Tag: Arizona

The hostile face of Arizona’s DFBLS to HOA dispute resolution

So I now ask, as the DFBLS website still informs viewers that there may be a fee increase, placed there soon after SB 1148 became law, “Why is there this heightened concern for HOA filing fees and not other fees? Have the pro-HOA special interests been at work making suggestions to, or whispering in the ears of, DFBLS Director Palma to increase the fees as part of their effort to stop justice for homeowners in HOAs? The same group that lost 42% of their cases before OAH, who had finally brought down the 2006 law as unconstitutional, and now threatens to do so again with SB 1148.

 

Please note that DFBLS is not listed inder ARS 41-1092(7), definitions by name of agency, as a “self-supporting regulatory agency”  . . . In fact, according to its minutes, the arguments for a fee increase were rejected by the JLBC on November 15, 2006.

Under the DFBLS web page, Homeowners Associations, why is there no information being provided to homeowners who may seek to file a complaint, except to have them read the law? Why is there no email contact provided for the public? For a $50 fee, DFBLS provides plenty of information under its mobile home obligations. And much, much more under its Fire Marshall and Manufacturing obligations.

Why is DFBLS presenting this hostile face to homeowners in HOAs seeking justice under the law?

Read the complete Commentary at DFBLS Hostility

the Truth in HOAs poll message is quite clear

In the Introduction to the Gutenberg Press ebook publication of Aristotle’s Politics, A. D. Lindsay wrote, “The existence of force is for Plato and Aristotle a sign not of the state but of the state’s failure. . . . the state represents their common agreement, force their failure to make agreement complete.”

The champion of the people, Thomas Jefferson in his 1801 inaugural address, stated, “That though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possesses their equal rights, which equal law is to protect, and to violate would be oppression.”

Evan McKenzie, in Beyond Privatopia, warns that, “Shifting political authority to relatively invisible boards of directors who are basically beyond democratic accountability but who control enormous amounts of money may be a dangerous practice.”

In contrast to those CAI, industry sponsored “satisfaction with HOA” surveys, a very direct and simple poll is being conducted on the internet. It addresses the issues of the legitimacy of HOA governance in regard to the validity of a genuine consent to be governed, and a surrender or waiver of an individual’s rights, freedoms, privileges and immunities. It asks the readers directly, ”Would you sign, or would have signed, the Truth in HOAs Disclosure Agreement?” (See Truth in HOAs disclosure poll — please vote your conscience<.

After just 4 days, the results have shown a steady outcome, with at this writing,

  • 83% responding to, “NO — Would anyone in their right mind knowingly sign such an agreement?”

  • 16% responding to, “NO — I won’t agree to accept such conditions although I want to protect my property values.

  • And one lonely vote for, “YES — I readily accept the conditions, and I want to protect my property values.”

  • and no responses to, “YES — I had no choice for comparable housing, so I accept the conditions.”

The absence of any support for choosing an HOA for its alleged property value protection must be noted. This absence allows for some important conclusions. Nobody has gone on record, even anonymously, to support what many have expressed as the outrageous propaganda by the pro-HOA factions in our society. This propaganda, in its fullest argument, declares that the people openly embrace the HOA concept and fully and knowingly consent to be governed by the HOA regime in every way. The lack of any supporting response, however, seems to indicate some embarrassment of having to admit to a falsehood. To indicate some feeling of guilt. A realization that if they respond YES that they will be rejecting our democratic system of government for empty promises of a few pieces of gold So, they cannot admit to it by voting YES.

It is also interesting to note the 16% response to rejecting the Agreement, but affirming the desire for protecting property values. Not presented here, but there are other means of providing for the HOA benefits that do not violate our principles of democratic government. One such proposed mechanism exists today, but the people have been conditioned to accept repressive private government over no public government with all its protections. (See my 2004, A proposal for the “Muni-zation” of HOAs; Stop developers from granting private government charters<.

It appears, in spite of outcrys and laments of defending the Constitution, that state legislators have adopted the attitude of the Emperor’s council of advisers in The Emperor’s New Clothes, and allowed themselves to be swayed by fast talking self-anointed pundits. They have allowed this state of affairs to exist, and to continue to grow. Example: in Beyond Privatopia McKenzie tells of a Madison, MS ordinance (10-406.14, 2006) that makes it unlawful to violate the CC&Rs and allows the HOA to file a civil court complaint.

And he presents the first steps in an explicit symbiotic relationship between cities and HOAs with the creation of a “Congress of Neighborhoods<"in Gilbert and Chandler, AZ that “formally links cities with associations” in a number or areas, including HOA educational seminars. How about constitutional law and government 101 seminars? None. The “Congress” sounds like the beginnings of The United HOAs of Arizona

The message of this Truth in HOAs Disclosure Agreement poll is quite clear. And again I ask, “Who will protect the people from powerful factions?”

CAI firmly supports the New America of HOA-Land

This issue of the Community Association Institute’s house organ, Common Ground, has the strongest language for the triumph of private agreements to supersede the US Constitution, making the Constitution a meaningless piece of paper, a meaningless document, and an empty compact between the people and the state. “The right to regulate activities within a community association is an embodiment of our constitutional rights to enter into agreements with our neighbors” so proclaims CAI. It implies that the community association is just another corporate entity, and not the governing body that regulates and controls the people within its borders, which is the essential ingredient that distinguishes a corporation from a political government, a state.

CAI is falsely arguing that anybody can write an agreement to circumvent the Constitutional protections that forms the basis of our political system of government. In essence, CAI is advocating the rejection of the Constitution as the supreme law of the land and you and your neighbor can draft a new constitution as you see fit, ignoring the original Founding Fathers document. And so can another group, and another, and another, and so on. Why Is CAI arguning so? Perhaps because as private organizations, HOAs are not bound by the Constitution and can do as they please – the Constitution be damned!

CAI bitterly complains in this piece about one “disgruntled resident “[who] used the power of government to limit the freedoms of association residents” and caused Arizona to use its legitimate police powers to regulate people and organizations, and to protect the constitutional free speech rights to fly the Gadsden Flag in HOAs

And, seemingly desperate, CAI lets its readers know where it stands: The one constant is that your colleagues at CAI, working through 33 state legislative action committees, are fighting to protect associations and ensure a healthy business environment for the companies that support our communities” (Emphasis added). CAI does not stand for the people, but for the undemocratic governing body of subdivision territories known as homeowners associations. And, CAI says it loud and clear, making it quite explicit: CAI is “fighting to . . . ensure a healthy business environment for the companies that support our communities.”That is, for their members, the lawyers and their self-proclaimed professional management firms. Let the Legislators hear well!

CAI is firmly behind the New America of HOA-Land of independent principalities unaccountable to any state in the Union. A balkanized hodge-podge of independent “city-states, under a parallel constitution known as the Uniform Common-Interest Ownership Model Act (UCIOA) and its variants across this country. Brought to you by the legal-academic aristocrats who have avoided any discussion of secession or repudiation of the principles of our American system of government. But, running to the state for protection as any principality must do. And the civil government of the state abdicates its duties under the US and state Constitutions, and protects these regimes against its own citizens.

“Fees, Finances and Flags,” Common Ground July-Aug 2011, CAI.

ADRE: Licensed AZ R.E. agents can do as they please in HOAs — Not My Job

In its internet PR statement to consumers, “Information for Consumers” page, the Arizona real estate department, ADRE, assures the consumer that (emphasis added),

We want to protect consumers from being harmed in real estate transactions. You will find a wealth of information on this website that will help you be a smarter real estate consumer. You will also find information about what to do if something goes wrong in your transaction. Remember, we are always willing to help.

If you need to speak with an ADRE staff person, phone the ADRE Consumer Assistance Team at 602.771.7730.

(AZ R.E. dept ignores HOA laws in its policy of “No Negatives About HOAs” (July 2010)).

In May 2011, when asked for the third time over 7 years why ADRE doesn’t enforce this rule (R4-28-1101) when it comes to HOA transactions, its typical answer dealt with their non-regulation of HOAs, and, in this recent reply (emphasis added),

However the Department has to be advised, typically by way of official complaint, that there is an apparent abuse of the laws occurring. At that time, the Department would investigate and proceed from there. Without knowledge of a perceived violation occurring, the investigation cannot begin.

What we have here is a failure to act, a failure of government authorities to make their allegations about consumer protection — in effect their propaganda that deceives the people — a reality.

(Do not buy an HOA controlled home in Arizona — you are on your own!)

 

Please understand, as I’ve pointed out in earlier writings, there are no exemptions for HOA properties in the real estate statutes or Commissioner’s Rules (also law) pertaining to licensed property managers. So, I wondered what ADRE’s answer would be if indeed a complaint was filed against an ADRE licensed property manager who happened to manager an HOA. Fortunately, I was able to uncover a copy of an ADRE response to this question, dating back to March 2010, signed by a Senior Investigator:

The Department reviewed your complaint against THE XXXX COMPANY and its employed real estate licensees and found it involves a matter where the Department has no jurisdiction. Management of homeowner associations and regulation of CC&R’s are not regulated by the Arizona Department of Real Estate. There is currently no state agency that regulates homeowner associations. This situation is civil in nature and requires mediation or litigation. Your best course of action is to seek counsel and resolve your issues through the appropriate court.

When it comes to policing its licensed agents to protect consumer home buyers, ADRE jumps on the bandwagon, “NOT MY JOB.” The issue is not the type of property, but the actions of its licensed agents with respect to their obligations and duties as a licensed real estate agent.  And that’s where ADRE has its powers and authority to act. The unspoken alliance comes out quite strongly here with ADRE’s hands-off policy.

 

Ladies and gentlemen, you are already living in the NEW AMERICA OF HOA-LAND. Just accept it. You will soon learn to adjust.

Where is the justice? AZ court gives HOA a “do over”

In Pinnacle v. Derailed (CA_CV 10-0604, Ariz. App. Div. 1, May 31, 2011) , the HOA objected to a sculpture because the homeowner didn’t get ACC approval. As we’ve seen many times before, the homeowner replies, “Show me where I must get to ACC approval when the governing documents are silent on the issue?”

The HOA attorney, CAI member and “defender of the faithful,” Scott Carpenter, made the following arguments, among others,

The [HOA] letter asserted without elucidation that the “governing documents prohibit this type of sculpture.” (Emphasis added.) Derailed responded that if the sculpture constituted a violation, many other violations were visible on neighboring properties and declined to remove the sculpture. . . . counsel cited Article 1, § 15 of the CC&Rs, which requires Committee approval of “all landscaping plans.”

The trial court, having reviewed the definitions of “landscaping, and in the absence of a “redefinition” of landscaping in the governing documents, held that sculptures are not part of the meaning of landscaping. The court, siding with the homeowner, wrote

the governing documents did not either require Derailed to seek approval for a sculpture or prohibit a sculpture. The court also found that the sculpture was neither “landscaping” nor a “structure or dwelling” and that the Association had not argued that it was an unsightly object.

The appellate court refused to “read tea leaves” and divine meanings not set forth in the governing documents, “we also “should not give a covenant a broader than intended application.” Carpenter then tried to argue that a sculpture was a structure, and that it failed to meet architectural designs. Both rejected. But, Carpenter failed to argue that the sculpture was unsightly, perhaps, if true, would have been a grounds to not allow the sculpture. “The Association did not characterize the sculpture as “an unsightly object.”

However, the court became activist and wanted a “do over” as it felt some issues weren’t considered by the trial court and it wanted the court to consider them.. A “do over”, a second “grab at the apple.” On legal “technicalities”, once again, the appellate argued that Derailed failed to object to Carpenter’s raising the issue of “unsightly” and claiming that Carpenter had “waived” this argument. Consequently, the issue of “unsightly” can be considered by the appellate court. In other words, Derailed did not argue that it was not an issue before the trial court and cannot now be considered at the appellate level. (I can’t count the number of times I mentioned that the homeowner must respond to all charges and claims made by the HOA, otherwise it might come back and bite them in the ass, like now.)

It should be noted that when the court asked at oral argument “which provision of the governing documents authorized regulation of sculptures”, Carpenter “cited Article 1, § 15 of the CC&Rs” and made no reference to Rule 2.28 of the ACC that pertained to “unsightly object.”What happened to“we also should not give a covenant a broader than intended application?” I guess the denial of the motion for reconsideration amounted to a bona fide trial court argument. And the court wanted an answer to the “unsightly object” issue that was not brought before the trial court,but apparently brought before the appellate court.

It seems that the court has leaned backwards to compensate for the failure of the HOA to specifically raise the question of “unsightly” at the trial level. How many times have I wondered what if these judges really sought to do justice and interjected themselves on behalf of the homeowner and said, in effect, “Hey boy, ya’ didn’t raise this valid and potentially winning issue of … So I’m sending it back to the trial court. Got my drift?”

As an aside, In March 2010 I spoke with the owner and, anticipating the HOA’s defense, I asked about the sculpture, “Was it acceptable”? He replied that it was the work of a known sculptor. I wonder how the trial court would decide? How much would it cost the HOA for Carpenter to pursue this uphill fight on “unsightly objects”?

As a second thoughtdid the court issue a memorandum and a restriction on the case being published and made a precedent? Generally, this occurs when the court feels no new opinions were made to serve to guide future cases.