Awaiting an Arizona Supreme Court decision is a case involving a fairly common event in which investors buy up a majority of the condo units and vote to dissolve the condo. The owners are then subject to a forced sale against their will. In Cao v. Dorsey[1] investors owned 90 of 96 units but a homeowner challenged this forced sale under constitutional grounds.[2] I address one constitutional issue here.
With respect to the governing AZ statute on these “takeovers,” the Court held,
[We] hold that the statute [ARS 33-1228] is constitutional when applied to condominium owners who bought a condominium unit subject to terms that incorporate the statute. We also hold, however, that if there have been substantive post-purchase changes to the statute, the version of the statute in place at the time of purchase controls.
The statute allows for amendments to the CC&Rs, as commonly stated in the CC&Rs, based simply on the vote of the required approval percentage of owner votes, which the investor controls. The plaintiff argued that the statute “is an unconstitutional taking of private property.” The Court clarified the law,
“Generally, ‘[t]aking one person’s property for another person’s private use is plainly Prohibited’. . . . Without an exception to the general rule, A.R.S. § 33-1228 is unconstitutional on its face.”
The meaning of “takings” refers to the constitutional prohibition of eminent domain takings of property interests when the property owner contests to the taking by the government. My argument criticizing the HOA’s right to take personal property with no compensation to the objecting owner can be found in HOA principalities where there’s no ex post facto or eminent domain protections (2009) and Homeowners do not have HOA ‘eminent domain’ protection (2022).
A discussion followed as to what version of the law applied as it was amended after the plaintiff’s purchase. Getting to the heart of the matter, the Court stated,
“[W]e will not ‘allow substantial, unforeseen, and unlimited amendments’ to the Declaration, as that ‘would alter the nature of the covenants to which the homeowners originally agreed.’ . . . We ‘will not subject a minority of landowners to unlimited and unexpected restrictions on the use of their land merely because the covenant agreement permitted a majority to make changes to existing covenants.’”
In short, no surprises and no adding new elements to the Declaration – CC&Rs without member approval. Future amendments, however, “cannot be ‘entirely new and different in character, otherwise they would exceed the reasonable expectations of the owners.’” Furthermore, statutory amendments do not apply when,
“the statutory amendments did not merely refine the statutes, correct errors, or fill in gaps, but substantively altered owners’ property rights beyond the “owners’ expectations of the scope of the covenants. . . . And substantive amendments to the Condominium Act cannot later be incorporated into the agreement without renewed consent.”
The Court vacated the trial court decision in favor of the HOA and sent the case back to the superior court based on its holdings. The decision has been appealed to the Supreme Court and we are waiting for its opinion.
What does this case mean? What is all the hullabaloo about? How important is a favorable supreme court decision? TEMENDOUSLY IMPORTANT! That’s why CAI is not only the HOA’s attorney but has also filed an amicus brief. The holding of homeowner reasonable expectations regarding amendments opens the door to further challenges as to just what is reasonable in today’s HOA land agreements. The opposition can say, “well, it is common that a development can be expected to be bought out, and therefore the holding is mute, not applicable anymore.”
The broader issue for advocates is to apply reasonable expectations to misrepresentations in the selling process that is intentionally designed to hide not only takings by the HOA but violations of the equal protection of the law. In the case of CAI, has its conduct over the years amounted to a coercive monopoly to keep control over the HOA-Land? How about the real estate agents and department looking the other way and concealing the facts?
It’s up to the homeowners and advocates to pursue these challenges that will open the doors to HOA reforms of substance.
Notes
[1] CAO v. Dorsey, CA-CV 21-0275 (Ariz. App. Div.1, 2022). I would like to thank Dennis Legere, Arizona Homeowners Coalition, for bringing this case to my attention and for providing me with the court filings. He has filed an AZ supreme court amicus brief with attorney Jonathan Dessaules.
[2] This is the first of several planned reviews and case memoranda addressing the appellate court decision. To follow will be reviews of the amicus briefs by AZ Homeowners Coalition, The Goldwater Institute for the homeowner), and CAI (for the HOA), and the eventual supreme court decision.
HOA Constitutional Government 