Tag: contract

Why Homeowners Associations (HOAs) should and must be made political subdivisions

Simply stated, the following questions remain unanswered by state legislatures or HOA special interests:

1.      Can a legislature delegate its functions, not government services but functions, to private entities without oversight or compliance with the Constitution, as required of all government entities?

 2.      Can private parties enter into contractual arrangements using adhesion contracts and a constructive notice consent, which serve to regulate and control the people within a territory (an HOA), to circumvent the application of the Constitution?

Failing to address these fundamental questions has permitted HOAs to exist as de facto governments functioning as a second form of political government within the US. HOAs reject the US Constitution by their actions — forget the words.  Consider the following:

1.      “A rose by any other name is a rose.”  Taxes are HOA assessments; ordinances are rules and regulations; board is the legislature/city council; government agency is architectural control committee (ACC); citizens are members; judiciary is board/ACC; constitution is the CC&Rs; laws are the by-laws; etc.

2.      State legislatures have not enacted laws that delegate their legislative functions to the HOA private entities with oversight or constitutional compliance, as required by long standing legal doctrine. 

 [i]t is a well established theory that a legislature may not delegate its authority to private persons over whom the legislature has no supervision or control. . . .The legislature cannot abdicate its functions or subject citizens and their interests to any but lawful public agencies, and a delegation of any sovereign power of government to private citizens cannot be sustained nor their assumption of it justified.[i]

 3.      Furthermore, “Agreements violating constitutional provisions, county codes, and municipal ordinances are illegal to the same extent as agreements violating statutory enactments.”[ii]

4.      For those states with “home rule” laws that permit a wide range of independent law-making at the local level, the governing body remains subject to the constitution and laws of the state. 

5.      Attempts to enumerate the specific functions of an entity, which are unique to political governments and make them a government and not something else, like the archaic public functions test of 1946,[iii] fail as being contrary to constitutional law.  Compare these questionable definitive “public” functions to the legal requirements set forth in the laws of each state applicable to municipal governments.

6.      The unique factor that determines the broad concept of “government” is simply:  any governing body that controls and regulates the people within a territory is a de facto government. Take Cuba for instance, a de facto yet unrecognized government. Sadly, HOAs are not recognized either.

Modern states are territorial, their governments exercise control over persons and things within their frontiers. . . . A state should not be confused with the whole community of persons living on its territory [such as churches or corporations].[iv] 

7.      Several political scientists believe that HOAs should be declared as sui generis (one of a kind) private governments.  However, evidence based on existing HOA state laws have made HOAs an “arm of the government” (state actors) according to the US Supreme Court criteria:[v]   state protective statutes reflecting a cooperation with HOAs, through state support or coercion; by a symbiotic relationship, close nexus, or an entwinement between the state and the HOA.

In general, every special or private law which directly proposes to destroy or affect individual rights, or does the same thing by restricting the privileges of certain classes of citizens and not of others, when there is no public necessity for such discrimination, is unconstitutional and void.[vi]

8.      Defining HOAs as a sui generis entity without the requirement that HOAs are indeed bodies politic or state entities rejects the US Constitution. HOAs have seceded from the Union by virtue of their private contracts that do not hold the HOA governing body subject to the laws of the land. 

9.      CC&Rs are created by private parties, none being an actual member or resident of the subdivision at the time of formation, who enter into contractual arrangements that have been described by the courts as the HOA’s “constitution.”  The CC&Rs serve to regulate and control the people within a territory (an HOA), thereby circumventing the application of the Constitution and, specifically, the 14th Amendment equal application of the laws and due process protections. 

A statute infringes the constitutional guarantee of equal protection if it singles out for discriminatory legislation particular individuals not forming an appropriate class and imposes on them burdens or obligations or subjects them to rules from which others are exempt.[vii]

In order for a waiver of a constitutional right to be valid, it must be made voluntarily, intelligently, and knowingly and with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.[viii]

 10.  The persistent and profuse arguments, by the HOA special interests, that HOAs are not governments can easily be seen as attempts to avoid HOAs being subject to constitutional conditions and restrictions that protect the people.  “In the context of community associations, the unwise extension of constitutional rights to the use of private property by members . . . .”[ix]

 

Further readings

Commentaries:                               

1.       The Legitimacy of HOA Governance

2.       AARP Amicus Curiae brief in Twin Rivers NJ constitutionality suit

3.       The Constitutionality of state protected homeowners associations

4.       Why haven’t the 1983 HOA problems of America II been resolved?

5.       HOA Case History: state actors or mini/quasi government

 

General reading:

1.       Beyond Privatopia: Rethinking Residential Private Government, Evan McKenzie, Urban Institute Press, 2011.

2.       Establishing the New America of Independent HOA Principalities, George K. Staropoli, Starman Publishing, 2008 (ISBN 978-0-9744488-3-1).

3.       Neighbors AT War! The Creepy Case Against Your Homeowners Association, Ward Lucas, Hogback Publishing, 2012.

4.       Privatopia: Homeowners Associations and the Rise of Residential Private Governments, Evan McKenzie, Yale Univ. Press, 1994.

5.       Villa Appalling! Destroying the Myth of Affordable Community Living, Donie Vanitzian, Villa Appalling Publishing, 2002.

                                               

Legal Authority Notes:

[i]    Emmett McLoughlin Realty v. Pima County, 58 P.3d 39 (2002).

[ii]   17A Corpus Juris Secundum Contracts § 213.

[iii]  Marsh v. Alabama, 326 US 501 (1946); Shelly v. Kraemer, 334 US 1 (1948).

[iv]  “State,” Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th Ed.

[v]    Brentwood v. Tennessee School, 531 US 288 (2001).

[vi] 16B American Jurisprudence 2d Constitutional Law § 874.

[vii]  16B American Jurisprudence 2d Constitutional Law § 871.

[viii]  16 Corpus Juris Secundum Constitutional Law § 82.

[ix]   Community Associations Institute (CAI) amicus curiae to NJ Appellate Court in CBTR v. Twin Rivers HOA, 890 A.2d 947 (2004).

Learn to accept and love your HOA — It’s here to stay.

In the one week since seeking support for a White House petition to declare people living in HOAs still citizens of this country, only 50 have submitted a petition. I would like to thank those special 50 persons who took a simple step to fight for their rights. And your rights, too.

Homeowners living in HOAs and the people at large have spoken, or more correctly, have spoken with their silence. Homeowner rights advocacy is a myth, as is the America being taught to your children or grandchildren in public schools. At the local government level, government by business driven, profit-seeking organizations with their adhesion Declaration of CC&Rs contracts are becoming the norm for local government in America.

Political scientists like Robert H. Nelson, and none other than The Goldwater Institute in Arizona, have supported  local government by restrictive covenant contracts that are not subject to the US Constitution.

Over the years I’ve tried to present, discuss and explain the fundamental issues of our constitutional democratic government with respect to homeowners associations.  There is nothing more I can say or do.  You have spoken.

Welcome to the New America of HOA-Land.
Learn to accept and love your HOA. It’s here to stay.

Court decisions: HOA Enlightenment Movement vs. the Dark Ages

In this “groundbreaking decision”, as described by Evan McKenzie in  his Privatopia Blog, the Illinois appellate court made a ruling consistent with the HOA Enlightenment Movement.  Neglect by a condo asociation to make repairs affecting a unit is a defense against continued payment of assessment.  This is a major step toward homeowner justice that removes the “pay no matter what, or lose your home” doctrine of the authoritarian HOA governments.

The case, Spanish Court Two Condominium Association v. Lisa Carlson (2012 IL App (2d) 110473), involved a demand for assessments owed plus a possession — forcible entry — of the unit that was alleged to have suffered damages due to the condo association’s neglect.  (Understand that the condo sued under the Forcible Entry Act to repossess the unit). The court held the condo in the same position as a landlord under the landlord-tenant laws, which allow a tenant to withhold rent as a defense against forcible entry.

 We hold, by analogy to the case law on actions brought under the Forcible Entry Act by landlords for possession of leased property due to unpaid rent, that the unit owner may claim neglect as a defense to the board’s suit under the Act.

 And of very important significance for case law precedent is the holding on the mutual obligations of the CC&Rs contract, my emphasis, (p. 13,14),

 “Plaintiff suggests that a board’s right to collect assessments is absolute and that a claim for nonpayment of assessments is not subject to any affirmative defense.”

[The court replied,] “nowhere does the . . .  Condominium Act suggest that the right is absolute.”  The Condominium Act appears to set the rights of unit owners on par with the rights of the board of managers. Moreover, the rights arise from mutually exchanged promises—on the one hand to pay assessments, on the other hand to maintain the common elements—and so the Declaration and the Bylaws are best seen as contracts.

[T]he condominium instrument indicates (as presumably most do) that the unit owner’s promise to pay assessments is in exchange for the board of managers’ promise to use those assessments for the repair and maintenance of the condominium property, the unit owner may claim, as a justification for nonpayment of assessments, that the board of managers breached its duty of repair and maintenance.

 Contrast this decision with the recent California Supreme Court opinion, reflecting a culture still in the Dark Ages sorely in the  need of enlightenment, Pinnacle Museum Tower  v. Pinnacle Market Development( No. S186149, Aug. 16, 2012 ).   Here the court validated the binding arbitration clause with (my emphasis),

 [T]the Davis-Stirling Act ensures that the covenants, conditions, and restrictions of a recorded declaration — which manifest the intent and expectations of the developer and those who take title to property in a community interest development — will be honored and enforced unless proven unreasonable.

 Under its Discussion, B. Contractual Nature of Terms in a Recorded Declaration, the court gives an instructive presentation on the preferential treatment of the declarant/developer, consent to obey, waiver of rights, “for the common good,” and the open-ended amendment process.  Section C explains what constitute an unconscionable contract clause, rejected in this instance.  Very informative of the Dark Ages culture.

 

The HOA Enlightenment Movement is rolling on, and will gather momentum as the truth, justice, and the American way shall once again prevail.

Final Order: HOA management firm engaged in unauthorized practice of law

Every state has rules regarding the unauthorized practice of law governing what activities constitute acting like a lawyer.  The certified Legal Document Preparer Board of the Arizona Supreme Court found AAM, LLC, both a CAI and Arizona Association of Community Managers (AACM) member, had engaged in such activities, which are commonly found in many other HOAs and with many other management firms/managers. (In Arizona, it’s Supreme Court Rule 31). 

In regard to AAM, many of the State Bar’s Hearing Officer  findings were dismissed and overturned in the Board’s May 24, 2012 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (LDP-NFC –09-L094 and LDP-NFC-10-L026,   not to be found on the State Bar or Supreme Court websites).  The Board found AAM had exceeded its authority as a certified document preparer and violated Rule 31 in that, among other things,

  1. represented the HOA in violation of Rule 31, including signing and submitting lien documents as such were not incidental to its regular business activities;
  2. submitted documents that it had prepared to third-parties, such as collection letters, and filing court motions and complaints;
  3. represented HOAs in small claims court;
  4. although there existed a contract between AAM and the HOA to act as a representative of the HOA, such a contractual arrangement is subject to Rule 31, which cannot be overridden by private agreements;
  5. offered legal advice when it gave, through newsletter statements, made statements about “possible  legal rights, remedies, defenses, options or strategies;”
  6. through its offers to “coordinate payment plans” debt payment plans, AAM was not giving general information but was offering to negotiate with the HOA on behalf of the homeowner;
  7. “offered to negotiate homeowners” legal rights, remedies, defenses, options or strategies;”

 

It is interesting to note that former Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Zlaket was called as a witness by AAM.  He stated that “the purpose of the certified legal document preparer rules as protection of the public from charlatans who didn’t know what they were doing, from document prepares who were harming customers by preparing the wrong documents.”

 

 The full, detailed, 55 page Board document can be found at Legal Document

CC&Rs and waivers of constitutional rights in HOA-Land

This June 13th extremely important NJ Supreme Court opinion in Mazdabrook deals with the fundamental constitutional question that the homeowner had waived his rights when he agreed to the CC&Rs  covenants, which are broadly stated, vague, or implied. I have repeatedly argued that homeowners do not!  This opinion will have national impact as other states will follow suit.

Mazdabrook involved  the right of a homeowner to place political signs on his  private property.  The NJ Supreme court said there was no waiver of free speech rights.

Moreover, Khan did not waive his constitutional right to free speech. To be valid, waivers must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, and a waiver of constitutional rights in any context must, at the very least, be clear. Khan was not asked to waive his free speech rights; he was asked — by different rules in three documents — to waive the right to post signs before getting Board approval, without any idea about what standards would govern the approval process. That cannot constitute a knowing, intelligent, voluntary waiver of constitutional rights. . . . . Instead, the exercise of those rights can be subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. Finally, covenants that unreasonably restrict speech may be declared unenforceable as a matter of public policy.  (P. 5).

In other words, that  waiver must meet specific requirements, including an explicit statement of a waiver rather than an broad interpretation or implied waiver as is the current status of CC&Rs.  However, understand that rights can be waived if these requirements are met.

Waiver is the “intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.” Although rights may be waived, courts “indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver of fundamental constitutional rights.” To be valid, waivers must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.

The NJ Supreme Court seemed to have educated itself about the spread of CC&Rs with its boiler-plate wording that imply or are interpreted as a waiver, and takes a slap at comment h under § 3.1, Validity of Covenants (Restatement (Third) Property: Servitudes), that argued for the doctrine of equitable servitudes (covenants) to be held superior to the Constitution.

 The proliferation of residential communities with standard agreements that restrict free speech would violate the fundamental free speech values espoused in our Constitution — the “highest source of public policy” in New Jersey. (P.11).

Validity of CC&Rs to bind

Not addressed and unanswered in this opinion is the fundamental question, by extension of what constitutes a waiver, is the question of the validity of the CC&Rs. Is the doctrine of constructive notice sufficient for the CC&Rs to be held as a binding contract?   If the  CC&Rs are held as invalid, then the question of the waivers of rights becomes moot.

How can the simple notice to the county clerk bind anybody to anything, and be considered a waiver of any right or an agreement to be bound in general?  Especially when it is required that, “To be valid, waivers must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.”  There is not even a warning in bold, capitalized, large font stating, at purchase time, that the “Taking this deed alone binds you to the CC&Rs sight unseen, without having to read, sign or agree to it.”

Background information.  This case made references to the Twin Rivers free speech case of 2007, the controlling NJ Schmidt case (as did Twin Rivers), and was also based on violations of the NJ Constitution.  Once again, ACLU and The Rutgers Constitutional Law Clinic, Frank Askin Director, filed an amicus curiae brief.  NJ CAI filed an amicus in opposition.  Both were allowed to present oral arguments on the question of  waivers of constitutional rights under HOA CC&Rs.  It is legal, but not binding precedent outside of NJ.

See HOA member Declaration of US and State citizenship.