Tag: bill of rights

HOA Kindle books

I have compressed and summarized my research on HOA constitutional  issues over ten years and have produced several Kindle books for a comprehensive understanding of the issues.  The historical basis for the current version of utopian societies begins with a review of The Homes Association Handbook of 1964, and the history of Community Associations Institute.

I’ve tried to bridge the gap between the writings of the academic,  political scientists and the people, and present and clarify the constitutional issues facing the curent HOA hegal scheme.

The following Kindle ebooks are available for downloading

2.

The Foundations of Homeonwers Associations and the New
America REVISED by George K. Staropoli (Kindle Edition – Oct 14,
2009) – Kindle eBook

Buy: $5.95
Auto-delivered wirelessly

3.

Establishing the New America: independent HOA
principalities by George K. Staropoli (Kindle Edition – Jul 17,
2008) – Kindle eBook

Buy: $15.95
Auto-delivered wirelessly

4.

Understanding the New America of HOA-Lands by George Staropoli (Kindle Edition – Sep 24, 2010) – Kindle eBook

Buy: $8.95
Auto-delivered wirelessly

Truth in HOAs disclosure poll — please vote your conscience

Please let us know where you stand on the HOA issues of “agreement to be governed” and “consent to obey.”   If the following Truth in HOAs Disclosure Agreement were required to be signed at the time of purchase, would you sign or not sign your waiver and surrender of your rights and give you explicit consent to be governed?

Homeowner Association (HOA)
Buyer “Truth in HOAs” Disclosure
&
Consent to be Governed Agreement

 

By my signature below, I , the undersigned Buyer, have read and understood the restrictions imposed upon me by law and the courts as a member of an HOA, and have agreed to the waiver and/or surrender of my rights explicitly contained below. All other rights not expressly prohibited below or expressly granted below to the HOA are retained by me.

I, the undersigned Buyer, and the undersigned HOA by its President, hereby acknowledge and consent to the following:

(a) that the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs), the bylaws, and any written rules and regulations are treated as binding private contracts by the courts; and that to enforce my rights under or compliance with the governing documents I must file suit in civil court, and that such a civil suit involves no state agency official, attorney general, or county attorney ;

(b) that under current court holdings, I am legally bound by any and all amendment to these documents validly enacted in accordance with the governing documents, with or without my vote or consent, provided that they are found not to be unreasonable, contrary to public policy or unconstitutional; and that an amendment may alter the CC&Rs at the time of purchase, binding me to
the amendment without my consent;

(c) that under current law, there are no substantive penalties against violations of the governing documents or state laws by the officers or directors of the association sufficient to serve as a detriment to future violations;

(d) that the association (HOA), as a private entity and not an arm of the state, is not subject to the restrictions and prohibitions of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution that otherwise protects the rights of the people against actions by public government entities; and that the governing documents in all legal practicality serve as the subdivision’s “constitution,” taking precedence over
state laws and the state and US Constitutions, unless specifically denied by any such laws or legal precedence;

(e) that the governing documents contain due process protections, in instances of alleged violations of the governing documents, that are less than as required under public laws and civil court procedures, that are lacking requirements for an independent tribunal, such as the right to introduce or confront witnesses, or the right to introduce and challenge contrary evidence;

(f) that in any dispute with the HOA, and contrary my rights under the federal fair debts collection practices act (FDCPA), the courts require continued payment of your assessments even while the dispute continues;

(g) that there are no equivalent clean or fair elections procedures as found in public government elections, to protect the integrity of the HOA election process; and

(h) that the practicable ability to institute member “initiatives” and make changes to the governing documents or ACC rules is highly dependent upon the active participation of my neighbors who, as a member of an HOA, have been described as indifferent and apathetic; and that there are no provisions for HOA board “referendums” on issues that ethically should be put to a vote of the members.

Twin Rivers and NJ HOA free speech rights, redux

Here we go again! Once again revisiting the question of free speech rights to display signs in a New Jersey HOA. In Mazdabrook v. Khan the appellate court revisited Twin Rivers and the underlying “test case’, State v. Schmidt, but with a different outcome in favor of free speech. I find it very interesting how our judicial system analyzes and bisects broad legal principles into 1001 “and, if or buts” micro-segments. How is the average person to know what is legal and what is not? Must he go to an attorney, who may or may not know but will take you to court to find out?

In Mazdabrook the homeowner placed campaign signs for his election as major of the town, not a for sale sign, but the HOA had governing documents permitting only for sale signs and no others. The court said No, No, No, that’s content-based restriction on commercial advertising and a constitutional violation of free speech rights and a total ban on other signs. In contrast to Twin Rivers, the HOA sign restriction to allow a sign in every window and one outside sign no more than three feet from the house was held not to be an unreasonable burden on the owner’s free speech rights. It cited the Restatement of Property “suggestion” that a covenant is not valid if it “not mentioning the obvious that a covenant is also invalid if it were unconstitutional.”

See, as to another question of reasonableness, the NJ Esposito case, In NJ, HOA boards do not have to be reasonable, and go figure how our judicial system works. See also the link to the Paula Franzese and Steven Siegel critique of the Twin Rivers decision in Rutgers Journal articles on HOAs and Twin Rivers case.

OF SPECIAL INTEREST and importance is the dissenting opinion of a judge who addressed such questions as: the waiver of one’s rights when simply taking possession of his deed, the implied consent to be governed, and a surprising reference to the waiver of ex post facto rights. Where did he get that from??? I wonder?

I’ve been told that the appellate decision has been appealed to the very same NJ Supreme Court, but oral arguments have not yet been heard. Also, the Rutgers Constitutional Law Clinic under Frank Askin, the party that represented the homeowners in Twin Rivers, has filed an amicus curiae brief for ACLU, and will be allowed to make an oral argument.

Cases

Mazdabrook v. Khan (N.J. Super. A.D., 2010, unpublished).

CBTR v. Twin Rivers, 929 A.2d 1060 (2007).

State v. Schmidt, 423 A.2d 615 (1980).

In NJ, HOA boards do not have to be reasonable

Nor in any other state that stands by the Business Judgment Rule (BJR) doctrine.

 

Re: Esposito v. Riviera at Freehold HOA, No. A-6001-09T1, (NJ Supr.Ct App. Div. April 2011).

 

This appellate court decision reflects what’s wrong with our judicial system with its doctrine of binding precedents, stare decisis, that is used to uphold earlier decisions even if they may be obviously unjust by anyone’s standard. It perpetuates injustice and judicial bias, as we see with HOA decisions. In Esposito, the court cited the protections for homeowners based on the Twin Rivers NJ Supreme Court opinion,

 

The protections for common interest residents were described by the Court in [Twin Rivers]. The Court noted that (emphasis added):

 

First, the business judgment rule protects common interest community residents from arbitrary decision-making. . . . Pursuant to the business judgment rule, a homeowners’ association’s rules and regulations will be invalidated (1) if they are not authorized by statute or by the bylaws or master deed, or (2) if the association’s actions are “fraudulent, self-dealing or unconscionable.” Our Appellate Division has uniformly invoked the business judgment rule in cases involving homeowners’ associations.

 

[It should be noted that this ipse dixit (a dictum in the courts) that homeowners were protected by the business judgment rule was an “offering” to mollify homeowners who just had their constitutional protections to free speech rejected by the NJ Supreme Court.]

 

Note the BJR absence of reasonableness in board decision making as found in the Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes, § 3.1(2) – (4), and elsewhere. However, the homeowners were well aware of reasonableness as a criteria for valid decisions and argued the “material adverse effect” standard that includes reasonableness as a criteria instead of the BJR. Unfortunately, the Court quickly perceived that this standard only applied to condominiums as indicated in the court decision (Billig v. Buckingham Condominium Association I, Inc., 287 N.J.Super. 551 (App. Div. 1996)).

 

The Court decided that, emphasis added,

 

The trial judge held that since the Association was not a condominium association, the Condominium Act did not apply, and he refused to extend the “reasonableness” and “material adverse effect” standard in Billig to this matter. After a careful review of the record and weighing of the evidence, we see no reason to disturb the judgment requiring replacement of the door. We reach this decision based on the finding of facts by the trial court, which are adequately supported by the evidence, and essentially for the legal conclusions expressed in [the trial judge’s] comprehensive and thoughtful opinion.

What about justice? Why is reasonableness required for justice to be served in condos but not in HOAs? HOAs are sui generis, a combination of nonprofit and governmental functions. They are not just another run-of-the-mill nonprofit with ease of entry and access, and without liens or foreclosure penalties. Don’t they deserve a heightened degree of homeowner protection as provided under the “material adverse effect” and Restatement doctrines? Are we a nation of laws to serve justice or a nation of men to decide as they please?

 

[As to the nature of this complaint, the homeowner replaced his “colonial” style door with a “gothic” style door, which I am told are quite different. Esposito claimed that the property manger gave him a verbal OK, which he relied on, but submittted a change approval after the fact. The ACC, as we all could anticipate, denied the after-the-fact request. And so the suit progressed. Why, it can be reasonbly asked without fears of lost income, didn’t the board or ACC simply say it was quite unreasonable to replace a colonial with a gothic? You don’t need a King Solomon to nake this rational, reasonable, decision. Well, maybe so if you accept McKenzie’s view that incompetent people are conscripted to run HOAs and who affect the individual homeowner’s finances. Was it undue lawyer influence based on the fear of lost fees?]

 

Returnng to the argument at hand, judicial bias against HOAs, as I wrote previously in Judicial precedent and HOA bias,

The researchers found that the doctrine of stare decisis, itself, falls victim to the preferences of the judges. “Stare decisis is the rule of law that imports the aura of legitimacy on the judicial process by holding future decisions to be bound by prior decisions that serve as “precedent.” The doctrine of stare decisis ‘permits society to presume that bedrock principles are founded in the law rather than in the proclivities of individuals, and thereby contributes to the integrity of our constitutional system of government. Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 US 254 (1986).’

 

In HOAs in America, I quoted William B. Allen’scomments on Machiavelli’s The Prince, which helps illuminate my argument. In his commentary Allen wrote that “the role of morals in politics is mainly to cultivate illusions,” and that “politics is merely appearance and morality is merely pretense.” And speaking of justice, the necessary ingredient for the claim to the legitimacy of government and to be obeyed in conscience, Allen offers Machiavelli’s advice, “Because the [right] to rule is rather the appearance of justice rather than justice itself, the appearance of injustice defeats every [right] to rule.”

In search of the elusive ideal HOA agreement

 

I received an email from a well-intentioned homeowner in Georgia. He was on the committee to rewrite the CC&Rs to make it fair both to the 692 homeowners and the HOA, which, I hope he realizes, is the current board of directors. He asked for my input, so I wrote in return:

 

  1. Do you think the Committee can create a more perfect union than that attempted in writing the US Constitution?

  2. Do you think 692 people can agree on everything in the CC&RS that you are putting together?

  3. Do you think 692 people really care about HOA government participation, or did they just want to buy a home?

  4. Would the Committee and the HOA Board sign, along with the 692 owners, the  Truth in HOAs Disclosure Agreement?

  5. Would the Committee include a guarantee that the HOA will maintain property values in exchange for the various waivers and surrenders of the owner’s private property rights and interests, both explicitly stated or implied by the CC&Rs, or by future court rulings? If not, then what is the buyer getting from the HOA? In a true democracy, people give up certain of their rights to the government in exchange for gurantees, justice, protections against more powerful factions, and to obtain an orderly, smooth-running society.

  6. Would the Committee include a prohibition on“ex post facto” amendments to the CC&Rs, similar to that in the US Constitution? That is, honor all prior CC&Rs versions existing at the time of each owner’s purchase? In other words, they are all grandfathered.

  7. Would the Committee include wording to the effect that the HOA irrevocably agrees to be bound and subject to the US Constitution and Bill of Rights in the same manner as if it were a local public government entity, as all other forms of are bound and subject? The phrase, “in the same manner as if it were a local public government entity,” is mandatory. Simply agreeing to obey the Constitution, as found in some CC&Rs, is meaningless would not subject the private HOA entity to the 5th and 14th Amendments.

Now, I hope you will realize the impossibility of your task and its expected failure. No one can expect a bona fide acceptance and willingness to obey any CC&Rs that are created as a mass marketing device to be sold to the public at large. And one that cannot be modified by the buyer in a true give and take exchange necessary for a valid and binding contract.