Tag: CC&Rs

Truth In HOAs Poll update: 9% would surrender their rights to HOA

Aug. 15, 2011 results

The initial response after 1 day to my Truth In HOAs Poll of July 12th was a 98% vote of NO, they could not agree to the Disclosure Agreement. Only 1 YES vote was recorded. Understanding that this may reflect an anti-HOA audience, I allowed the Poll to remain open this past month (and will remain open) to record any change in attitude by the respondents, noting that pro-HOA polls sponsored by CAI and RIM have recorded a 70% “satisfied with their HOA” response.

The Truth In HOAs internet poll is freely available to all on the internet by simply visiting my Commentaries blog, and as notified by my numerous email list posts, my responses to homeowner inquiries, and links provided in my comments to many online media articles. It s not a telephone calling from a pre-selected list.

Within 2 weeks the YES votes for both categories dropped somewhat to 95% with a split between “YES, I would sign” regardless and “YES, I would sign, but I want property value protections.” Today, a month later with a small increment in respondents, the YES responses come to 9% and the NO response to 91%. The split in YES votes shows an small widening with the unconditional YES dominating.

It’s hard to believe that there are some people who have no concern for their rights. This 9% represents “hard-liners or “true believers.” The results are unmistakably clear as homeowner rights advocates have been shouting for years – the support for a valid consent to be governed by the courts and state legislatures is based on a false and misguided view of the authoritarian, private government HOA regimes that are unaccountable to the legitimate and legal constitutional public government.

The HOA supporters, including CAI, do not have clean hands! It’s well beyond time to stop this mockery of the Constitution and mockery that HOAs represent the true voice of the people. And, the state legislatures well know that there are existing statutes that permit “private communities” to exist yet be accountable to Constitutional public government as a state entity, and retain the perceived benefits of restricted amenities, “ordinances,” community “taxes,” etc. (See a Proposal for the Muni-zation of HOAs).

I invite any and all online media, and those public interest organizations who fight for individual rights, to duplicate this poll for their viewers. Let’s get to the whole truth by publishing this poll, or stop telling your viewers that you tell the truth!!!

It should be noted that another marked rebuttal to these “satisfied” polls was a recent Phoenix CBS affiliate, KPHO, poll on whether or not an HOA Syndrome – a PTSD resulting from living in an HOA, diagnosed by Dr. Gary Solomon – was real. The KPHO internet poll results showed a 69% response that the HOA Syndrome was alive in HOAs. (See HOA Syndrome survey: YES, it exists!).

Please freely distribute this commentary/email to interested parties and your local media.

Exercises in futility – demanding the HOA to comply

Over the years I’ve heard many, many stories that were, unfortunately, exercises in futility. These stories followed the same basic pattern, except the names and places changed. A homeowner in a dispute with his HOA exchanges emails/letters/calls with the board or HOA attorney or manager, one or all, citing blatant violations of the governing documents and/or state laws.

The responses from the board or its hired hands repeatedly deny any wrongdoing or failure to comply with its legal obligations. The HOA responses often include extreme positions and interpretations of its obligations, and ludicrous defenses of its position. Further exchanges only serve to increase the anger and frustration of the homeowner with a good possibility of additional attorney fees for answering his emails.

The bottom line is that the homeowner must sue to get the HOA to meet its obligations under the law – no state agency is going to get involved. These exchanges only serve as evidence of the board’s bad faith actions and flagrant violations of its obligations. And that’s all they are good for. Showing them to the media, and if they air the story, has no legal effect on the HOA. Showing them to your fellow neighbors gets you nowhere as many have discovered.

Unless these exchanges are geared to possible and eventual legal action, they are otherwise exercises in futility.

Possibly, only possibly, can these documented exchanges become useful when sent to your state representative demanding legislation for state enforcement of HOA board violations. Homeowners must demand substantial penalties and fines against the board and individual board members, if warranted.

The continued presumption by state legislatures that the HOA will act in good faith and obey the law and governing documents has been disproven time and time by the HOA’s wanton abuse of the laws. This desired response by the legislature will only happen when a sufficiently large volume of documented complaints are received from many homeowners.

Constitutional intents and purposes: HOAs vs. America

The Preamble to the US Constitution contains the intentions, purposes, and guiding principles of the Constitution.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence [sic], promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The constitutions, commonly known as the CC&Rs or Declaration, of the HOA private government regimes, while not standardized, contain the following intents and purposes:

 

  • All contain: To maintain property values
  • Most contain: to enforce the provisions of the CC&Rs (more commonly found in the powers of the HOA or Board of Directors)
  • Some contain: to promote the general welfare and well-being of the community
  • A few even contain: subject to the US Constitution, which is meaningless, as is currently held, the Constitution does not apply to privately contracted governments

 

Since the CC&Rs, the HOA constitution, is held to be contractually binding, sight unseen, we must apply the common meaning of the explicit, written words and avoid applying meanings and intents not explicitly set forth. If there are some vagueness to the meanings of the explicit wordings, then the intent of the drafters of the CC&Rs are investigated in order to obtain some guidance in the intended meanings of these vague wordings. This is the standard judicial procedure for interpreting contracts.

 

It is plainly obvious from the above that the HOA constitutions are lacking in several relevant objectives of substance: establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty. Legally, one cannot apply political and governmental intentions that are no where implied in any manner whatsoever, such as these silent objectives.

In other words, there is no legal obligation on HOA boards to be just, to insure domestic tranquility, or to allow for the exercise of your liberties. To demand these non-HOA rights and freedoms carries no weight in the courts, unless, as a result of specific legislation or a court holding, a specific right is restored to homeowners in HOAs. This is the intent of substantive reform legislation — removing second-class citizenship.

 

It is also plainly obvious from the nature of reform legislation, lawsuits, and the public statements and positions of the pro-HOA supporters that the HOA board is not concerned “to insure domestic tranquility,” or “to promote the general welfare,” or to “secure the blessings of liberty.” They are not legally bound to do so, nor can constitutional governments demand such concerns without declaring the HOA regime a state entity subject to the 14th Amendment as required for all government entities.

 

And, as long as the courts and state legislatures stand behind the myth of a valid waiver or surrender of your rights, especially those not implied, or a reasonably expected waiver, or those not even remotely found in the HOA constitutions, good people in HOAs are governed by the independent HOA principality.

 

This is the current state of affairs in America today.  Only the voice of the people, your voice, can bring about change.

Courts will enforce CC&Rs except when . . .

This Alabama appellate decision, Grove Hill HOA v. Rice, sheds light on the reasons CAI insists that the CC&Rs being strictly enforced by the HOA and the courts: the irrational fears of a slippery slope eradication of the HOA. (The HOA was seeking an injunction against the homeowners who had built a driveway not to its liking). One person, the proft-seeking developer, is allowed to set the rules that govern the HOA community for all time to come, regardless of any political consequences with respect to the creation of a private government regime.

 

The trial court held, based on the Willow Lake opinion, emphasis aded,

 

“The Association maintained throughout the proceedings that any violation of a restrictive covenant, if allowed over its objection, necessarily dilutes the power of the restrictive covenants and thereby lessens the value of the subdivision property. We agree. In creating the restrictive covenants, the partnership expressly declared that the purpose of the covenants was `to protect the value and desirability of the Property.’”

 

However, as we are finally beginning to see a proper sense of justice for homeowners, the appellate court attempted to reject the Willow Lake precedent and held, “We do not interpret Willow Lake as requiring that an injunction is due to be granted in every case in which a resident has violated a restrictive covenant. Indeed, this court has applied the doctrine of “undue hardship . . . .” That is, emphasis added,

 

enforcement of covenants running with land `”is governed by equitable principles, and will not be decreed if, under the facts of the particular case, it would be inequitable and unjust”‘; specifically, if `”the restrictive covenant has ceased to have any beneficial or substantial value”‘ or `”the defendant will be subject to great hardship or the consequences would be inequitable,”‘ a court of equity will not enforce the covenant.

 

Unforunately, to complicate matters, “undue hardship” requires “clean hands” on the part of the homeowner in that he had no prior knowledge that his act was in violation of the CC&Rs. The court held that the homeowner had prior knowledge and therefore had “unclean hands,”  stating “that a restrictive covenant should be enforced if the defendant had knowledge of it before constructing an improvement contrary to its provisions, even if the harm is disproportionate.” The homeowner lost and had to undo the driveway at a cost of $15,000 to him.

 

 

Grove Hill HOA v. Rice, No. 2100293 (Ala. Civ. App. July 29, 2011).

CAI acknowledges “unconstitutional taking”, but not from homeowners

CAI-CLAC (CA CAI lobbying committee) has apparently discovered the meaning of “an unconstitutional taking” when it object to the new California law, SB 209, that permits homeowners to install electric vehicle charging stations in HOAs. CAI argued in its July 26, 2011 email release (not shown under HOT BILLS on its website), “a very significant problem remained unresolved in that the measure essentially condones an unconstitutional governmental “taking” of property that is commonly owned by all the members for the benefit of one. (My emphasis). I’m impressed that CAI acknowledges constitutional law.

 

However, CAI, that national leading HOA educational organization — as it likes to promote itself, but is truly a business trade group to help its members make $$$$ — has no quarrel with the taking of homeowners’ constitutional rights, freedoms, liberties, privileges and immunities as a result of the application of the common law of servitudes over constitutional law. The taking of constitutional rights and freedoms, and the violation of the equal application of the law and due process protections for homeowners in HOAs by constructive notice — the simple posting to the county clerk’s office — binds buyers to the CC&Rs sight unseen, never mind the absence of explicit consent.

 

CAI seems to take this fascist state approach, where the goals of the state, the HOA, come before individual rights, is an absolute, sacrosanct, untouchable right conferred upon the HOA, without regard to the US Constitution. The justification for the legitimacy of the HOA government is the lame excuse that the homeowner remains in the HOA and does not leave its jurisdiction, thereby giving his implied consent to be governed and to the surrender of his rights. But, the HOA is not a de jure public government that functions without any contract. The HOA is a contractual arrangement, and this application of public doctrine is an constitutional taking of the homeowners’ private property rights.

 

Sadly, state legislators see no evil, no rejection of the US Constitution, and the courts allow this secession from the Constitution to prevail. What is the purpose of a constitution if any two people can sign a document that says we reject the Constitution? What is happening to America?

 

As we discovered with regard to Arizona’s secessionist feelings earlier this year, Art. I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the Constitution prohibits compacts between the states without the consent of Congress: “No state shall, without the consent of Congress . . , enter into any agreement or compact with another state”. And to allow private citizens to do so makes a mockery of the Constitution and the American system of government.  Are we already in The New America of HOA-Land? 

 

Read on CAI, read on and learn more about constitutional law.