Tag: constructive notice

The Lone Ranger still fights for HOA constitutionality

“(Common Ground, May/June 2006, Christopher Durso, Editor).

“CCLG’s [Citizens for Constitutional Local Government] founder and president, George Staropoli, for example, originally agreed to an interview but later changed his mind. In a brief phone call during which he’s quiet and almost courtly, he explains that Common Ground is CAI’s ‘house organ,’ and that he’d be more comfortable with a debate or similar format where he could express himself at length, without the risk of being quoted out of context. He asks that his prolific writings on the CCLG website speak for him, although a week or two later he sends an ‘open e-mail questionnaire to CAI’ containing four questions that sprout from CCLG’s mission.”

####

 As of this writing, the four questions, also sent to the Arizona Legislature, have not been answered by any party.  Why not?

“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. 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?”

Staropoli lists a selection of unsolicited testimonials over his many years of HOA activism.  

His latest activity in January 2024 was the publication of “Seeking HOA Constitutional Government: the continuing battle, Collected Writings.” It contains in one volume some 56 writings — emails, social media postings, and articles — presenting 24 years of historical events, case histories, legislation and related documents by proponents of the HOA status quo.

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.

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.

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.

Beware of unsupported legal arguments and opinions when in court

All too often judges make decisions on HOA cases, making new law and new contract meanings, with unsupported statements not related to the case on hand. For example, in a question of signage, a court may state that the HOA is not a mini-government and offer no legal authority for that statement. It is referred to as a dictum (dicta) and is non-binding. However, it is used as if it were indeed a court proven and decided fact.

In the Nevada Supreme Court decision in Sanzaro v. Adiente HOA, Nev. No. 61288 (Oct. 16, 2015) we have a good example that deals with the question of proper notice. (“Proper notice” is a 14th Amendment due process requirement.) Here, arbitrators ruled that Sanzaro had “constructive notice” — here we go again, no need to read the notice — that no dogs were allowed and charged the homeowners with $17,000 in legal fees (and I thought arbitration was the best solution to HOA decisions). The district court upheld that decision, finding that the homeowners had “not shown by competent evidence any deficiency that would warrant the relief being sought.”

As it happened, the homeowners, at purchase time, were told to see the HOA webpage for a copy of the rules, but the web page rules were not the latest with the dog restriction. The HOA insisted that sending a welcome letter about the web page with its rules amounted to constructive notice. In other words, like with the CC&Rs, the homeowners were told that there was another document affecting them. Go get it and read it.

The Court found “that arbitration awards are reviewed to determine whether the arbitrator’s decision represents a ‘manifest disregard for the law’ . . . the error of accepting respondents’ [HOA’s] contention that appellants [homeowners] received proper “constructive notice” of the amended rule . . . or that such notice was even properly achieved in light of appellants’ arguments and evidence to the contrary, demonstrates a manifest disregard for the law.”

In regard to CC&Rs, most state laws and CC&Rs require a mailing or personal delivery of the changed rules, or other governing documents. Nevada is one of them. In other words, constructive notice does not trump statutory notice. Some allow constructive notice of amendments by simply filing with the county clerk — BEWARE!!!!

Of course, in regard to the CC&Rs, there are no provisions in the CC&Rs requiring the delivery of the documents to a new buyer. While some states require delivery of the governing documents before closing, this requirement is waived or the documents are not read to the detriment of the buyer.

The important point is that arguments used against homeowners by HOA lawyers must be based on evidence and legal authority and not on a vague statement, like 95% of the people in HOAs like HOAs. The HOA lawyers claim to be the experts; get them to prove it and demand the legal basis for their statements.