Tag: CC&Rs amendment

No unreasonable HOA expectations

A healthy democratic society cannot be said to exist without  a representative government making fair and just laws. A practical, real-life approach gave rise to the legal concept of reasonableness in an attempt to classify and designate conduct underlying a fair and just administration of the law. The reasonableness doctrine has finally come to HOA disputes in regard to reasonable expectations.

CAI has opposed the doctrine of reasonable expectations as too vague, too iffy, and disrupts the order and structure of the HOA “community.” In its amicus brief CAI argued that “reasonableness should be measured by the collective voice, exercising their contractual right to lawfully amend their covenants.”

The full commentary is a lengthy legal exposition examining 3 Arizona cases on the application of a homeowners’ reasonable expectation at time of purchase. Read it here: Reasonableness public policy. “reasonableness should be measured by the collective voice, exercising their contractual right to lawfully amend their covenants

HOA constitutional “takings” and reasonable amendments

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.

Important AZ case on CC&Rs interpretation

While this case deals specifically with Arizona statutes, the legal doctrine applies across all states.  The issue involved amending the CC&Rs by means of consent forms. Learn how the courts look at HOA complaints on interpretating CC&Rs — not what you probably think. So learn! 

Your declaration probably has the misleading statement that the board has the right to interpret the governing document. Not so! The courts have that sole right.

Please note that on important cases affecting HOA board authority and  powers, you may well find CAI filing an amicus brief as in Mountz.[1] For those with some legal understanding, the following will make sense. If you don’t understand, post questions here.

 The case

A number of owners sued seeking a declaratory decision that the amendment was unenforceable, and the lower court agreed. The HOA had sent a letter indicating “that owners could approve the Amendment by signing and returning an attached consent form.” The result was announced at the subsequent annual meeting, and the VP  “certified that the Amendment was adopted by at least 50% of the lot owners.”

Now pay attention to my warnings of word games and expansionist interpretations. The lower court held “the Amendment invalid because it was not executed by at least half of the owners,”  because

“the CC&Rs authorize an amendment “by Instrument executed by the [o]wners of at least fifty percent (50%) of the Lots . . . and such amendment shall not be effective until the recording of such Instrument.” (Emphasis added.)  The Court said that “Because it was  not done in this manner, the Amendment is invalid.”

Mountain Gate argued “when the approving owners signed and returned their consent forms, they gave the Board actual authority to execute the Amendment on their behalf.”  The key issue came down to, what is the meaning of “execute.”

CC&Rs contract Court interpretation principles

My annotations are in square brackets [].

  • A restrictive covenant is a contract [The courts have not clarified that by “contract” they meant under Contract Law, which the CC&Rs would fail to meet.  Instead, one court held that the CC&Rs are interpretated as a contract, again missing application of Contract Law.]
  • When we interpret them, as with any contract, we strive to give words their ordinary, common-sense meaning to carry out the parties’ intent. [As with the argument over the meaning and use of the word “execute”].
  • Restrictive covenants “should be interpreted to give effect to the
  • intention of the parties. . . . We look to the “language used in the instrument, . . . the circumstances surrounding the creation of the [instrument], and . . . the purpose for which it was created.”
  • Enforcing the intent of the parties is the “cardinal principle” for interpretating restrictive covenants. . . . We will not read a covenant in a way that defeats the plain and obvious meaning of the restriction.  [the Amendment, and it was executed by only one lot owner, a Board member.] The plain language of Section 11(E) does not authorize one individual to amend the CC&Rs by “written consent”
  • we will not add provisions that were not originally included because doing so would defeat the intent of the amendment provision. . . . [the HOA]  broadly reads those definitions to allow the execution of a document through an agent. But the Association cites no authority supporting its argument that agency principles may trump the plain language of a restrictive covenant. [The HOA argued the interpretation of the word “execute” but the Court rejected this expansive meaning of the word within the intent of the CC&Rs. Also understand the need for supporting evidence to back any argument you make.]
  • Contracts are read to incorporate applicable statutes,  but a statute governs only when the contract is incompatible with the statute. [This is a strong statement of no interference with contracts].

Notes

[1] Mountz v. Mountain Gate, No. CA-CV 21-0656 (App. Div. 1, from Navajo County,11-10-2022).

AZ SC in Kalway holds CC&Rs as “special contracts”

Author’s note:  I make extensive use of direct quotes in order to avoid my interpretations “leaking” through.

The Arizona Supreme Court in Kalway[i] threw some light on the controversy that HOA covenants and CC&Rs are valid contracts and are held as such.   The Court held that, my emphasis,

“CC&Rs form a contract between individual landowners and all the landowners bound by the restrictions, as a whole. . . . in special types of contracts, we do not enforce ‘unknown terms which are beyond the range of reasonable expectation . . . . CC&Rs are such contracts.  Because covenants originate in contract, the primary purpose of a court when interpreting a covenant is to give effect to the original intent of the parties’ with any doubts resolved against the validity of a restriction.”

With respect to the requirement for very important but ignored homeowner notice, the Court continued, my emphasis,

“The notice requirement relies on a homeowner’s reasonable expectations based on the declaration in effect at the time of purchase—in this case, the original declaration.  Under general contract law principles, a majority could impose any new restrictions on the minority because the original declaration provided for amendments by majority vote. But allowing substantial, unforeseen, and unlimited amendments would alter the nature of the covenants to which the homeowners originally agreed. . . . Thus, “[t]he law 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.”

One of the most egregious injustices that I’ve come across is the failure of the courts to apply the full body of contract law to HOA covenants in CC&Rs.  Opinions and dicta refer to the CC&Rs simply as a contract, or an agreement interpreted as a contract — yet in spite of the above opinion — fail to protect the homeowner under contract law 101.  The Cornell Legal Information Institute lists the basic criteria for a valid contract:

 ‘The basic elements required for the agreement to be a legally enforceable contract are: mutual assent, expressed by a valid offer and acceptance; adequate consideration; capacity; and legality.”

Added to this general description of a legal contract is the Opinion holding that the CC&Rs are special contracts that do not permit “unreasonable  expectations” and that the notice of reasonable expectations is set forth in the CC&Rs “at the time of purchase,” and the law will protect minority owners from any such expectations.   

As I have argued many times,[ii] the boilerplate  amendment process that binds non-agreeing owners solely on the basis of a majority or some super majority renders the original “contract” a meaningless piece of paper. 

Professor Barnett explains,

“A law may be ‘valid’ because it was produced in accordance with all the procedures required by a particular lawmaking system, [the HOA amendment procedure, for example] but be ‘illegitimate’ because these procedures were inadequate to provide assurances that a law is just.”[iii]

Conclusion

It should be evident to all that this constitutional issue of “signed the agreement” and are thereby bound to obey needs further thought. As it stands, homeowners in HOAs are subject to special laws, the numerous state HOA/Condo Acts, for special entities allowed to function as de facto private governments outside the protections of the US Constitution.

Notes

[i] Kalway v. Calbria Ranch, CV-20-o152-PR, ¶ 13 -16  (Ariz. March 22, 2022).

[ii] See HOA consent to agree vs. “the will of the majority”,  Contracts, the Constitution and consent to be governed and HOA Common Sense, No. 4: Consent to be governed.

[iii] Randy Barnett, Restoring the Lost Constitution, Princeton Univ. Press, (2004).

AZ Supreme Court landmark HOA opinion

“For the times they are a-changin’”[1]

The Arizona Supreme Court opinion in Kalway[2] is, in my view,  a landmark opinion supporting and protecting individual property rights of homeowners in HOAs that are subject to a broad, procedural CC&Rs amendment procedure.  The boilerplate CC&Rs in an intentional denial of fundamental property rights strip away eminent domain protections by ignoring the content of CC&Rs amendments —  anything and everything goes!

Referring to AZ statute 33-1817(A) that allows amendments solely based on a majority vote of the members, the Court stated:

“But § 33-1817(A) does not displace the common law, which  prohibits some amendments even if passed by a majority vote. The original declaration must give sufficient notice of the possibility of a future amendment; that is, amendments must be reasonable and foreseeable.”

The Court cited its 2010 opinion in Dreamland,[3]

“We agree that these cases tend to support the homeowners, in that each refuses enforcement of a new covenant that markedly changed the obligations of the implicated lot owners. . . . in those cases where courts disallowed the amendment of covenants, the impact upon the objecting lot owner was generally far more substantial and unforeseeable than the amendment at issue [in the case before it] “

I had addressed these concerns  regarding the Dreamland decision in my 2009-2010 Commentaries that provide  details on these substantive issues.[4]

Although not stated were issues of due process, equal protection of the laws, and eminent domain takings — not raised in the initial complaint or appeal, so the courts  did not offer a direct opinion —  this  opinion strikes at HOA eminent domain takings of homeowner property rights.  It also dealt with the question of homeowner notice (due process) and unexpected and unreasonable modifications to the CC&Rs (lack of equal protection under CC&Rs private eminent domain rights).

* * * *

The above represents my perspective as a longtime 22-year homeowner rights advocate and activist.  CAI Arizona has a different perspective favoring HOAs and their decisionmakers, the board of directors.[5]. Its presentation starts with the overall court opinion.

“Based on this recent case law, CC&R amendments must be reasonable and foreseeable in order to be enforceable. In other words, community associations can no longer amend CC&Rs to create new obligations where the original CC&Rs did not provide owners notice that they may be subject to the new obligations.”

But then adds its spin and advertising appeal:

“Please note that these amendments are specific to Calabria Ranch and its CC&Rs. In other words, an amendment that the Arizona Supreme Court found invalid in the Calabria Ranch case may be found valid for a different community association. Again, we strongly recommend consulting with the CHDB team to analyze your community association’s specific CC&Rs and any proposed, or previously adopted, amendments.”

Looking at the tremendous value toward HOA reform, the Court’s opinion would apply to any instance where the broad conditions — no notice and unexpected and unreasonable — apply, above and beyond those specific amendments dealt with in Kalway.  I’ve found the most prevalent are unexpected and unreasonable amendment modifications, and a failure to provide notice to the homeowner that abounds in the CC&Rs. It falls into those discretionary areas where the CC&Rs are silent, which the Court has declared doesn’t give the BOD unlimited rights.

This opinion presents a powerful tool, a powerful argument before the courts and before state legislatures when seeking HOA substantive reforms.

Yes, and how many times can a man turn his head
And pretend that he just doesn’t see?

The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind
The answer is blowin’ in the wind

(Bob Dylan, Blowin’ In the Wind,  1963)

Notes

[1] Bob Dylan,  “For the times they are a-changin’”  (1964).  It’s interesting to note the coincidences of publication years for this song and The Homes Association Handbook.

[2] Kalway v. Calbria Ranch, CV-20-o152-PR (Ariz. March 22, 202).

[3] Dreamland Villa Community Club, Inc. v. Raimey, 224 Ariz. 42, 51 ¶ 38 (App. 2010).

[4] HOA principalities where there’s no ex post facto or eminent domain protections and AZ court ends open-ended “ex post facto” HOA amendments.

[5] “CC&R Amendment Update from the Arizona Supreme Court,” March 29, 2022 By Carpenter Hazlewood I News.