Tag: bill of rights

HOA Case History: state actors or mini/quasi government

  1. Cohen v. Kite Hill,142 Cal App 3d 642 (1983) (A homeowners association board is in effect “a quasi-government entity paralleling in almost every case the powers, duties, and responsibilities of a municipal government.”)
  2. Gerber v. Long Boat Harbour, 757 F Supp. 1339 (M.D. Fla. 1991) (court enforcement of private agreements in condo declarations is a state action; flag; free speech).
  3. Hudgens v. NLRB 424 US 507 (1976) (functions of a municipality, citing Marsh; shopping center)
  4. Marsh V. Alabama, 326 US 501 (1946) (company town and public functions)
  5. Shelly v. Kraemer 334 US 1 (prohibitive state actions by use of judicial enforcement as state was fully aware of the illegal use of the courts; judicial enforcement harms constitutional rights)
  6. Williamson v. Lee Optical, 348 US 483, (1954) (rational basis for scrutiny)
  7. Damon v. Ocean Hills Journalism Club,  85 Cal. App. 4th 468; (2000) (quasi-government; board meetings public forums similar to government body;defamation)
  8. Laguna Publishing Co. v. Golden Rain Found. of Laguna Hills, 131 Cal. App. 3d 182 (1982) (HOA has attributes that “in many ways approximate a municipality . . . close to a characterization as a company town.”)
  9. Surfside 84 v. Mullen Ct. of Special Appeals of Maryland, No. 495 (September 1984) (state action; procedural due process; lack of notice; CAI Reporter).
  10. Brock v. Watergate 502 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 4 Dist. App. (1987)( public functiuons test; close nexus criteria; HOA lacks character of a company town)
  11. Committee for a Better Twin Rivers v. Twin Rivers, 929 A.2d 1060 (NJ 2007) (HOA not state actor per NJ Scmidt version of Marsh; Not US but NJ Const. case).
  12. Indian Lake v. Director of Revenue, 813 SW 2d 305 (not civic organization)
  13. Midlake v. Cappuccio, 673 A 2d 340, Pa. Super. (1996) (condo is a pvt organization, not muni govt; not a company town)
  14. Riley v. Stoves, 526 P.2d 747, Ariz. App. Div. 2 (1974) (state action; classification; enforce age restrictions;”court to enforce constitutional commands”; restriction was a permissible government interest).
  15.  S.O.C. v. Mirage Casino-Hotel, 43 P 3rd 243 (Nev. 2001) (state action; public functions; delegating functions to private persons; commericial advertising on private property).
  16. Terre Du Lac Ass'n, Inc. v. Terre Du Lac, Inc., 737 S.W.2d 206 (Mo. App. 1987). (quasi govt) (how a homeowner's association operates as a "quasi-governmental entity," not authority for the concept that an association's "quasi-governmental" actions are state actions;).
  17. Westphal v. Lake Lotawana, 95 SW 3d 144 (Mo. App. 2003) (no support for “close nexus” state action).

Note:

  1. The above cases in bold are color coded. Red is adverse to constitutional protections; Blue is favorable; black in neutral.
  2. There are 3 case against and 4 cases in favor. Two were not dispositive. The “against” cases were all based on a “public functions” test.
  3. The non-bold cases concern related issues not involving an HOA/condo, such as state action, public functions, or mini/quasi governments.

  4. The above findings are not exhaustive and reflect the analysis of some 153 HOA/condo , state action cases on a federal and state level.

States Rights: the transfer of power from Washington to private government HOAs

I am pleased to hear the whispers of substantive issues regarding the institution of HOAs that undermine our democratic principles of government as found in this Washington Post article. Among the Christmas cards to one homeowner, a warning, “Several state courts have ruled that by agreeing to abide by homeowners association rules, home buyers relinquish some constitutional rights,” and who points out there are some limits on HOAs. But, I would like to clarify that these few rights had to be fought for in each state legislature on a piecemeal basis – restoring those rights taken away by the HOA declaration “agreement.”

 

The media must follow in this reporter’s footsteps and stop being an active participant in the Unspoken Alliance of “No Negatives About HOAs!” The media must understand that “States Rights” is nothing more than the transfer of political power from Washington to the state legislatures. State legislatures who, in turn, openly and eagerly support the transfer of political power to local private governments — homeowners associations — unanswerable to the US Constitution as required of all public forms of civil government.

 

These unrecognized, de facto governments hold power by the mere filing of a subdivision declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs), which is necessary and sufficient to bind unsuspecting home buyers. Declarations that bind without the need for the buyer to have read or to have explicitly signed-off on these relinquishments of constitutional rights, privileges and immunities, absent of any equal protection of the laws, and absent of any due process protections loss of life, liberty and property.

 

Perhaps we shall see a second effort by a number of states to amend and rewrite the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, one that attempts to justify and defend this disgraceful state of affairs by a country once held in high esteem as the ideal democracy. This second amendment would sanction “chartered” private governments with their imposed, unconscionable adhesion agreements that provide for the carte blanche surrender of constitutional rights, and with their powers that include the loss of private property rights by the votes of others without the need for the consent of the affected homeowners. This amendment would legitimize these declarations of CC&Rs that do not recognize any “inalienable rights” at the time of purchase, and that permit ex post facto amendments to render the so-called sacrosanct declaration a meaningless pieces of paper. A travesty of our American democracy.

 

Who will stand up and fight for Lady Justice? Qui Pro Domina Justitia Sequitur (“who prosecutes on behalf of Lady Justice?“, DOJ seal). Who will defend and preserve our principles of democratic government?

Independent tribunal adjudication of HOA disputes in AZ held unconstitutional

An Arizona appellate court declared that the independent tribunal adjudication of HOA disputes by the Off. of Admin. Hearings was unconstitutional. After four attempts, the Arizona CAI law firm of Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Wood had finally obtained its long sought victory. (See Gelb v. Casa Contenta HOA, CA-CV 09-0744, Ariz. App. Div. 1, Oct. 28, 2010).

If you followed my time line in the Merrit case (2008), Carpenter was desperately seeking to get OAH declared unconstitutional.  It started with Brown v, Terravita, but no decision was made.  Next followed Waugaman where Judge Downie decided it was unconstitutional, but applied the decision only to the HOA at issue.  Along came Merrit v. Phoenix Townhouses and a decision was quickly made to take the case up on the constitutionality question, wherein Carpenter sought the Downie ruling to be applied to ALL HOAs.  However, Merrit got out of the HOA before the appeal was made, making it a moot question without a concrete issue. However, the decision was not challenged except by me, and I was snubbed and denied any further filings in the case. (See The State of Arizona will not protect buyers of HOA homes! for the case study and court filings.)

At the same time as Merrit, perhaps Carpenter realizing this serious problem of standing to sue, raises the constitutionality question in Gelb at the superior court trial level (see ¶ 6) – just in case.  This was in Aug 2008, at the time Merrit was going on.  There was really nothing new in the Gelb decision as it reads from both Cactus Wren and Hancock, like with Downie in Waugaman, except the slap at the legislature trying to get around the courts that was made by Downie is missing.

 Question:    The HOA had won at the Office of Administrative Hearings.  Gelb was contesting the decision.  Why on earth would the HOA’s attorney challenge the constitutionality of the decision, which upon a win, would invalidate the OAH decision in favor of his client, the HOA????  Who was Carpenter working for????

America Revisited – My Country Was of Thee

America Revisited

 

My country was of thee.

Now with no liberty,

whose loss I sing.

Land where your freedom died

 Constitution aside

where HOAs reside,

profiteers bring.

 

Government by the few

Is Constitution through?

Sadly I cry.

My private property

is mine no longer free.

Accepted as it be,

freedom will die. 

 

Private contracts decide

writ by a few who hide.  

It cannot be.

Aristocrats control,

the people lost their soul

gave up their noble goal,

this do I see.

 

HOAs override

democracy they hide,

of this I sing.

Legislators  agree

no evil do they see.

From sea to shining sea,

let freedom ring.

                                

                                 George K. Staropoli

                      Oct. 21, 2010

 

 

 The national homeowner rights advocacy  patriotic  song.   Recite same as America (My Country Tis  of Thee). 
  
 

 

HOA Syndrome reaction: you knew what you were getting into

Professor Gary Solomon held his seminar describing a collection of physical and emotional disorders collective named, the HOA Syndrome.i In the Las Vegas FOX5 News coverage of the eventii, Solomon said “dealing with a homeowners association is enough to cause physical and emotional harm, including stress, anger, fear and paranoia.” He added, “Harass the neighbors enough, keep them in line and set them up with fine after fine after fine.”

It may be a surprie to some, but this is not new stuff. Viewing these same symptoms from a legal standpoint, Donie Vanitizian, JD, wrote about Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in her 2002 book, Villa Appalling!iii Part II of this 519 page book is devoted to these issues and the causes of these issues. Examples include:

“Toxic Turmoil – “Because there is no viable means for homeowners to express their frustrations with the conditions under which they are forced to live, they are plagued with acute stress. . . . With no government agency interested in their plight or the problems created by these developments in general, homeowners are left to their own devices.” (p. 225).

 Vanitizian goes on to say that, Homeowners very foolishly trust that board members automatically have a ‘conscience.’ They don’t. Homeowners blindly look to the association as a ‘figurehead’ that somehow oversees that justice and truth prevail. It doesn’t.” (p. 233).

As expected, denials came from association managers who are at the heart of the HOA Syndrome, as HOA boards defer the operation of the HOA to these persons. In a statement by one manager, speaking about the homeowners, we see the truth of the matter when the manager states, “Homeowners shouldn’t complain because they knew what they were buying into. You know what the expectations are.”  This a frank admission of the oppression and intimidation caused by HOAs that produce anxiety, fear, emotional stress, and the obvious loss of one’s home and financial conditions. Does this person really believe that Americans are demented and masochistic, relishing injuries to be inflicted upon them? And freely, openly, and willing accept these conditions while giving their home as collateral to the survival of the HOA, and forgoing any semblance of due process protections for the greater glory of the HOA? Really!

I ask this manager and all managers, especially those trained by the national HOA “educator” Community Associations Institute, CAI, “How come you by this falsehood?” This attitude reflects a “You’re damn right we consider the harsh, unjust strict enforcement of arbitrary rules as the way of life in an HOA.” Most of these so-called professionals do not understand the origins and intentions of the profit-seeking individuals who created this legal scheme, where these authoritarian and draconian methods were necessary for the survival of this new, untried approach to housing in 1964. And is still carried forward today where state legislators see no evils with authoritarian, private governments protected by state legislation — no enforcement by means of penalties for HOA board violations, but the homeowner can lose everything — and operating outside constitutional protections. The HOA, for some unstated government interest, must survive and the Constitution can be denied when necessary!

So, what do HOA boards and managers have to fear if they are unethical, violate state laws, and are grossly unjust and arbitrary in their dealings with their members? A slap on the wrist, maybe, if the homeowner is principled enough to spend his time and money just to get the HOA to do what it’s supposed to do. Apparently, our government doesn’t think that the compliance by private government HOAs with their statutory and contractual obligations is not a matter of general public concern. Apparently, they, too, believe in a masochistic and demented American population who cherish living under such conditions and need no protections.

Welcome to the New America of HOA-Lands.iv


References

 i  See “Psychologist defines the HOA Syndrome caused by oppressive HOAs”, HOA Constitutional Government, October 7, 2010.

ii  See “Professor: Homeowners Get Ill From HOAs”, Fox5 News, Las Vegas, October 1, 2010.

iii  Villa Appalling! – Destroying the Myth of Affordable Community Living, Donie Vanitizian and Stephen Glassman (Villa Appalling Publishing, Inc 2002).

iv  See Understanding the New America of HOA-Land, George K. Staropoli (StarMan Publishing 2010).