otherwise control status remains as of 2014. The only active and relevant HOA, or pseudo, HOA was Sun City West — Up until 2025. STAY AWAKE, more coming.

The new bill, HB 2470, amends a technical correction amendment of 2023 (HB2298, CH. 84)) relating to ARS 33-1818. It stated that HOAs formed prior to January 2015 must call for a vote of the members to retain the HOA’s control of public streets within the HOA. Only if it already “regulates any roadway,” which I believe is only Sun City West – those  retirees.” (My HOA falls into this category, before 2015 with public streets, but not regulating them).

This bill makes it clear that once the developer/developer turns the streets over to the state, HOAs have no control over public streets within the HOA. A solid stand in support of the AZ Constitution and the laws of the land. Obviously, an HOA with no public streets is still possible, and the HOA bears all costs for the street.

There 98 RTS entries FOR the bill, and 30 opposed, including CAI, the League Of Arizona Cities & Towns, the towns of SURPRISE,  Gilbert and Goodyear.  I recognize some opponents as being individuals who are CAI member attorneys: Lynn Krupnik and Jason Smith.

This bill is really a power struggle between CAI and state enforcement of  the Constitution. Why then is CAI once again vehemently in support of private government HOA control of public streets and not the state when there are existing laws that would meet an HOA’s objective?  Specifically, seeking a variance from their local planning board, and in general creating HOAs under Arizona’s Home Rule statutes, which makes them  a municipality. Why? Because the real import of the bill is CAI’s control of HOA-Land without state oversight. One aspect of a slow death to a democratic America.

The neglected court Rule 11(b)

An informative Arizona case, Potter v. Arizona House [Potter],  brought forth claims that Rules of Civil Procedure 11(b) [FRCP] were violated by plaintiff and sanctions were awarded under 11(c).  Potter in his lawsuit discovery request sought Arizona House of Representatives public records, and also sought communications records between a private,  third party person and the Representative being charged. She refused claiming as a private person she was not subject to public records disclosure laws.

She filed a Rule 11(b) complaint citing (b)(1) and (b)(2) that the request was improper and to harass and delay, and that the claims were unwarranted —  “frivolous”. The court had evidence and ruled that Potter was vexatious litigant – in short just a troublemaker – that didn’t help Potter and the court did not dismiss her charges;  sanctions were justified.

This Commentary brings an important message to those homeowners who have complained on social media about their HOA many times, on many issues, over a period of time. You have probably been seen, not charged, as a troublemaker tying up the court’s time. Not helpful. 

To make my point, allow me to quote the phrase from the old Dragnet TV police series of the 1950s:  “Just the facts, Mame. Just the facts.”

See in general,  HOA members fail to invoke their strongest weapon — Rule 11, representations to the court (2018).

 References

Potter.   Potter v. Arizona House, CA-CV 23-0213, Ariz. App. 1 (2-1-2024).

FRCP-11. Note this FRCP Representations section can also be found in state rules of civil procedure, R 11 (b). Both contain R 11(c) that provides sanctions for violations.

Federal Rules Civil Practice (FRCP-11)

“(b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances: (1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; (2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law; (3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and (4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.”

No unreasonable HOA expectations

A healthy democratic society cannot be said to exist without  a representative government making fair and just laws. A practical, real-life approach gave rise to the legal concept of reasonableness in an attempt to classify and designate conduct underlying a fair and just administration of the law. The reasonableness doctrine has finally come to HOA disputes in regard to reasonable expectations.

CAI has opposed the doctrine of reasonable expectations as too vague, too iffy, and disrupts the order and structure of the HOA “community.” In its amicus brief CAI argued that “reasonableness should be measured by the collective voice, exercising their contractual right to lawfully amend their covenants.”

The full commentary is a lengthy legal exposition examining 3 Arizona cases on the application of a homeowners’ reasonable expectation at time of purchase. Read it here: Reasonableness public policy. “reasonableness should be measured by the collective voice, exercising their contractual right to lawfully amend their covenants

AZ CAI attempts to unduly influence the courts

In Arizona’s Thompson v. Albertson,[1] the Arizona Supreme Court ruling in Kalway[2] was put to the test and challenged by CAI in its amicus brief.  Kalway held that

“The general-amendment-power provision and general-purpose statement were not sufficient to provide notice of future amendments. We interpret such restrictions to reflect the reasonable expectations of the affected homeowners.  We hold that a general-amendment-power provision may be used to amend only those restrictions for which the HOA’s original declaration has provided sufficient notice.”

The appellate Court addressed CAI’s 42-page amicus brief, which the court does not usually perform but special attention was warranted.  In short, CAI sought the appellate court to modify the AZ Supreme Court’s ruling that the case was a memorandum and not mandatory precedent. And as such, it did not consider its decision as mandatory precedent.  Therefore, the ruling applied only to the case at hand.

Not the first time CAI attempted to influence the Court. In 2011 CAI AZ had tried 3 times to have the court’s decision that OAH adjudication of HOA disputes was unconstitutional. I had filed as pro se amicus that was accepted and resulted, as I firmly believe, resulted in changing the appellate court decision as an opinion to a memorandum without precedent standing.

“The [AZ Supreme] Court in addition to its regular fashion of terse announcements, DENIED or ACCEPTED, added an order under its powers to do so, AZ Supreme Court Rule 111(g), that the Gelb decision was not to be published. Not being published means that it is not binding authority, or precedent. It seems then that the door is open and res judicata – already decided – doesn’t apply.”[3]

[In Thompson] Discussion, Section IV. The Amicus Curiae Brief

“¶31 Community Associations Institute (‘CAI’) filed an amicus curiae brief requesting ‘clarification’ and possible ‘limitation’ of Kalway. Whether Kalway should be clarified or limited is a question for our supreme court. . . .  (‘The lower courts are bound by our decisions, and this Court alone is responsible for modifying that precedent.’). We therefore decline CAI’s invitation to reach beyond the specific facts of this case to provide ‘direction and guidance.’”

Simply said, the appellate court rejected CAI’s attempt to overrule the AZ Supreme Court.

####

Thompson v. Albertson, No. CA-CV 23-0082 (Ariz. App. Div 10 10-24-2023

AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS INSTITUTE (CAI) (FILED WITH THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE PARTIES)

Mark Lines – #020553

SHAW & LINES, LLC

Counsel for Community Associations Institute

First, CAI continues to misrepresent itself and claim it’s “serving more than 74 million homeowners . . . CAI is representing not only itself, but also its tens of thousands of members on this important issue.” CAI fails to inform the Court of that the homeowner “volunteers” constitute an estimated 32% of its membership and have an estimated meager 14% representation in its governing board of trustees.[4]

CAI membership, at most, consists of a miniscule .05% (.00048).

Of the 33,000 CAI members, a minority of some 10,800 are ‘volunteers’ and not attorneys or managers.

‘Volunteers’ (CAVL) represent a miniscule .016% (.00016) of HOA members.

Second, the CAI argument. The AZ Supreme Court decision in Kalway[5] made reference to the vague term, “reasonable expectations” when considering the validity of HOA amendments. (The supreme court realized that the common procedural covenant that any amendment passed by the necessary vote was valid regardless of its impact on the members).

What the original declarant might have intended, and what owners first reasonably expected of the eventual use and improvement of those lots must be considered in the context of time, and reasonableness should be measured by the collective voice, exercising their contractual right to lawfully amend their covenants.

“Indeed, a “covenant can be amended to refine it, correct an error, fill in a gap, or change it in a particular way.” Kalway,  . . . That’s the power and right of the owners collectively, through a majority vote, if the dictates of time demand it.”

CAI had argued against the reasonable expectations test as being too vague when all was clear and precise in the existing amendment procedures.  The Court rejected the amicus brief because  CAI had the audacity and the arrogance to ask the appellate court to overrule a supreme court decision.  Unreal!

There cannot be change without change

As long as advocates remain silent and fail to criticize CAI’s misrepresentations —
“candor to the tribunal” ethical code violations —  before the court, the legislature, and the media CAI will remain the voice of HOA-Land.

“To succeed you must accept the world as it is  and rise above it.”

[1] Thompson v. Albertson, No. CA-CV 23-0082 (Ariz. App. Div 1)  10-24-2023.

[2] Kalway v. Calabria Ranch HOA, LLC, 252 Ariz. 532.

[3] (See AZ Supreme Court denied hearing the Gelb Petition to restore ALJ adjudication of HOA disputes).

[4] See “Why CAI is the Evil Empire.

[5] Supra n. 2.