Tag: Arizona

why shouldn’t HOA directors be held for criminal activities if the shoe fits?

The latest AZ-CAI chapter’s Call to Action, Apr. 5, 2012, objects to the AZ bill, HB 2160, that would make violations of the HOA elections procedure a Class 1 Misdemeanor. No reason s offered as to why not. The bill clearly states that only if the violation is an intentional violation, which is only fair considering the importance of fair and just elections in a democratic society. And aren’t we told by CAI that HOAs are the model of democracy?

Again, CAI resorts to scare tactics by focusing on the penalties under a class 1 misdemeanor. And that the fines, that can be as high as $20,000 for the HOA corporation, would be passed on to the homeowners. What an excellent approach to get member involvement, don’t you think, CAI? BTW, the Call does point out that the bill is to stop “electioneering,” you know, to stop the political machine interference so the people can “throw the bums out.”

The “we are poor volunteers” doing community good argument appears, but the presumption is that they are indeed doing good by opposing elections reforms. It ignores the fact that the bill addresses intentional acts by the political machine running the HOA for its own personal agenda. And the “death of the HOA” argument if we hold directors accountable for their acts is there, too. Well, should we support corrupt and incompetent entities used by a few for their personal agendas, entities that can ruin a member through fines and cruel foreclosure?

Finally, in an admission that not all actions by directors are covered by insurance — surprise, surprise – the fear of no insurance coverage is used. You know, it is not the acts of the directors themselves that is the precipitating cause of such refusals by insurers. No, not the directors, us poor volunteers.

I can hear those directors saying, “Damn! And we had it so good not being held accountable. Gee, I don’t think HOA life is such a good idea now that the “free ride” is over.”

I am well aware of the frequently used techniques that amount to legalized extortion by the HOA or its agent, the management firm. The 2 common instances are forcing the member to talk to the HOA attorney, and to sue on unsubstantiated and frivolous allegations. In the first instance, the member who is given notice of unpaid assessments but does not receive a detailed accounting of the alleged debt. So he rightfully asks the HOA for a statement of his account, not provided by the attorney, but is told to talk to the attorney. Why?

If the manager of president is not sure, he should contact the attorney on his dime and not the member’s dime – attorneys costs are charged back to the member. This is a legitimate request for corporate records and not attorney-privilege concern. And the HOA attorney knows this.

The second instance is the notice of a violation by the  attorney on HOA statements that would fail “reasonable cause” tests.  These allegations are acted upon without any attempt to “check out” the HOA charges, as it must necessarily be concluded, violating R. Civ. P. 11(a), “that to the best of the [attorney’s] knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law.”

The attorneys know that in the vast majority of these cases the homeowner will not go to court and either pay, if he can, or take the default judgment by the court. One JP Court judge told a homeowner in such a case that, “Normally, these type of HOA cases are default decisions . . . “ I would say that that amounts to legalized extortion with the attorney cooperating and looking the other way. See Code of Professional Conduct below).

(Sadly, Arizona bills with meaningful penalties against the HOA failed: SB 1240 would have awarded triple damages against HOA for selective enforcement actions; HB 2455, would have held the directors directly personably liable for member attorney fees; and HB 2731, would have held directors personally liable for lawsuits not made in good faith. They will be back next year, and the year after until put into law.)

HB 2160, elections reforms with meaningful penalties, gives the member a solid footing to take away control of the HOA by political machines and rogue boards. It awaits final votes.

Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court, Part V, Regulation of the Practice of Law, D, Lawyer Obligations, Rule 42.

1.2 (d) A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent

1.13 (b) If a lawyer for an organization knows that an officer, employee or other person associated with the organization is engaged in action, intends to act or refuses to act . . . that is a violation of a legal obligation to the organization, or a violation of law . . . .

AZ HB 2030 – slippery slope to Sanford police dept.?

The failures and continued actions of the Sanford, FL police department, with respect to the failure to uphold the laws on arrest in the Trayvon slaying, is disturbing. It reeks of a total disregard for justice and fair play. It causes me to consider what if your neighborhood HOA had these powers? The public policy with respect to HOAs has been a hands-off policy with and no accountability under the law – let them do as they please. Just as it seems the Sanford police department has adopted with its failure to arrest Zimmerman.

And yet, the Arizona Legislature sees no serious issue with the unrestricted delegation of regulatory powers to HOAs over parking on public streets as set forth in HB 2030.

“An association may regulate the parking of noncommercial vehicles on any roadway for which the ownership has been dedicated to or is otherwise held by a governmental entity . . . .”

My suggested amendment was ignored, “may regulate the parking . . . only with respect to parking by the members of the HOA who have waived their right to public parking on public streets within the HOA governed subdivision.” And the legislature rejected the position that the HOA can get a variance if it has legitimate parking concerns, like everybody else! The legislative intent to allow further unrestricted powers to these independent HOAs has become much clearer.

Would this bill put us on the slippery slope path that can produce an event like the Trayvon slaying? In Arizona, you can carry concealed weapons almost anywhere. The bill does not create any new laws, but is simply a re-affirmation for all to know of who runs local government. If this bill becomes law, then I believe we are on the slippery slope to the “law and order” of the wild, wild west by the power factions, like the cattle barons, railroad, and mining interests of the Old West. Arizona already had one incident where two HOA board members were killed in 2000 during a board meeting.

Although the bill is only about parking at this point, the real import of this bill is the starting out on the slippery pathway to further lawlwssness by HOAs. Where does it say that the the uniformed and arm-banded “HOA Security,” the police arm of the HOA, cannot stop and detain – that means ‘arrest’ — people on public streets? And Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio doesn’t want to do police public streets in HOA subdivisions. And we well know the great care and concern for proper procedure and obedience to the laws as exhibited by HOAs today in other areas. Can an incident like in Sanford happen with this grant of unrestricted powers?

Won’t happen here? Too far fetched? Wanna bet? To a lesser extent lawlessness  is happening everyday in HOA-Land, with respect to such issues as, failing to respond to records requests, making up rules on the fly, arbitrarily fining people, “political machine” elections, and going to court on the most trivial grounds, etc.  Now what will these rogue boards do next?

Good night and very good luck – the unspoken media HOA alliance

I hope that the paraphrased quote of, “Good Night and Good Luck,” the signoff by the renowned Edward R. Murrow, who was the only journalist to openly oppose the commie scare by Sen. McCarthy in the 50s, is recognized by the news media. The media of today, especially the local news media, the young and laughing personalities of the 5:00 PM news seem to be totally oblivious to important HOA bills before state legislatures. Bills that would affect some 20% of the people in across the country.

Why? It seems that they prefer to see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil about HOAs. Or is it really corporate media making the call?

Murrow, upon leaving the CBS network in 1953 had this to say about the TV news media.

Our history will be what we make it. And if there are any historians about fifty or a hundred years from now . . . they will there find . . . evidence of decadence, escapism and insulation from the realities of the world in which we live. I invite your attention to the television schedules of all networks between the hours of 8 and 11 p.m., Eastern Time.

We are currently wealthy, fat, comfortable and complacent. We have currently a built-in allergy to unpleasant or disturbing information. Our mass media reflect this.

Are the big corporations who pay the freight for radio and television programs wise to use that time exclusively for the sale of goods and services? Is it in their own interest and that of the stockholders so to do?

Since this statement was made, the news has become highly editorialized and selective, geared to entertain. It appears that providing important matters of civic concern affecting their private property and community to their viewers is a secondary concern, and only such information as the media moguls deem to be appropriate. (For a brief history of Arizona’s HOA news coverage, see Arizona HOA News History).

There have been no in-depth analyses or debates of the HOA legal concept even at the national level, as the spread of HOA-Land is nationwide. The Sunday news talk shows, or by 20-20 and Dateline, are silent. There have been no discussions on whether HOAs, as de facto governments, should by made a government entity. Or whether state legislatures should continue to allow equitable servitude law to supersede contract and constitutional law. Or the lack of debate on the absence of “truth in HOAs” disclosures, similar to truth in lending and truth in advertising.

Or what is the legitimate government interest to allow private governments to deny the equal application of the laws. Or to allow constructive notice – just take your deed — to bind unsuspecting home buyers to the CC&Rs sight unseen. Apparently there is no need to inform buyers at closing of the great leap that they are taking into the unknown.

Doesn’t the news media understand, haven’t they been taught in journalism 101, that silence carries an acceptance of conditions and events. With no opposing views, what do they think their viewers will accept and believe. Obviously, “No news is good news.” And this silence has helped generate the national groupthink that “HOAs are the next best thing to Mom’s apple pie.” This silence helps generate an inbreeding, a closed group without outside reality testing for verification. (See the seminal work by Irving Janis, Victims of Groupthink, 1972).

Here’s what the activist group, Psychologists for Social Responsibility (PsySR), has to say about groupthink (my emphasis).

A group is especially vulnerable to groupthink when its members are similar in background, when the group is insulated from outside opinions, and when there are no clear rules for decision making. Groupthink occurs when groups are highly cohesive and when they are under considerable pressure . . . . When pressures for unanimity seem overwhelming, members are less motivated to realistically appraise the alternative courses of action available to them. These group pressures lead to carelessness and irrational thinking since groups experiencing groupthink fail to consider all alternatives and seek to maintain unanimity. Decisions shaped by groupthink have low probability of achieving successful outcomes.

And PsySR finds fault with the media for failing to inform its viewers about the alternative views of others.

Knowledge is power and we as citizens and as a nation are becoming less powerful. The American press, especially the television news media, has let down the American people and the American people have allowed this to happen. US television news is geared more toward providing entertainment than information.

We can now answer why this silence, why this unspoken alliance of no negatives about HOAs. The history of the media’s role with respect to substantive issues on HOA constitutionality, and other legalities, has gone through four stages: 1) repeat what the special interests have to say, 2) allow advocates to speak out in opposition, 3) report only favorable stories, and 4) withdrawal from the controversy. (See Arizona HOA News History).

The reason for this withdrawal by the media can be found in their realization that the HOA legal concept cannot be defended without renouncing the US Constitution and our system of democratic government. In short, any such attempt would be Defending the Indefensible. So, silence is the only option if one truly believes, in spite of the overwhelming evidence, that HOAs are better than Mom’s apple pie.

With that I say, “Good night and good luck.”   Those of you living in HOAs surely need lots of it.

Who is the only true HOA stakeholder?

I’m tired of hearing the term, stakeholder, over and over again by CAI, and used by others including legislators. I don’t think that they know the real meaning of “stakeholder” as bastardized by CAI. Let me explain.

The term or concept of “stakeholder” is not found in the HOA “bible,” the Homes Association Handbook of 1964. I cannot find it either HOA texts, in the 1992 book by Prof. Jay Dilger, Neighborhood Politics, or in Prof. McKenzie’s 1994 book, Privatopia. However, McKenzie describes the beginnings of CAI in 1973 as an organization to solve the problems with HOAs. It was to consist of various “interest groups” that had an interest in making the HOA legal scheme work.

Even then, the real focus, as is today, was on the HOA directors and not on the homeowners per se – the five groups were: public officials (rapidly departed), professionals (attorneys), managers, developers and “homeowner associations directors (referred to by CAI as ‘homeowners’)”. Under “professional” there was reference to landscapers and accountants, etc., which makes these stakeholders also equal partners in your home, according to CAI. Gee, what would your spouse say to that? Talk about redefinitions and “newspeak.”

The term or concept of “stakeholder” is also not found in the 2000 CAI – ULI jointly funded testament to CAI, Community Associations, by Donald R. Stabile. But, in his discussion of history, Stabile speaks of The Homes Association Handbook (1963), “To establish the satisfaction all components of the housing industry expressed for [HOAs] . . . TB50 evaluated the perspectives of each [group].” It reflects the concern of various business interest groups – the stakeholders (this term is not used by Stabile), but not the homeowners, just the “association owners.” Stabile does point out that CAI was initially organized (1973) by these same groups of “interested” parties necessary to make the problems with HOAs go away, but then again, he mentions “homeowner leaders of associations,” but not homeowners.

 I believe this was the genesis of what later became the CAI argument that the stakeholders have an equal stake in the member’s private property home, for which the owner alone has monetary liability.

It should be obvious by now that the term “stakeholder” as used by CAI definitely excludes the homeowner, and has evolved from the long term focus on the “interest groups” with a stake in selling and making the HOA concept a success. It is obvious, too, from the false and misleading statements before Arizona legislative committees that CAI had met with all the stakeholders, but not one homeowner rights advocate was ever invited or attended these stakeholder meetings, just who CAI sees as “stakeholders.”

No HOA reforms? blame it on the legislature

As of this morning, of the 16 Arizona HOA reform bills that I’ve been following, only 3 bills have a chance of becoming law: HB 2160, elections reform, HB 2170, HOA cannot charge escrow agents for fees, and SB 1239, zoning board prohibitions against mandatory HOAs. The 3 bills carrying penalties against wrongful acts by HOA boards, and holding the boards accountable, are all DEAD!

Except for the possible penalties in regard to elections, there are no deterrents to the intentional abuse and violations by the HOAs regarding fines, failures to provide corporate documents, or to respond to homeowner inquires in order to resolve payment disputes.

The absolute “sanctity of contract” argument by CAI lobbyists continues to be thrown at the legislators, and shamefully accepted by many. This acceptance by these legislators insults homeowners as it carries an implied attitude that homeowners are masochistic, and openly and fervently signed a solid contract to be treated harshly if they dare raise a question — the “a contract is a contract no matter what” excuse to deny your rights. Shameful!

Actually, if they had consulted their legislative council, there are indeed restrictions on the validity of covenants, — not everything goes. (Remember, we must educate the legislators otherwise they will continue to accept the “gospel of HOAs” from CAI, as taught in their “educational” indoctrination classes and seminars).

Covenants that are 1) contrary to public policy, 2) arbitrary and capricious, 3) unreasonable, and 4) unconstitutional are invalid no matter if they were approved by the membership. And that’s the whole point of the issue: HOAs and legislators cannot ignore the laws of the land and do as they please, in spite of what the CAI attorneys like to proclaim. But, some legislators actually believe in “everything and anything goes.”

NOTHING WILL CHANGE UNTIL THE LEGISLATURE STOPS SUPPORTING DE FACTO HOA GOVERNMENTS AND RECOGNIZES HOAs AS DE JURE GOVERNMENTS SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF THE LAND, AS REQUIRED OF ALL OTHER GOVERNMENT ENTITIES

Under these conditions, do not ask for assistance unless you have the personality and will to fight for your rights all by yourself, and are willing to spend your money to do the state’s job for them, JUST MOVE OUT! The laws and governing documents all favor the HOA against you and the rights that you thought could not be taken away.