Tag: contract

Soldiers fighting for American democracy, only to return to HOA-Land

We continually hear about protecting our Homeland, defending our American way of life by fighting and dying in other countries.  Showing other countries how democracy works.  But, many of our brave defenders of America return to the states, not to a country anymore but to a “homeland.”  A country being battered by states of the union proclaiming that they are sovereign states.  Returning to their state with its public policy to protect and defend, not America, not individual rights and freedoms, but to protect and defend HOA-Land with its sanctity of contract, supreme over constitutional law.

One more time we are witnessing a returning veteran having to deal with his independent and protected principality, this time over a “cause celebre,” a child’s swing set.  (Army Captain Sued by HOA Over Kids’ Swing Set).  Others have fought over the right to fly the American flag or a military flag in honor of lost loved ones.  But no, the HOA cannot tolerate an infraction of any of  its rules  no matter the reason.

The HOA president, a WW II veteran, was quoted as saying, “I’m not immune to the emotions of this,” he said. “[But] if you break the rules, you broke the rules. You can’t break the rules for your own personal reasons.”   I guess this WW II veteran never understood who or what he was fighting for then.  Instead, it appears he adopted much from his experience.   Heil HOA-Land!  HOA-Land uber alles!   

It appears that our political leaders, with no WW II veterans, have forgotten the events leading to WW II, and why Americans fought on foreign soil. However, I guess this is different, because this is not Germany but America.  And things like that just don’t happen here.

Milton Mayer best describes what is happening in America when he sought answers as to why the good, average people of Germany let the Nazi Party take control prior to WWII. His words are applicable to today’s HOA-Land. In 1995, in They Thought They Were Free, he wrote,

What happened was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little . . . . This separation of the government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and insensibly, each step disguised. . . . [Mayer believed that the good people went along] in the usual sincerity that required them only to abandon one principle after another, to throw away, little by little, all that was good.

 

References

Memorial Day: American soldiers are defending a New America, one without democratic protections (2007)

HOA made no attempt to contact soldier in Iraq before foreclosing (2010)

Pres. Obama spoke of getting involved in democracy (2009)

Republican McCain and Democrat Obama preach democracy to the world, while 20% of Americans live under authoritarian HOA regimes (2008)

Pres. Obama and flying the flag in HOAs (2009)

Legislative protection of HOAs: replacing US organic law with HOA organic law (2012)

Behold the power of the HOA over your private property

Joanne McCarn owns her home, but her homeowners association has taken it over and calls the sheriff’s office if she comes near the property.  What’s more, the Bridgewater Community Association evicted her tenant, changed the locks and moved in its own renter.  “This is not a foreclosed house,” McCarn said. “This is still my house. It’s unfair how much power the HOA has. It’s so surreal to me.”

Homeowners association rents home it doesn’t own

 

Everyone should be aware of the slight-of-hand redefinition of the real estate ownership known as “fee simple.”    Read your deed that states the title to your HOA controlled property.  It commonly says “in fee simple,” where, at the state time and in the same deed, you surrender so much of your rights and interests. And legally without the need to see, or read, or consent to this surrender. Just take your deed with that two line, un-emphasized statement that says, “subject to covenant, conditions and restrictions,” followed by “as may apply” or “if any.” 

This legal real estate form of title/ownership meant an “absolute title to land, free of any other claims against the title, which one can sell or pass to another by will or inheritance. This is a redundant form of “fee,” but is used to show the fee (absolute title) is not a “conditional fee” (my emphasis).  So, what does “fee simple” really mean in regard to these gross surrenders of rights and interests in your new HOA controlled home? 

Returning to this nasty incident by the HOA,

In Solomon’s view [an HOA attorney], that doesn’t make it right — or legal. It’s more a measure of how complicated the housing bust has grown.

Judges rely on what rights attorneys tell them their clients are afforded under the law,” Solomon said. “If there’s no attorney on the other side to argue that it’s wrong, the judge most often takes the word of the attorney and grants the motion. Plus, these judges hearing these cases usually are not experts in real estate law.” [Nor HOA law].

 

Solomon and other legal authorities contacted by the Tribune say the eviction may be legal. The reason: McCarn moved a tenant into the house without paying off a lien the association had imposed.  But there are no legal grounds, Solomon said, for the association to change locks and move in another tenant.  The association imposed the lien in 2009, but McCarn said she never learned about it until later, when the association persuaded a court to evict her tenant for nonpayment of the rent. The association had demanded that the tenant stop paying rent to McCarn and pay it instead.

 

Just another “gotcha” when it comes to the powers of HOAs, protected by state public policy.  Just another example of an innocent homeowner being forced to protect her rights by going to court.  And hopefully, as quoted above by attorney Solomon, she brings a competent lawyer with her.

Looking for justice in an HOA? Look here first!

In the recent California case, Sui v. Price, the plaintiff owned a van for 12 years, and parked it in their reserved parking space. For the past 4 years, the van was inoperable due to a damaged engine, but remained locked in the parking space.

In 2006 Price, the HOA president, caused an amendment to the Rules prohibiting inoperable cars to be approved, and had the van towed. Where have we heard this before? A $1,700 fine was levied on Sui, which affected his credit rating and ability to refinance his home. The homeowner sued for breach of contract and several tort claims, based on an intent to harm the plaintiff, and sought $58,000 in punitive damages. Another case of the effects of ex post facto amendments, when the doctrine of estoppel by laches would be very applicable in favor of the homeowner.

There is no statement of ”an unsightly intrusion” caused by the van with a damaged engine — no fact of a beat-up body, or no tires, etc. California law allows the removal of a vehicle in violation, presumably after 96 hours of notice. The complaint was dismissed. The court dismissed the fact that Sui was just one individual with an inoperable vehicle, and that the CC&Rs prohibit rules that discriminate against member.  Forget about the holding that the CC&Rs supesede the Rules.

The court only looked to the the reasonableness of a covenant, relying on,

Simply put, there is nothing unreasonable about prohibiting the open, long-term parking of disabled vehicles. The association was perfectly reasonable in prohibiting this unsightly intrusion upon the aesthetics of their common interest development. (emphasis added).

 

And that is the danger of the “general interest or general purpose” doctrine – almost anything can be rationalized and justified when isolated and only considered by itself. So the court chose – it was a validly passed amendment, and those other, unaffected members, could undo the amendment. Is this communalism or socialism?

We see no reason to apply a different test for reasonableness of an association’s operating rules, especially since a rule adopted by the association’s board may be reversed by majority vote of the homeowners at a meeting called on petition of only 5 percent of the separate interests in the association. (emphasis added).

Here again the court diminishes individual rights for a perceived common good of the community in what many would call socialism.  It’s disturbing that the homeowner in these cases is not compensated for a loss in benefits by being a member of the community, while others are held to benefit. Another overlooked requirement for upholding valid amendments.

In the public arena, the homeowner would have received compensation for this “taking.”

CAI continues to ignore the Constitution for the HOA constitution

CAI continues its stand against HOAs being held to the US and state constitutions.  This is a second case, the first being CBTR v. Twin Rivers, 929 A.2d 1060 (2007). Sort of an argument for secession to an independent principality status where all residents would be regarded as “expats” (expatriates).

In the Twin Rivers case, the CAI amicus brief to the NJ appellate court warned about “the unwise extension of constitutional rights to the use of private property by members [in HOAs].”

Here’s what CAI had to say in this more recent NJ case, 4 years later. Note that it’s a “putative” brief. Aside for being paid by a party, not indicated here, a putative amicus brief can bring up arguments not raised by the parties for the “edification” of the court. This appears to be CAI – NJ’s position.

Excerpts from the “Putative Amicus Curiae Brief” by CAI – NJ to NJ Supreme Court, July 27, 2011

Whatever rights common interest association members have to express themselves regarding association issues arise not from the State Constitution but rather from statute, from contractual provisions of the association’s governing documents, from the fiduciary duty owed by the association trustees, and from concepts of fundamental fairness.

The ability of members to communicate with each other thus may be said to be an implied covenant in the By-Laws, a fiduciary obligation of the organization, and/or due to fundamental fairness to enable members to participate in community affairs and governance.

A governing board’s regulations are enforceable only if they satisfy the business judgment rule, that is, they are authorized by statute or the governing documents and the board’s action is not fraudulent, self-dealing or unconscionable. [citing Twin Rivers].

Because the unit owners have other statutory, contractual and legal remedies to protect them from overreaching by the Association, there is no need to apply the constitutional free speech clause. For that reason as well, the appellate majority opinion should be reversed.

Mazdabrook Commons v. Kahn, No. 67,094, (NJ 2011) (Not yet decided).

In other words, who needs the Constitution? We have our top-down, business profiteer’s CC&Rs private contract, and laws that mimic and are almost identical to the CC&Rs. Who needs the NJ Constitution, too.

See Twin Rivers and NJ HOA free speech rights, redux.

No HOA reforms? blame it on the legislature

As of this morning, of the 16 Arizona HOA reform bills that I’ve been following, only 3 bills have a chance of becoming law: HB 2160, elections reform, HB 2170, HOA cannot charge escrow agents for fees, and SB 1239, zoning board prohibitions against mandatory HOAs. The 3 bills carrying penalties against wrongful acts by HOA boards, and holding the boards accountable, are all DEAD!

Except for the possible penalties in regard to elections, there are no deterrents to the intentional abuse and violations by the HOAs regarding fines, failures to provide corporate documents, or to respond to homeowner inquires in order to resolve payment disputes.

The absolute “sanctity of contract” argument by CAI lobbyists continues to be thrown at the legislators, and shamefully accepted by many. This acceptance by these legislators insults homeowners as it carries an implied attitude that homeowners are masochistic, and openly and fervently signed a solid contract to be treated harshly if they dare raise a question — the “a contract is a contract no matter what” excuse to deny your rights. Shameful!

Actually, if they had consulted their legislative council, there are indeed restrictions on the validity of covenants, — not everything goes. (Remember, we must educate the legislators otherwise they will continue to accept the “gospel of HOAs” from CAI, as taught in their “educational” indoctrination classes and seminars).

Covenants that are 1) contrary to public policy, 2) arbitrary and capricious, 3) unreasonable, and 4) unconstitutional are invalid no matter if they were approved by the membership. And that’s the whole point of the issue: HOAs and legislators cannot ignore the laws of the land and do as they please, in spite of what the CAI attorneys like to proclaim. But, some legislators actually believe in “everything and anything goes.”

NOTHING WILL CHANGE UNTIL THE LEGISLATURE STOPS SUPPORTING DE FACTO HOA GOVERNMENTS AND RECOGNIZES HOAs AS DE JURE GOVERNMENTS SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF THE LAND, AS REQUIRED OF ALL OTHER GOVERNMENT ENTITIES

Under these conditions, do not ask for assistance unless you have the personality and will to fight for your rights all by yourself, and are willing to spend your money to do the state’s job for them, JUST MOVE OUT! The laws and governing documents all favor the HOA against you and the rights that you thought could not be taken away.