Tag: contract

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.

CAI firmly supports the New America of HOA-Land

This issue of the Community Association Institute’s house organ, Common Ground, has the strongest language for the triumph of private agreements to supersede the US Constitution, making the Constitution a meaningless piece of paper, a meaningless document, and an empty compact between the people and the state. “The right to regulate activities within a community association is an embodiment of our constitutional rights to enter into agreements with our neighbors” so proclaims CAI. It implies that the community association is just another corporate entity, and not the governing body that regulates and controls the people within its borders, which is the essential ingredient that distinguishes a corporation from a political government, a state.

CAI is falsely arguing that anybody can write an agreement to circumvent the Constitutional protections that forms the basis of our political system of government. In essence, CAI is advocating the rejection of the Constitution as the supreme law of the land and you and your neighbor can draft a new constitution as you see fit, ignoring the original Founding Fathers document. And so can another group, and another, and another, and so on. Why Is CAI arguning so? Perhaps because as private organizations, HOAs are not bound by the Constitution and can do as they please – the Constitution be damned!

CAI bitterly complains in this piece about one “disgruntled resident “[who] used the power of government to limit the freedoms of association residents” and caused Arizona to use its legitimate police powers to regulate people and organizations, and to protect the constitutional free speech rights to fly the Gadsden Flag in HOAs

And, seemingly desperate, CAI lets its readers know where it stands: The one constant is that your colleagues at CAI, working through 33 state legislative action committees, are fighting to protect associations and ensure a healthy business environment for the companies that support our communities” (Emphasis added). CAI does not stand for the people, but for the undemocratic governing body of subdivision territories known as homeowners associations. And, CAI says it loud and clear, making it quite explicit: CAI is “fighting to . . . ensure a healthy business environment for the companies that support our communities.”That is, for their members, the lawyers and their self-proclaimed professional management firms. Let the Legislators hear well!

CAI is firmly behind the New America of HOA-Land of independent principalities unaccountable to any state in the Union. A balkanized hodge-podge of independent “city-states, under a parallel constitution known as the Uniform Common-Interest Ownership Model Act (UCIOA) and its variants across this country. Brought to you by the legal-academic aristocrats who have avoided any discussion of secession or repudiation of the principles of our American system of government. But, running to the state for protection as any principality must do. And the civil government of the state abdicates its duties under the US and state Constitutions, and protects these regimes against its own citizens.

“Fees, Finances and Flags,” Common Ground July-Aug 2011, CAI.

HOA limitations: conscripting people who cannot run an HOA

Highlights of the The Urban Institute Forum, June 30, 2011, Private Community Associations: Boon or Bane for Local Governance?

Sadly, Robert Nelson’s pro-HOA opening statement was filled with the myths, misconceptions and half-truths that perpetuate the laissez-faire attitude from government. Legislatures that have failed to reign in these undemocratic private, second political system of government known as HOAs. He is part of what I term the legal-academic aristocrats. McKenzie’s response rejected what he called Nelson’s theoretical, alternate form of government, saying that, “If you actually look at the reality of the way these [HOAs] . . . function, they do not fit these assumptions at all.”

McKenzie said that, for example, this “volunteerism” simply doesn’t happen, since, as it appears that,as all the “common people” know, the agreements are created by the developer’s attorneys and handed down. There is no give and take in creating this form of individualized local government, so often touted as town hall government at work in HOAs. McKenzie described these declarations as “boiler plate”, and mentioned seeing covenants relating to elevators when there were none in the subdivision.

“People are “conscripted” into these associations if you buy the lot”, he further added. They are then told “that they consented to the agreement, but that’s a legal fiction.” “And realtors don’t even tell them anything about it.” In reality, he continued, “the people really don’t control their association, the dead hand of the developer does” since changing the CC&Rs is difficult to do. [With respect to the past attempt at Arizona legislation to allow 1/3 of the members to change the CC&Rs for everyone does not address the problem of ex post facto contracts].

Addressing the contractual legal scheme, McKenzie stated that, “This [HOA legal scheme] is a model . . . that trickled down from the top of the income distribution . . . . It is probably a form of governance that would work reasonably well if practiced by 1% of the population.” The wealthy and reasonably affluent with money “who can hire lawyers and who came in with their eyes open and knew what they were getting into.” In other words, a specialized, utopian, perhaps cult community for the wealthy. As I’ve written many times, McKenzie said the mass merchandising [my words] was driven not by the people demanding HOAs, but by the developers and municipalities that are increasingly mandating only HOA regimes for new developments. There is no free market system at work, no freedom of choice.

As this mass marketing proceeds, “you begin to conscript people into this mass housing who cannot run it.” In particular in today’s climate, the failure to establish adequate capital reserves to offset decreased income. Well, isn’t that also a failure of the national HOA educational organization that “certifies” HOA managers for the past 40 years?

“The idea of private government is fine,” according to McKenzie, “for people who can afford to operate it. Imposing this on people, which we have done, who cannot run it, who don’t know how to run meetings, who won’t go to board meetings at all . . . . What we are seeing is professional people, managers and lawyers actually running the associations.” You know, the “hired hands.” “The priority on foreclosure is driven by the professionals. It is not driven by what’s best for the community.”

“The owners are not loyal to their association. They put up flagpoles because they don’t think they are legitimate.”

The policy makers and public interest ‘influencers” should pay attention to the realties before them, and cease their dogmatic, unworkable ideology. This Forum is a good start.

“Beyond Privatopia” – understanding the economic theories that brought about the New America of HOA-Land

Beyond Privatopia: Rethinking Residential Private Government, Evan McKenzie (Urban Inst. 2011)

 

Once again, a short book, 168 pages, by McKenzie is packed with very important information for those seriously interested in understanding the HOA phenomenon. A must reading for the public interest nonprofits, the legal-academic aristocrats, and all state legislators who have failed over the years to face the realities of the social and political impact of HOAs on our democratic system of government.

 

In his Preface, McKenzie proclaims that “this book is written in my own unusual hybrid perspective”, having one foot in the legal-academic club and the other foot amongst the homeowner rights advocates. He names names of leading advocates (p. 121, n. 4): Shu Bartholomew, Jan Bergemann, Pat Haruff, George Starapoli [sic], Fred Pilot and Monica Sadler. Yet, my impression so far is that the book is addressed to the legal-academic aristocrats to remind them that America was not founded on the state being an neoclassic economic force, a business, concerned with efficiency, productivity, wealth redistribution, or rational choice But, that America was founded on principles of democratic government as set forth in the Preamble to the US Constitution (my interpretation):

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfectUnion, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide forthe common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure theBlessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity . . . .

In Chapter 3 McKenzie discusses the libertarian views of Robert H. Nelson and Nozick, among others. He references Nelson with, “They contend that CIDs [McKenzie’s generic term for HOAs] are more efficient and more democratic [my emphasis] than municipalities and should replace them.” (p. xi). He present’s Nozick’s 1974 argument (p. 47) for “minimal states” that lead to “private protective associations.” Minimal states and protective associations have become today’s call for less public government and the CC&Rs enforcement agency known as the HOA.

 

Nozick’s defense of minimal states, according to McKenzie, is that “This [minimal] state would be legitimate, even though it may infringe on the liberty of individuals [my emphasis], because from the bottom up it would have been based on voluntarism and the rights of contract.” Sounds eerie doesn’t it? We hear these arguments today in defense of the HOA legal scheme, but as McKenize argued, they are based on myths. “The notion that individual owners agreed among themselves to perform these services for each other, and subsequent owners took over from them, is entirely fictional.” (p. 60).

 

Enough for now. More to come . . . .

Alleged waiver of rights in HOAs are invalid

I congratulate California Senate Majority Leader Ellen M. Corbett for sponsoring SB 561. This bill asserts California’s rightful authority to impose and restore law and order over this second form of political local governments known as HOAs. This is still America, a land under the rule of law. The disintegration and fragmentation of government and society must be stopped before anarchy reigns, right here in America.

 

The law firm of Swedelson & Gottlieb (S & G) argues on its Blog that they know of no one losing their home just because they waiver their rights to have their payments applied first to assessment reduction rather than to collection costs. There are good, equitable and just reasons for paying down the debt first: paying the costs first prolongs the collection agency income stream, not the HOA’s, as the amount of debt goes on forever and may never decrease. Under these circumstances, like “being under water” in today’s housing market, why pay at all?

 

HOAs are required to apply payments to debt reduction, just like your credit card companies. With a straight face S & G states, “We are aware of no homeowners who have ever lost their homes in an association’s foreclosure simply because of unpaid fees and costs of collection.” So, I guess all is well and right with this use of the payment waiver.

 

This attitude, used by other proponents favoring the survival of the HOA and their incomes streams, portrays all members of an HOA as being so enamored with their HOA that they place their well being and financial conditions in the hands of the HOA board. They are portrayed as being true believers seeing no wrong with the HOA, much as one sees with many religious cults. They are portrayed as openly and eagerly waiving their rights in favor of the HOA no matter how disastrous to them. How insulting to all Americans: your obligation to the “state”, the HOA, is to make timely payments, and any rights, freedoms, privileges or immunities are notwithstanding.

 

In its argument for payment plans, created by the HOA’s agent, but “the board dictates the terms of the agreement,” S & G seems to contradict its argument that the “pay costs first” is for the benefit of the HOA, not the collection agency (emphasis added).

 

There is good reason for this– boards know from experience that many homeowners pay the assessment portion of the payment plan agreement but do not pay the costs of collection, knowing full well that the association cannot foreclose for costs of collection only.

 

Say what? The debtors will pay their assessments to the HOA, making the effort for the benefit of the HOA, not the collection agency? Why would a board give up its first claim to $$$ for the benefit of the collection agency? That doesn’t make sense at all, does it? Why are HOA boards allowing their right to first $$$ go to a “hired-hand” vendor, in violation of their duties to the HOA? Why?

 

It makes sense if the whole purpose of S & G’s position is not to benefit the HOA but its own pocketbook. Furthermore, S& G continues to whine about the debt owed to them that the HOA cannot pay since all the money is going to the HOA first. Boo hoo! I guess they know all about “You can’t get blood from a turnip.”

 

Isn’t that a business decision all businesses face? The loss against the cost of collecting? What about contingency collection agency arrangements? Don’t let S & G slip past this point! If they are so good, the HOA should insist on this type of an arrangement rather than the punitive arrangement now commonly used.

 

And when all else fails, we hear the familiar mantra, “But really, is it fair for the paying/current homeowners to have to subsidize delinquent homeowners?” Well, you see, that “contract S & G says binds all homeowners may not be fair to some homeowners, but that’s what the legal structure of an HOA imposes on members. Is it fair not to tell home buyers about this, and about some other waivers and surrenders of rights unbeknownst to them? Take a look at “The Truth in HOAs Disclosure Agreement” for some eye-openers.

 

Cleverly, S & G avoids the question of a violation of public policy, which as stated in the Restatement (3rd) of Property:Servitudes, Sec. 3.1, makes any covenant invalid. The argument against SB 561 is simply: How dare the California Legislature prohibit a homeowner, exercising his write to contract, without any duress, from surrendering his right to the ethical and fair procedure of debt reduction before costs. How dare the legislature!