Tag: Arizona

AZ bill reasserts state supremacy over HOAs

For several years at the Arizona Legislature bills with a very limited restatement, or reminder, that civil government controls public streets were proposed.  Each year they were defeated by the special interests —  read that to include the HOA boards acting as representatives not of the homeowners, but of the legal fictitious person, the HOA.

 
This year we see Arizona’s CAI LAC co-chair Scott Carpenter writing in his Arizona Legislative Session blog – surrounded by his firm’s advertising, links and buttons to pay fines, but speaking for himself, says he – about intrusions into the government of the independent HOA principalities.  He objects to Sen. Harper’s HB 2140, a bill to prohibit HOAs from denying homeowners their second amendment rights to carry arms, or more correctly, from prohibiting HOA interference with all those rights protected under Article II of the Arizona Constitution.  Article II is Arizona’s Declaration of Rights, the state’s version of the Bill of Rights, which all states have in one form or another.
 
Carpenter’s law firm had also fought to have the statutes providing for an independent tribunal to hear HOA disputes by DFBLS/OAH, which provided due process protections with fair and just hearings, declared in violation of the Arizona Constitution.  He now stands in opposition to and objects to the recourse to the Arizona Constitution to protect all the rights of homeowners.  Apparently he sees the Constitution as working solely on behalf of the HOA principality, but not for the homeowner— as it secedes from our constitution and from our system of democratic governance.  Welcome to the New America of HOA-Lands.
 
Carpenter continues his plunge into the secession from local government by HOAs, echoing as Robert H. Nelson discussed in Chapter 20, “Neighborhood Secession”, Private Neighborhoods: the transformation of local government (Urban Inst. Press 2005), while seeking the protection of the Arizona courts to enforce the HOA “constitution.”   (Interestingly, Private Neighborhoods references this writer’s 2000 statement to the Arizona Legislature on a Homeowners Bill of Rights, p. 102).  Carpenter cannot have it both ways!  He cannot deny constitutional protections for homeowners and then seek those protections for the HOA!   Such a position would be a repudiation of what this country stands for, and his oath to support the Constitution that he took when he was admitted to the State Bar:  “The Oath of Admission to the Bar:  I, (state your name), do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Arizona;”
  
What a sad state this country has come to when the legitimate political government of the state must reassert itself as the supreme law of the land.
 
Congratulations to Sen. Harper for this long awaited bill in support of the people.

AZ CAI attorney maintains that “the law cannot fix” abusive board problems

CAI lobbyist and LAC co-chair in Arizona, Scott Carpenter, made it quite clear in his 2011 Legislative Preview blog post, Jan. 11, 2011, that:  “Community associations function worst when the elected directors act out of self-interest, play favorites, and work for their own political purposes” (see, there are indeed serious  problems in HOA-Lands).  And then declares, “The law cannot fix this problem directly any better than the law is capable of fixing conflict in families or marriages.”  Let me repeat that:  “The law cannot fix this problem directly any better than the law is capable of fixing conflict in families or marriages.”  Has he ever read the Constitution, the Bill of Rights or the Declaration of Independence?
 
Sarah Palin, in her video on the Arizona shooting this past Saturday, made reference to the Founding Fathers understanding of man’s  imperfect nature.  She quoted James Madison (Federalist Papers #10), “If men were angels there would be no need for government.”  (See Constitutional Local Government website, http://pvtgov.org).  It was that awareness by the Founding Fathers that led to the adoption of checks and balances and of a separation of powers.  But when there is no accountability, no check on private HOA governments by state government, one can only assume that those who become directors are blessed with perfection in all that they do.  And that the wise and learned legislators have the exceptional ability to see these angelic persons, and find it only fair and just to leave HOA matters to the HOA board.  Perhaps this is the real reason for the hands-off policy of the legislature.
 
It should be noted, however,  that Carpenter, in an about face,  fails to mention his Dec. 17, 2010 letter to the CAI lobbyist, DeMenna, that it’s a good idea for  a law that gives a minority of members the power to alter your CC&R contract at the time of purchase – 2/3 of 50% quorum =  33.5% of all the members. HOAs are contractual and are not public governments.  If Carpenter wants the HOA to function like a public government with its election laws, his justification for this proposed change in law, then he should argue for the modification the CC&Rs contract by member vote and not by legislative fiat.  Apparently legislative interference is a swinging door, depending on which side of the fence Carpenter is on.  He now seeks legislative interference that he otherwise rejects.  (While Carpenter takes pains to inform the reader that he speaks for himself, not CAI and not for the firm, the letter is signed by Carpenter “for Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Wood, PLC.”  Nor does he mention the fact that he remains co-chair for Arizona Central CAI chapter as he writes.) 
 
Carpenter closes with a strong statement that control of the HOA belongs with the members and directors, in contradiction of his above proposed changes by legislative fiat.  What is quite clear is:  Carpenter is opposed to the democratic functioning by the people, the members alone, within the HOA subdivision, with no recourse to state oversight of its operations to protect you, the homeowner. He  is strongly opposed to accountability to the civil government by private governments functioning under  an authoritarian form of government.  In fact, his law firm, Jason E. Smith the attorney of record,  has trice opposed the delegation of  authority by the legislature to a state agency (DFBLS/HOA) to hear HOA disputes. (See, in general,  https://pvtgov.wordpress.com).  He appears to want HOAs to be treated as independent principalities.
 
Carpenter has made his position quite clear. He is opposed, like CAI Central, to constitutional protections for homeowners.  He seems to be arguing that HOAs are a special class of utopian government that require no oversight by the state.  And sadly, like many other political statements on the national level, there are those true believers who see no wrong because it would not sit well with their own personal agendas. Or, they are declaring their preference for dogmatic principles, like a misguided support for “individual rights,” which they interpret to mean, “we can do anything the majority wants with no constitutional constraints.”
 
This secession from constitutional government must stop!

Advocate submits amicus brief in AZ supreme court appeal of HOA due process

I submitted a motion requesting the court’s permission to file an amicus curiae brief in the AZ Supreme Court Gelb v. DFBLS appeal — the unconstitutionality of OAH adjudication of HOA disputes.  CV 10-0371-PR.  Under this option I did need the consent of both parties.  The court will decide on the fate of my amicus brief, and has yet to decide whether or not it will hear the Petition at all.
 
Here are some excerpts:
 
Staropoli provides this amicus curiae brief to assist the Court in understanding the broader political and social environment created by the lack of constitutional protections for citizens seeking justice from private government HOAs. . . . . There are no consumer protection warnings and notices such as “truth in lending” and “truth in advertising.”  The Attorney General’s office  refuses to act on homeowner complaints . . . . The Real Estate Dept. (ADRE) has failed to enforce its Commissioner’s Rule . . . A.A.C. R4-28-1101(B), Duties to Client . . . .  All of which raise serious issues of consent with full knowledge of life within the HOA regime.
 
.  .  .  . 
 
The issues before this Court are serious questions of the adjudication of HOA disputes by an independent tribunal in a “leveled” hearing process that permits the confrontation and questioning of witnesses and the presentation of evidence. The DFBLS procedure requires, as with a civil action, a statement of violation of law that is not currently required under the HOA “notice of a hearing and the opportunity to be heard” mockery of justice procedure, a procedure that encourages an “unconstitutional” taking of private property by private corporate entities.
 
For the foregoing reasons, the Court has no alternative but to reverse the appellate court opinion and quash the Phoenix injunction against hearing HOA disputes by DFBLS. If indeed the other branches of government are of the opinion that the statutes in question are unconstitutional, then they, and especially the only branch with the power to do so, the Legislature, can easily undertake a repeal of the alleged undesirable statutes. But, they choose to remain silent under the “unspoken alliance”. This Court must act in the name of the people.

Court appointed Receiver files punitive damages against HOA attorney

In 2008 the DC HOA in Casa Grande, AZ ran into huge debts.  It had relied on the advice of its attorney, CAI member Charles Maxwell. In 2009  a homeowner filed  for and was granted receivership by the Pinal County court.  The court found that an unauthorized removal of some $665,000 from the HOA’s bank and ordered Receivership to protect the assets of the HOA.  Now, the HOA is being run under the court ordered Receiver.
 
Last month, the Receiver filed charges of breach of fiduciary duty, breach of ethical duties, disgorgement, professional negligence, aiding and abetting, and breach of contract against the Maxwell & Morgan law firm as well as against Maxwell and his wife, personally.
 
“Aiding and abetting” is like colluding.  “Disgorgement” is asking that the wrong-doers give up their illegally gained profits.
 
Except for the breach of contract,  the above charges are torts — wrongful actions — permitting a claim for punitive damages, which the Receiver is seeking.   Filing tort claims and seeking punitive damages against the HOA and the individual directors is the only effective means today that homeowners have against abusive boards. 
 
Gee,  maybe the legislature will see the wisdom of providing its own penalties for wrong doing by abusive HOA boards.  Maybe CAI will think this is the smart way to go. 
File!  File!  File tort actions and seek punitive damages before it’s too late!

 

The continuing saga to quash HOA due process protections by the State of Arizona

 

On Feb. 11, 2009 my attempt to intervene in the Arizona Meritt superior court appeal of an DBFLS petition was denied. The Meritt complaint was based solely on the superior court decision in Waugaman, as no argument occurred in the Meritt default decision. I was required to file an Answer in defense of the statute to the HOA complaint that sought a declaration of unconstitutional adjudication of HOA disputes by DFBLS.

 

This denial was a surprising event given that Meritt was a default decision on a question of the constitutionality of a statute, and I had introduced the Attorney General’s brief in support of constitutionality from Waugaman in my Answer. In Waugaman, the AG’s brief was given a single line in the decision, a decision that quoted the HOA’s argument: “the Attorney General’s office fails to identify a single way in which the [Department] actually exerts regulatory authority over planned communities.” The focus was solely on whether or not the AG’s brief satisfactorily addressed the one issue of concern to the court, and to the HOA: the extent of regulatory authority. (For a clarification of the roles played by these cases, see my earlier comments on the Gelb petition at Will AZ Supreme Court do justice for 1 million HOA members? )

 

Filing as a Pro Per, this knowledgeable layman argued, among other things,

 

Here [HOA adjudication] there is a direct statutory adjudication authority and there is no need to divine legislative intent and tie it to an agency’s regulatory mission. The decision regarding constitutionality must therefore fall to the Bennett or four-fold test used in both Hancock and Cactus Wren. There is nothing in the Bennett test that considers proper regulatory authority per se. The requirement for adjudication as ancillary to proper regulatory authority is not a requirement of the Bennett four-fold test . . . . (¶ 10, p. 5).

 

In view of the facts in Hancock contained in paragraph 10, this fixation on regulatory authority is misplaced in view of the direct statutory authority to adjudicate contractual disputes in both the Act and planned communities. (¶ 11, p. 7).

 

This essential argument finding error with the Waugaman decision’s focus on the extent of regulatory authority (used as sole authority in Meritt, and essentially repeated in the Gelb appeal) is more elegantly presented in part 3 of the Nov. 30, 2010 Gelb Petition, “III. A.R.S. § 41-2198 is a Constitutional Delegation of Authority to An Administrative Agency and Does Not Violate the Separation of Powers Doctrine.” (p. 11). Gelb argued,

 

The Court of Appeals incorrectly determined § 41-2198(3) violated Article 3 of the Arizona Constitution because there was “no nexus between the regulatory authority or purpose of the DFBLS and the authority to regulate planned communities.” . . . Significantly, the word “nexus” does not appear in either decision. Nor does either case require “a nexus between the primary regulatory purpose of the [agency] and the adjudicatory authority granted in the Administrative Process” as stated in the Court of Appeals opinion.

 

Furthermore, in undertaking this analysis of the constitutional delegation of powers to an agency, the Gelb appellate court stated, “In applying these factors, we are mindful that duly enacted laws are entitled to a strong presumption of constitutionality and any doubts should be resolved in favor of upholding a statute against constitutional challenges.” Additional Petition arguments cited authority in support of a blending of functions, and agency adjudication as assisting the judiciary rather than usurping its powers as held in the Gelb opinion. These arguments attacked the court’s conclusion that the HOA had overcome “this strong presumption of constitutionality” of a statute.

 

Let us hope that the Arizona Supreme Court will hear this Petition and do justice on behalf of the people, an estimated 1 million plus Arizonans living in HOAs and condos.