Tag: constitution

NC foreclosure bill SB 312 dies silently

I had sought for a representative example of emails to the legislators  and copies of proposed testimony before the hearing committees that I would review and add constitutionality challenges. Having received none from the advocacy group, I found the following event an excellent case to demonstrate the need to apply constitutional law.

A 2023 NC bill taking strong stand on HOA foreclosure rights. It was a bill containing above and beyond restrictions and actions on filing liens for failures to pay assessment.  It was read and sent to the rules committee in March without being assigned to any hearing committee, as is SOP. As I explained in “Understanding the Legislative structure,” the Rules Committee is controlled by the majority party leaders and can hold a bill from being heard, which it appears has happened.

My review and analysis rests solely on the following. The bill had good intentions but lacked any real support or concern from the bill sponsor.  It simply deleted all references in the NC General Statutes granting the HOA rights to foreclose on” dead beats.” I am not aware of any social media or news media coverage of this important bill.

In general, my recommendations on preparing and supporting favorable legislation are presented in Legislative proposals and legal memoranda, but here I apply those recommendations to this bill.

First, in a highly controversial bill as we have here, the sponsor should have included an Intent section that provides the rationale for the need for the bill to be made law. Even if not passed, the Intent section becomes part of the legislative record otherwise silence reigns.*  A host of legal authority failed to be presented to the NC General Assembly that, among other violations, raised constitutional issues of violations of the 8th Amendment against cruel and unusual punishment.

Of particular authority – persuasive authority in the courts – that carries strong weight is found in the Minnesota decision: Supreme Court finds taking excess foreclosure funds unconstitutional. 

“She brought ‘claims under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment.’ . . . Because we find that Tyler has plausibly alleged a taking under the Fifth Amendment [eminent domain] . . . we need not decide whether she has also alleged an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment.”

For a discussion of foreclosure injustice, see HOA Common Sense, No. 8: Draconian punishment and intimidation. Also see the 2019 SC bill analysis, Substantive SC HOA reform bill – end foreclosure.

 “The Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause is an incorporated protection applicable to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. . . .  The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause incorporates and renders applicable to the States Bill of Rights protections “fun­damental to our scheme of ordered liberty.”

Now is the time for all good advocates . . .

The NC legislature is still in session and bills are carried over to the following year in NC’s biannual sessions.  With a strong outcry from NC citizens and advocates the Rules Committee can place this bill back into play by assigning a hearing committee and allowing for a vote; if not too late this session then next year. (See Understanding the Legislative structure).  Support by the Sponsor, Senator Kandie Smith, is a strong endorsement.

The ball is in the NC advocate’s court.

Judicial Scrutiny standards judge claims of constitutionality

Claims regarding the constitutionality of laws are subject to judicial review. Generally speaking, and simplifying matters considerably, courts use three different standards to adjudicate constitutional claims: (1) rational basis review; (2) intermediate scrutiny; (3) and strict scrutiny. The “standard of scrutiny” applied to a particular claim is of critical legal importance and usually determines whether the claim will succeed.  

The first standard — rational basis review — is the most forgiving.  Under rational basis review, a litigant challenging a law on constitutional grounds “bear[s] the burden of proving that it does not bear a rational relation to any conceivably legitimate governmental purpose—even a hypothetical one.”  With vanishingly few exceptions, nearly all laws satisfy this standard.

The second standard, known as “intermediate scrutiny,” raises the stakes considerably.   Under this . . .  a law “must serve important governmental objectives, and . . . the discriminatory means employed must be substantially related to the achievement of those objectives.”  

The third standard of review, which is the most rigorous, is “strict scrutiny.”  Under strict scrutiny, “the government must prove that the challenged law is both narrowly tailored and the least-restrictive means available to further a compelling governmental interest.”  Strict scrutiny applies in areas such as racial and religious discrimination, and it also applies to many claims involving free speech.

# # # #

I have yet to see any valid government justification in support of the HOA legal scheme that deprives citizens of their constitutional and fundamental rights. Some have argued that it eases the state/county’s financial burden as a legitimate government interest. However, the HOA scheme must be reviewed under strict scrutiny as it damages the members’ rights and freedoms. Furthermore, the claim that the member agreed to the Declaration and surrendered and waived his rights has come under criticism as an invalid surrender in the courts.

Source: Constitutional Standards of Scrutiny (link: Supreme Court of Tennessee Blog)

Advocate files AZ supreme court amicus brief fighting unjust laws

We must make the injustice visible.

We must provoke until they respond and change the laws.

(Mahatma Gandhi)

An AZ supreme court amicus brief was filed by Jonathan Dessaules on behalf of the Arizona Homeowners Coalition in CAO v. Dorsey (CA-CV 21-0275) (Waiting for the Court’s decision).  Dessaules argues that the statute in question, ARS 33-1228, conflicts with the Arizona Constitution, Article 2, Section 17, and “a statute cannot circumvent or modify constitutional requirements”.

The intricate legality and constitutionality of private entities—the HOA — taking of another party’s property rights – a homeowners — is discussed in detail.  I frequently quote the brief to ensure accuracy in my review.

ARS 33-1228 “allows condominium associations to force the sale of a nonconsenting owner’s property for someone else’s private use” and is the justification for investors to shut down the HOA. However, “When a state statute conflicts with Arizona’s Constitution, the constitution must prevail.” Furthermore, it is argued that “The legislature may not enact a statute which is in conflict with a provision of the Arizona Constitution.” Consequently, the Legislature lacked the authority to enact 33-1228.

(Stay with it!) The brief goes on to say that ARS 12-1131 provides that “eminent domain may be exercised only if the use of eminent domain is authorized by this state, whether by statute or otherwise, and for a public use as defined in this article.” Public use does not allow for “forcing the sale of a holdout owner’s property to be used by the investor who owners a majority of the other units within the condominium.”

The HOA, Dorsey, counterclaimed that it wasn’t a sovereign and § 1231 doesn’t apply to private organizations, ignoring § 12-1111 that permits individuals the right of eminent domain takings. Consequently, again, it is argued that 12-1228 is invalid.

An additional powerful argument is raised that the Declaration is an adhesion contract. “A declaration is generally a ‘standardized form offered to consumers on essentially a take it or leave it basis.’” And to my long awaited legality, the brief states that “Without the contract even being presented to the purchaser for their signature,” the contract is imposed on the buyer.

Again, we see the  doctrine of “reasonable expectations” as applied to adhesion contracts. “Contracts of adhesion will not be enforced unless they are conscionable and within the reasonable expectations of the parties.” Dessaules maintains that including unconstitutional  statutes in the Condo Act is “substantively unconscionable.” Furthermore, as I have argued many times, “a waiver of a constitutional right is not within reasonable expectations of the parties.”

This is a solid amicus brief by an advocate fighting for HOA reforms to protect members’ rights and privileges.  It does not pretend to accept unjust laws.

* * * *

I would like to thank Dennis Legere, Arizona Homeowners Coalition,  for hiring attorney Jonathan Dessaules to file this important, to the point, excellent amicus brief.

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.

The HOA legal scheme is ab initio unconstitutional

TO:     Legislative leaders in every state

The HOA legal scheme based on the Homes association Handbook is ab initio unconstitutional

In March 2006 I wrote Christopher Durso, editor of the Community Associations Institute’s (CAI) monthly house organ, Common Ground, asking four questions in regard to the constitutionality of HOA’s  (CID, POA, planned unit development, etc.) legal scheme.  My concern was that CC&Rs are a devise for de facto HOA governments to escape constitutional government as presented in  the 1964 “bible” that brought forth the legal scheme, The Homes Association Handbook. 

Replacing democratic local governments with authoritarian private governments:  Is this good public policy? 

“Public policy today rejects constitutional government for HOAs allowing them to operate outside the law of the land. The policy makers have failed to understand that the HOA CC&Rs have crossed over the line between purely property restrictions to establishing unregulated and authoritarian private governments.”

Here are the four questions:

 1. Is it proper for the state to create, permit, encourage, support or defend a form of local government of a community of people, whether that form of government is established as a municipal corporation or as a private organization that is not compatible with our American system of government?

2. Is it proper for the state to permit the existence of private quasi-governments with contractual “constitutions” that regulate and control the behavior of citizens without the same due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment; that do not conform to the state’s municipal charter or incorporation requirements; or do not provide for the same compliance with the state’s Constitution, statutes or administrative code as required by public local government entities?

3. When did “whatever the people privately contract” dominate the protections of the US Constitution? The New Jersey Appeals Court didn’t think so (CBTR v. Twin Rivers, 2006). Does “constructive notice,” the “nailing to the wall,” the medieval method of notice, measure to the requisite level of notice and informed consent to permit the loss of Constitutional protections?

4. Please state what, if any, are the government’s interests in supporting HOAs that deny the people their constitutional rights?

Please respond  to these fundamental questions of HOA constitutionality.