Tag: consent agreement

Law review article criticizes HOA public policy

In her 44-page OK Univ. Law Review “Note” (2022) the author, Saige Culbertson, concentrates on the questions of agency relationships and duty of care. However, in order to discuss the question of agency relationships, Culbertson addressed many of the issues still causing problems in HOA-Land including the status of HOAs as quasi-governments, the validity of the CC&Rs “contract,” and the reality of maintaining property values.

With respect to agreeing to be bound, the author maintains in regard to the individual homeowner subject to the CC&Rs,  that

  • “HOAs use these contracts as a basis for their decision making because courts often presume the homeowners have a full understanding of their HOA’s obligations, because they have the duty to examine their contract for real property. The typical HOA contract is overly generalized and broad.
  • “When buying a home, a homeowner does not often have the option to not join. Homeowners also have little-to-no choice of which actions the HOA may take on their behalf, or, crucially, any actions taken by the HOA for any purpose.  
  • “However, the lack of mutual assent is constant throughout the relationship with the HOA. At the beginning, the homeowner might not have agreed to a relationship with the HOA, and those who have agreed might not have a full understanding of the rules of the HOA.
  • “[S]ome courts and scholars argue that HOA contracts are a form of adhesion contracts. Adhesion contracts are exclusively pre-determined by a single party and are presented as “take it or leave it,” while the non-drafting party has no room to negotiate.”

With respect maintaining property values, Culbertson is concerned about “The Fictional Purpose of a Homeowners’ Association,”

  • “The Community Association Institute recently reported 71% of individuals believed their community association rules ‘protect and enhance property values.’ While this belief may have been true in 2005,  more recent research indicates otherwise. 
  • “[A] study found that “[p]roperties located in HOAs do not appreciate faster, on average, than properties not located in any type of neighborhood government”

 and cites this study by Robertson,

  • “[A] 2021 study conducted by former Yale Professor Leon S. Robertson found that “[c]urrent sales price[s] [are] related to property characteristics and local market conditions[,]” and that “sales prices do not reflect the efficacy of homeowners associations to protect property values.
  • “Robertson remarked that “[s]tate and local laws that sanction homeowners associations and allow their coercive practices based on the premise of property value preservation are ill founded.”

With respect to quasi or local government, the author favors making “HOAs part of local government, founded in democratic ideals, and with regulation by the state or municipality,”

  • “The nature and purpose of the HOA are so closely linked to that of local government that . . . clearly give rise to a special sense of responsibility . . . . This special responsibility is manifested in the . . . requirements of due process, equal protection, and fair dealing. The severity of the risks associated with the substantial overreach by HOAs is further shown by actions depriving individuals of their basic rights.
  • “[U]pon analysis of the association’s functions, one clearly sees the association as a quasi-government entity paralleling in almost every case the powers, duties, and responsibilities of a municipal government. As a “mini-government,” the association provides to its members . . . . [citing Cohen v. Kite Hill Cmty. Ass’n, 142 Cal. App. 3d 642].
  • “The lack of checks and balances on HOA actions is a national problem and homeowners are often left with no remedy for violations of their rights. The need for regulation of HOA activities, and further federal protections for individuals, is especially apparent . . . .
  • “[H]omeowners should urge their local government to increase regulations on HOAs to protect their fundamental rights as Americans. States should therefore pass legislation to make HOAs part of local government, founded in democratic ideals, and with regulation by the state or municipality.”

Source: OK Univ. Law Review (PDF download).

AZ bill returns homestead protection against HOA claims.

We must make the injustice visible. We must provoke until they respond and change the laws.[1]

Arizona alert – strike everything HB 2648 (2024)  returns homestead protections against HOA claims.  

“ARS 33-1807 and 33-1256. “B. THE COMMON EXPENSE ASSESSMENT LIEN PRESCRIBED BY THIS SECTION IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION.”

Let’s go back into the forgotten history of the homestead exemption in Arizona, starting in 2004,[2] 2007[3] and 2023.  The issue was and is the use of statutes to mimic the common boilerplate of the CC&Rs:   Statutory vs consensual lien. “A 12 item list is presented mimicking the CC&Rs, a common tactic to legitimize contractual challenges to the governing documents.”[4]

In 2004, still learning the ropes, I did not follow up on the state actors controversy based on the ARS statutes saying (my emphasis), “‘The association has a lien on a unit for any assessment.” 

“Representative Farnsworth made quite clear that ARS33-1807(A), which opens with, ‘The association has a lien . . . . is a statutory lien and not a consensual lien – the homeowner has no choice in the matter whatsoever.” (emphasis added).”

This can only be interpreted as a mandatory statute making the HOA an arm of the state, acting in place of the state – a state actor.[5] No, and, if, or buts! It is not a consensual lien if mandated by the state!

A second argument raised many times subsequent to 2004 questions the validity of a genuine consensus – “an agreement to be bound.”  In short, the argument raised in Common Sense[6],

“First, the application of contract law to the CC&Rs agreement reveals the many invalid aspects of the CC&Rs as a bona fide contract.  It is obvious from a simple review of contract law.  Yet, courts have held that the CC&Rs are a contract or are to be interpreted as a contract, and have even analyzed the meanings of CC&Rs in the same manner as a contract. But, the courts do not question the validity of the CC&RS contract with respect to contract law.  The courts resort to equitable servitudes law, which simply requires the acceptance of a deed in order to bind the home buyer to the CC&Rs sight unseen.”

On this point alone, HB2468 must be strongly supported. The controversy of statutory vs consensual is avoided to the relief of homeowners.

It is the Achilles heel of CAI’s reason for being  — cruel foreclosure and no homestead exemption as a punishment to coerce obedience.

Notes

[1] Mahatma Gandhi, fighting for India’s independence from British rule, 1948.

[2] HOA Homestead Exemption Exclusion (SB1470) (2023) (A 2004 look back and a comment by Fred F).

[3] See, The constitutionality of legislation: AZ Gov. vetoes homestead exemption bill (2007);

Arizona SB1330 restores lost homestead protection in HOAs (2007).

[4] See, All state “may/shall” statutes imply HOAs as state actors.

[5] See in general, Are HOA state actors created by statutory use of shall/may? (Section 2, paragraphs 5 +). (2019).

[6] HOA Common Sense, No. 4: Consent to be governed

Getting your HOA reform bills accepted

I’m pleased to see many of you are using my Commentaries on HOA Constitutional Government as part of your efforts to bring about HOA reform legislation.  Allow me to recommend a procedure that should improve more success in getting your legislators’ attention. Justification for my arguments below can be found in the “Recommend texts” below; homeowners and advocates cannot neglect these works of mine and others.

  • Legislators are immerged in tons of emails by many persons and “robo emails” — the same email sent by many persons —  get slight attention;
  • There is some success that your district representative will sponsor your bill and your reforms;
  • Emails from state residents to bill sponsors and committee chairs and members are generally read, but outsiders receive less attention unless   strong credentials are provided to counter CAI’s credentials;
  • The main focus of your email should be your reforms with the inclusion of works from others being supportive.
  • Have no fear of show the ugly forest through the trees by addressing constitutional violations that support your reform legislation — over my 24 years CAI has ignored any such discussion and will fight like hell to avoid constitutionality issues (I challenged them back in 2006, no response);
  • CAI and the legislators  will not put themselves in a highly vulnerable position of having to defend the indefensible, a rejection of the Constitution; it is their Achilles heel;
  • Have no fear of raising the important issues of intentional misrepresentation in the claimed  “you agreed  to be bound” CAI defense, invalidating the legitimacy of the adhesion CC&Rs contract;
  • Don’t be penny wise and pound foolish – spend some small change and get copies of publications that will serve as textbooks on getting your issues heard before your legislature (see “Recommended texts” below).

Recommended texts

Privatopia, Evan McKenzie (seminal book on private HOA government)

HOA Common Sense: rejecting private government, George K. Staropoli (entry level constitutional violations)

Take Back Your Government, Morgan Carroll (out of stock at Amazon; eBay, Thriftbooks)

HOA Constitutional Government, George K. Staropoli (a one volume collection of 56 events and situations over 24 years)

collective writings — immediate release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                 Contact: George K. Staropoli, 602-228-2891

The battle for HOA Constitutional Government

Surprise, AZ – February 1, 2024 — For over 60 years, since 1964, the controversial issue as to the validity and constitutionality of Homeowners associations (HOAs, PUDs, POAs, condos) has been ignored by state legislatures, attorney generals, the judiciary, and the media.

In order to set the record straight and to educate and reorient the policy makers, the constitutionality of HOAs is raised in the collective writings of long time HOA reform activist and nonlawyer, George K. Staropoli. In his  January 9, 2024 published HOA Constitutional Government: the continuing battle,  he has presented 56 of his 1,300 social media posts over his 24 years as a reform activist.

These posts – as originally written and not as legal advice or opinion — contain his views based on documented legislation, case histories,  statements and various releases by the parties including the lobbyist entity, in their  own words.

The case is made that 1) the HOA declaration of CC&Rs is ab initio unconstitutional and invalid; 2) the CC&Rs are a devise to escape the application of constitutional protections; 3)  HOAs are permitted to do things municipal governments are not allowed; 4) there is no genuine, valid support for “agreed to be bound” under the application of equitable servitudes constructive notice doctrine; and 5) the judiciary has failed to educate  judges and law students on laws and principles affecting the HOA legal scheme.

It is argued that this irresponsible state of affairs is primarily the result of the dominance and influence on the policy makers by the national HOA lobbying trade group.  All the state HOA “Acts” and laws constitute “new law,” and the HOA legal scheme has been treated as sui generis; mixing laws of the land with new meanings and definitions to sell the HOA legal scheme to all Americans.

These Acts are nothing more than parallel laws to the Constitution, and superseding the Constitution in many court decisions. In a selected entry Staropoli quotes CAI’s brief to the NJ court in 2006:

“In the context of community associations, the unwise extension of constitutional rights to the use of private property by members . . . raises the likelihood that judicial intervention will become the norm.”

* * * *

Get HOA Constitutional Government – amazon.com

HOA Constitutional website: http://pvtgov.info. Staropoli has had his per se AZ Supreme Court amicus briefs challenging HOA constitutionality accepted by the court.

Desert Mountain opinion (AZ) constitutionality – part 2

Introduction

This 2-part Commentary on the H-O-A amendment boilerplate process entails a number of complex constitutional issues that are interlinked.  Discussing one results in discussing another, etc. in order to fully understand the validity of the H-O-A legal scheme.  [quote — ]You can’t see the forest for the trees[  –unquote  ] is the result of this complexity obfuscated by the Restatement and by the national pro-H-O-A special interest lobbyists.

In Part 1 I discussed 5 selected views by the appellate court that I see as constitutional challenges.   Herein Part 2 I present constitutionality challenges in regard to 1)  the bias found in the  Restatement of Servitudes,[1] a legal authority on court decisions and common law in favor of the H-O-A legal scheme, and 2) the freedom to contract doctrine[2] and its bearing on whether people are truly free to enter an H-O-A private government contract.

The Arizona appellate court ruling in Nicdon v. Desert Mountain[3] with respect to a CC&Rs amendment needs to be appealed to the AZ supreme court. In Part 1,  I raised the question of an on color of law denial of fundamental rights to property; on violations of the equal protection of the laws.   

Disclaimer: Understanding that in spite of my 20+ years reading hundreds of federal and state supreme court and appellate court opinions, I am not a lawyer nor am I employed by a lawyer; I only offer my views.

. . . .

Restatement of Property: Servitudes

In Item 5 of Part 1, I raised my concern that the Court relied on the Restatement of Servitudes quoting, [quote — ]A restrictive covenant is generally valid unless it is illegal or unconstitutional or violates public policy[  –unquote  ].[4]  The Restatement (American Law Institute) is accepted as legal authority even though it seems to be advancing ought to be or societal goals rather than reporting the law and factual court decisions.  

[quote — ]The Institute’s mission is [quote — ]to promote the clarification and simplification of the law and its better adaptation to social needs, to secure the better administration of justice, and to encourage and carry on scholarly and scientific legal work.[  –unquote  ] It achieves this goal through the development of Institute projects, which are categorized as Restatements, Codes, or Principles. . . . Restatements are primarily addressed to courts and aim at clear formulations of common law and its statutory elements, and reflect the law as it presently stands or might appropriately be stated by a court.[  –unquote  ][5]

The opening sentence above is the heart of the problem.  It presumes that justice is accomplished through ALI’s promotion of current court decisions, which in turn, are the reflection of a bias as  to what constitutes [quote — ]a better adaption to social needs.[  –unquote  ]  It flies in the face of  long standing constitutional doctrine on the legitimacy of the law and the consent of the governed.   It opens up to the controversy regarding the extent to which people may associate and establish contracts under freedom to and freedom of contract.

This 2000 update and marked rewrite began in 1987, 13 years ago. It is now another 21 years of substantive changes in the laws and public policy; H-O-As have now been institutionalized and accepted as [quote — ]this is he way it is.[  –unquote  ]  This is quite clear from the Forward (emphasis added):

 [quote — ]Professor Susan French [Reporter (chief editor/contributor) for this Restatement] begins with the assumption . . . that we are willing to pay for private government because we believe it is more efficient than [public] government  . . . . Therefore this Restatement is enabling toward private government, so long as there is full disclosure . . . .[  –unquote  ]

And we know there is an absence of full disclosure that amounts to misrepresentation.  Sadly, there is evidence of contradictory statements aiding and abetting this misrepresentation even in the Restatement that is used as legal authority by the courts. While the Court quoted comment a of §3.1[6] (see [quote — ]Contractual freedoms[  –unquote  ] below), it omitted comment h, which reads, [quote — ]in the event of a conflict between servitudes law and the law applicable to the association form [its private contractual nature], servitudes law should control.[  –unquote  ]

In addition, while the court referenced §6.10 it unbelievably failed to reject §6.13, comment a, which states: [quote — ]The question whether a servitude unreasonably burdens a fundamental constitutional right is determined as a matter of property law, and not constitutional law.[  –unquote  ]

Need I say more about securing the [quote — ]better administration of justice[  –unquote  ]?  Certainly not for the affected people — the H-O-A homeowners.  ALI is guilty of bias against the homeowners, the [quote — ]patients,[  –unquote  ] as analogous to the medical profession with its high degree of specialization where, working on the same body, the left hand doesn’t know about, or doesn’t care about, what the right hand is doing at the same time. 

If it is true and believable that laws are to provide justice, as widely proclaimed, the courts and the lawmakers must consider the effects of both hands on the patient. ALI must adjust its approach and remove these pro-H-O-A views and make references to applicable constitutional law.  ALI must also recognize that H-O-As are another form of local government that is not subject to the Constitution, and remove §6.13, comment a. 

The policy makers have failed to understand that the H-O-A CC&Rs have crossed over the line between purely property restrictions to establishing unregulated and authoritarian private governments.

Section 6 of the Restatement, Part D, Governance of Common – Interest Communities, attempts to deal with the governance of H-O-As in general. Section 6.16 addresses representative government.  It does not read at all like the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights.

Contractual freedoms and consent to be bound

Let’s begin with the excerpt from Desert Mountain opinion  in Part 1(1) linking the binding of the CC&Rs [quote — ]contract[  –unquote  ] by deed acceptance to the implicit consent to be bound in a single quote (emphasis added),

[quote — ]By accepting a deed in the Desert Mountain planned community, the [homeowner]  became bound by the Declaration, including properly adopted amendments. . . . when [a] homeowner takes [a] deed containing restriction allowing amendment by majority vote, homeowner implicitly consents to any subsequent majority vote to modify or extinguish deed restrictions[  –unquote  ].

By this doctrine, contract law 101 is ignored in favor of servitude law, as the Restatement advises  and an implicit waiver and surrender of a fundamental property right is accepted as valid, thereby treating the homeowner as a second-class citizen.  It does not do justice for the homeowner and should be held as an illegitimate exercise of police power by the legislature.

 In Item 5 of Part 1, I also raised the matter of the freedom to contract doctrine as contained in comment (a) of  the Restatement’s §3.1  that I now discuss in some detail here due to its constitutional complexity.

‘‘In general, parties may contract as they wish [freedom to contract] , and the courts will enforce their agreements without passing on the substance . . . The principle of freedom of contract is rooted in the notion that it is in the public interest to recognize that individuals have broad powers to order their own lives.’[  –unquote  ]   

In opposition to the above, I raised the following questions  years ago in 2005,

[quote — ]When did ‘whatever the people privately contract’ dominate the protections of the U.S. Constitution?  Please state what, if any, are the government’s interests in supporting H-O-As that deny the people their constitutional rights?[  –unquote  ]

I have not received an answer from any party including constitutional think tanks, state legislators, attorney generals, or the media.  It’s obvious that in any reply they [quote — ]would be defending the indefensible![  –unquote  ]

Freedom to contract; implied consent to be bound

The simplistic argument that remaining in the H-O-A implies consent is answered, in general,  by political scientist, professor of constitutional law, and author Randy Barnett,

Simply remaining in this country, however, is highly ambiguous. It might mean that you consent to be bound by the laws . . . or it might mean that you have a good job and could not find a better one [elsewhere] . . . or that you do not want to leave your loved ones behind. It is simply unwarranted that to conclude from the mere act of remaining . . . that one has consented to all and any of the laws thereof.[  –unquote  ][7]

I broadly address the consent issue in H-O-A Common Sense, No. 4: Consent to be governed[8]  (2008).  A deeper discussion can be found in H-O-A consent to agree vs. [quote — ]the will of the majority[  –unquote  ] (2019) wherein I quote constitutional scholars Randy Barnett, Keith E. Whittingham, and Edwin Meese.[9]

The important, selected, noteworthy quotes shown below bear directly on the defects in the top-down, take it-or leave it CC&Rs:

[quote — ]Tacit consent purports to provide a rationale for obligating those of us, by chance or choice, have not made their approval of the government explicit [Whittingham].[  –unquote  ]

[quote — ]The [quote — ]consent of the governed[  –unquote  ] stands in contrast to [quote — ]the will of the majority[  –unquote  ] . . . consent is the means whereby arbitrary power is thwarted [Meese].[  –unquote  ]

[quote — ]A law may be ‘valid’ because it was produced in accordance with all the procedures required by a particular lawmaking system, [the H-O-A amendment procedure, for example] but be ‘illegitimate’ because these procedures were inadequate to provide assurances that a law is just’ [Barnett].[  –unquote  ]

US Supreme Court must decide

I have informed readers about the  sticky-wicket that ties all these constitutional questions together as applied to the H-O-A legal structure and scheme; a sticky-wicket that must be resolved once and for all by the US Supreme Court.

References

[1] Restatement (3rd), Property: Servitudes, Susan F. French, Reporter, American Law Institute (2000).

[2] The question of  [quote — ]legitimacy of consent[  –unquote  ] is explored by Randy Barnett in his publications where he argues that there are limitations.  Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty, Randy E. Barnett, Part 1, Princeton University Press, 2004). 

[3] Nicdon v. Desert Mountain, No. 1 CA-CV 20-0129 (April 29, 2021).  

[4] Supra n.1, §3.3(1).

[5] [quote — ]How the Institute Works,[  –unquote  ] American Law Institute (ALI),website (May 3, 2011).

[6] This section of the Restatement, Validity of Servitude Arrangements, speaks to unconstitutional servitudes (§3.1(d)) and servitudes violating public policy (3.1(e)).  Worth reading.

[7] Supra n.3, p.19.

[8] See H-O-A Common Sense: rejecting private government (2008) pamphlet on Amazon.

[9] Barnett, supra n. 3; Whittingham, [quote — ]Chapter 5, Popular Sovereignty and Originalism,[  –unquote  ] Constitutional Interpretation, Univ. Press of Kansas (1999); Meese, [quote — ]What the Constitution Means,[  –unquote  ] The Heritage Guide to the Constitution (2005). Meese was the US Attorney General under Ronald Reagan.