Tag: CC&Rs

HOA board mentality and unconscionable CC&Rs rewrites

Homeowners living in HOAs must decide what side of the fence they are sitting on!       Whether on the side of management or on the side of the rank and file homeowner?  There is a major difference as the HOA is not a democratic community government, but a corporate form of government.  And never has a corporate form of government been described as democratic.

The business parallel of “management vs. employees” in HOAs is alive and well. Management represents the HOA entity and not the members, just as management represents the stockholders and not the employees.  Legally this fact is found everywhere.  And the HOA attorney who advises the board and rewrites CC&Rs and amendments represents management and not the interests of the members.  How many times have you seen and heard “for a more productive and effective HOA” and “for the benefit of all members collectively”?   Sounds nice, but the two are not equivalent.  The board does not speak for all the members and that’s why there is member voting.

A most egregious and unconscionable act by the board and its attorney can be found in the broad rewrite of the CC&Rs where liberties are taken in favor of the HOA.  Where the homeowner again unknowingly waives and surrenders his rights and freedoms to the HOA, because the homeowner rank and file does not hire their own attorney to explain the impact of the HOA changes.

An example of how far this unconscionable activity can go involves the rewrite of CC&Rs by an Arizona CAI member attorney firm, and member of CAI’s College of Community Association Lawyers (CCAL).   In the rewrite the attorney deleted “reasonable” with regard to attorney fees and added “all”.  The attorney also did not adopt the “prevailing party” widely accepted standard of fairness, but mandated the homeowner to pay its fees regardless if the homeowner wins.  In other words, even if the homeowner had brought suit against HOA wrongful behavior and wins, he must still pay the HOA attorney fees.  Covenants that are unconscionable and against public policy are held to be invalid.

Additionally, a festering issue at the Arizona Legislature has been the awarding of attorney fees by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).   The attorney uses the term “administrative law judge” as most homeowners would know that OAH does not pay attorney fees.  This blatant “squeeze it by and maybe they won’t notice” tactic is disgraceful.  Yet, in 99% of the cases heard at OAH the HOA has decided to hire the unnecessary attorney.  The HOA should pay for this unnecessary decision.

And yet many homeowners would go along with this “stick it to the homeowner” mentality.   Presumably because they see themselves not as the “homeowner” at issue, and therefore it doesn’t affect them.  But, the rewritten covenants apply to them, all of them.  And it also applies to the directors and officers who believe that this unconscionable conduct is good for the HOA in the long-term, and that it also doesn’t apply to them.  But, unjust and unfair covenants that openly serve the interests of their attorney cannot be seen as in the best interests of the HOA.

Homeowners in HOAs must decide where they stand.  For their rights or for unconscionable conduct and acts of bad faith by the HOA board and its attorney who is not your attorney.

HOA board mentality: ‘because we can’ and ‘because we don’t have to’

How many times has a board member come up to you and say, “Hey, see you’re building an addition?  You know, you need to submit a request for approval before you do anything.  Come on down and let’s talk about it?”  Or, “Our landscapers will be coming by on Thursday to reset the sprinkler timers.”

Why not?  Because it’s the board’s mentality: “Because we can” and “Because we don’t have to.”   This mentality develops, based on my long history in seeking justifications for many outrageous acts by HOAs, from long term indoctrination into hair-splitting the laws and covenants, a parsing of the laws, in the best interests of the HOA.  Of course, coming from the HOA attorneys.  And there are no other rational and legitimate reasons for doing so, or not doing so, especially when good faith conduct is required of officers and directors.

What ever happened to “HOAs create pleasant, harmonious, carefree living, and democracy at work?”  What ever happened to social graces?  Good neighbors?  And common friendship?  I think that the problem lies with recourse to the CC&Rs that must be enforced at all costs got in the way. 

HOAs create an unhealthy climate.  See, Why do people harm others in HOAs?,  The HOA apathy affliction: a political dynamic

 

HOA principalities: To bee or not to bee one government under the Constitution

As a result of a conflict over bees and whether local ordinances or HOA CC&Rs governing beekeeping prevail, the Tennessee Attorney General is being asked his opinion on HOAs as public entities.  Rep. Glen Casada has sought a clarification from Tennessee Attorney General Robert Cooper “for an opinion on whether or not the HOA is considered a political subdivision of the state.”  (The AG was appointed by the TN Supreme Court, and is an officer of the court and not the Executive branch).

How shall the AG decide?   Take a very narrow view and simply declare that the HOA is a nonprofit corporation under corporation laws and not a municipal corporation; therefore it not a state entity. If so, how does he address the fact that “if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it is a duck?”  “A rose by any other name is a rose.”  A tax by any other name, assessments, is a tax.  A law by any other name, regulations or covenants, is a law.  In fact, British municipal law equates the term law with by-law. “3. British . an ordinance of a municipality or community.”

Let us assume that the AG takes a firm stand and enters into the foray.   The safest approach is to turn to the ancient public functions test of 1946 with respect to a company town and free speech. His decision would deny that the HOA is a public entity, probably, since the HOA doesn’t meet the public functions test. 

This view has always disturbed me when I examine the state’s municipality laws on incorporation of towns and villages. They ain’t got no such tests, yet they are declared public entities if they declare their allegiance to the Constitution and are approved by the state.   I guess it’s OK to use double standards when it comes to HOA governments. 

Are there any other criteria that bear on whether or not an entity is a public entity, or that it is a state actor acting as if it were indeed a state entity?  The law is rather extensive on state actors and state action. In today’s environment with the attitude of “no government interference,” applying state actor designations to HOAs will be a difficult task since it would extend the reaches of “big government.”  But, when dogma prevails over facts we must fight for “truth, justice and the American way.”

US Supreme Court holding in TN state actor case

The US Supreme Court has set several criteria for state actions and state actors, among them: a “close nexus,” a “symbiotic” relationship, “state’s exercise of coercive power”, “entwined with governmental policies”, and “significant encouragement, either overt or covert.”  They are discussed, in of all cases, in Brentwood v. Tennessee Secondary Schools, 531 U.S. 288 (2001).

I hope Attorney General Cooper will uphold the US and Tennessee constitutions, knowing full well that even homeowners living in HOAs are US citizens and citizens of the State of Tennessee, with full rights, privileges and immunities.

CAI attorney stalwart defends HOA Land private constitutions and so-called bill of rights

The CAI stalwarts once again responding to my challenge to defend the constitutionality and legal status of the HOA legal scheme, including the highly questionable assertion of a “consent to agree” under the constructive notice doctrine.  This time, dedicated CAI stalwart Beth Grimm enters the arena with her August 2012 e-newsletter, What’s new in HOA Land . . .  The topic is, “Homeowners Bill of Rights.”

From the very start she informs her readers, in a round-about way, that there are no federal or state constitutions applicable to HOA private agreements.  I’ve been saying that for years!  And she points out that, “Without A Constitution What Is a Bill of Rights Worth?”  Grimm continues in what must be taken as a joke, in full agreement with the comment by Bill Davis, with a quote from Thomas Jefferson about the need for a bill of rights after admitting there is no HOA constitution.  

It appears that the reader is entering the realm of the attorney “word-game,”  where long established concepts and meanings are distorted to suit the attorney’s private agenda.  It’s an indoctrination and propaganda tactic. Welcome to Newspeak.

In strict legal terms, the assertion by Grimm that the governing documents are the HOA’s constitution is not correct.   But the courts have upheld the CC&RS as if they were just like a political constitution and interpreted them as a de facto constitution.  And as I have tried to explain, state laws like the California Davis-Stirling Act, the UCIOA acts, and other state HOA “Acts” serve as a parallel code of public laws applicable at the local government level to the class of nonprofit private governments called HOAs. 

The courts have also applied public government attributes, conditions and rights to these private contracts that are not contained in the explicit CC&RS covenants, and have applied overly broad interpretations as to what the members have agreed to without their signature – just by simply taking their deed in hand.  In other words, the activist courts are imputing a “consent to agree” that does not exist in the CC&RS. And nobody warns the unsuspecting homeowner of the consequences of reaching out for that deed. Nobody!

A host of reputed rights are then examined by Grimm, but they read more like the documents of the Rights and Responsibilities of members (a document first used to explain what a democracy is all about and how citizens are to act;[i] and a publication of CAI Central). It is in stark contrast to the preamble to the US Bill of Rights, emphasis added,

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

This long time CAI stalwart attorney does not address the constitutional concerns raised in my The Truth in HOAs Disclosure Agreement, nor does she call for CAI to conduct such a poll. There is no support for my Declaration of US and State Citizenship. Grimm’s presentation misses this important point.

Nor does she mention that back in the 2008 – 2009 the California Law Review Commission’s attempt to rewrite the Davis-Stirling Act contained a proposed Chapter 2, Member Bill of Rights.  It was quickly removed and has not been adopted in the new law to become effective in 2014.  Nor does she present the homeowner advocates proposed homeowners bill of Rights published in the now defunct AHRC website and the AARP version written by David Kahne in 2006, among others.

It should be noted that in 2008 the Uniform State Laws Commission adopted a bill of right for UCIOA (UCIOBORA), but did not incorporate it was a part of UCIOA.  Rather, they created a separate version so that states can choose to adopt its so-called bill of rights or leave them out.  To date, no state has adopted this bill of rights.  It reads like your CC&Rs and pro-HOA state laws.  Nothing at all like the US Bill of Rights or the state Declarations of rights.

If HOA Land is to join the union and lose its independent principality status, thereby providing constitutional protections to the homeowners,  then Beth Grimm and all other CAI legal-academic aristocrats should be demanding the amendments to the Declaration  and state laws as proposed in my Declaration above,

The association hereby waivers and surrenders any rights or claims it may have under law and herewith unconditionally and irrevocably agrees 1) to be bound by the US and State Constitutions, and laws of the State within which it is located, as if it were a subdivision of the state and a local public government entity, and 2) that constitutional law shall prevail as the supreme law of the land including over conflicting laws and legal doctrines of equitable servitudes.

Why aren’t they?  The above state law and mandatory Declaration amendments will put an end to the jokes and word games that attempt to hide the fact that HOAs are de facto but unrecognized governments operating outside the Constitution. And there will be a bona fide Bill of rights!

 

[i] The Rights of Man, Thomas Paine, 1791; The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, 1793, French revolution origins)

HOA board education or indoctrination?

Donna DiMaggio Berger of Florida’s CAN HOA advocacy group wrote about the increasing numbers of board members seeking to be educated in HOA matters and in the affairs of HOA-Land (Do most Condo & HOA Directors want to be educated?).  I agree with Donna that these private government officials need to be educated, because unlike pubic government officials there is no long term infrastructure or institutional culture to guide them. 

Neither are there the penalties against wrong-doing as we have with laws holding public officials accountable.  Yes, not only must these private officials be properly educated, but be held accountable, too.  But, accountability is not discussed.

Sadly, in regard to the educational materials, the pro-HOA believers and groups ignore the fact that the “teachings” are really indoctrination courses into how to behave in HOA-Land under its unconscionable and oppressive adhesion contract, supported by pro-HOA laws and top-down UCIOA covenants. The materials flow from the pseudo-educator, the national lobbying trade group, which seeks to maintain the inequities of the HOA legal scheme.  They teach “how to behave as a good HOA member and avoid financial and emotional stress, and the good chance of losing your home if disobedient.”  And that is, is to follow the rules and to participate under procedures that thwart participation by “outsiders.”

There is no presentation of constitutional issues, of 14th Amendment violations, of the fallacies in the “consent to agree” argument, of no clean elections laws or of unacceptable due process procedures as a few examples.  Not even a discussion of the validity of my Truth in HOAs Disclosure Agreement argument.  Not even an invitation for attendees to proclaim their US citizenship status by signing the Declaration of US and State Citizenship form.

And why not?  Why aren’t these issue made public and taught by the great HOA educators?  Maybe, just maybe, as Col. Jessup shouted out in the movie, A Few Good Men, “You can’t handle the truth!”   Why are they afraid of the truth?