Tag: democracy

new HOA book — Neighbors At War! by Ward Lucas

Amazon review By George K. Staropoli

This review is from: Neighbors At War! The Creepy Case Against Your Homeowners Association (Paperback)

Neighbors at War! is a refreshing description of what living in an HOA (homeowners association, property owners association, common-interest community or condo association) that the average person can understand. It is not another legal treatise, or academic journal or book, but the writing of an experienced and award winning investigative reporter.

It is a long needed book for prospective buyers of HOA controlled homes or those already living in an HOA. All those state mandated documents do not tell it all, as state legislators are pro-HOA and accept the denials of homeowner rights contained in HOA adhesion contracts.


Ward Lucas ranges far and wide, from questions of constitutionality and denials of bill of rights protections to more down-to-earth issues of HOA procedures and operations. Foreclosure, no fair elections, and kangaroo hearings on violations are examples of the cases and issues that are discussed in easy to understand terms.

I’ve been repeatedly told by legislators that complaining homeowners are trying to get out of a contract, should have read the CC&Rs, and should have gotten a lawyer. And not a word about misrepresentation and fraud.


Do not fall into the trap of Buyer Beware! Read this excellent book and discover what you are not being told by the special interest national lobbying organization formed to protect, not your rights, but the HOA status quo. Neighbors at War! is a must read for informed homeowners and state legislators

HOA board mentality and unconscionable CC&Rs rewrites

Homeowners living in HOAs must decide what side of the fence they are sitting on!       Whether on the side of management or on the side of the rank and file homeowner?  There is a major difference as the HOA is not a democratic community government, but a corporate form of government.  And never has a corporate form of government been described as democratic.

The business parallel of “management vs. employees” in HOAs is alive and well. Management represents the HOA entity and not the members, just as management represents the stockholders and not the employees.  Legally this fact is found everywhere.  And the HOA attorney who advises the board and rewrites CC&Rs and amendments represents management and not the interests of the members.  How many times have you seen and heard “for a more productive and effective HOA” and “for the benefit of all members collectively”?   Sounds nice, but the two are not equivalent.  The board does not speak for all the members and that’s why there is member voting.

A most egregious and unconscionable act by the board and its attorney can be found in the broad rewrite of the CC&Rs where liberties are taken in favor of the HOA.  Where the homeowner again unknowingly waives and surrenders his rights and freedoms to the HOA, because the homeowner rank and file does not hire their own attorney to explain the impact of the HOA changes.

An example of how far this unconscionable activity can go involves the rewrite of CC&Rs by an Arizona CAI member attorney firm, and member of CAI’s College of Community Association Lawyers (CCAL).   In the rewrite the attorney deleted “reasonable” with regard to attorney fees and added “all”.  The attorney also did not adopt the “prevailing party” widely accepted standard of fairness, but mandated the homeowner to pay its fees regardless if the homeowner wins.  In other words, even if the homeowner had brought suit against HOA wrongful behavior and wins, he must still pay the HOA attorney fees.  Covenants that are unconscionable and against public policy are held to be invalid.

Additionally, a festering issue at the Arizona Legislature has been the awarding of attorney fees by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).   The attorney uses the term “administrative law judge” as most homeowners would know that OAH does not pay attorney fees.  This blatant “squeeze it by and maybe they won’t notice” tactic is disgraceful.  Yet, in 99% of the cases heard at OAH the HOA has decided to hire the unnecessary attorney.  The HOA should pay for this unnecessary decision.

And yet many homeowners would go along with this “stick it to the homeowner” mentality.   Presumably because they see themselves not as the “homeowner” at issue, and therefore it doesn’t affect them.  But, the rewritten covenants apply to them, all of them.  And it also applies to the directors and officers who believe that this unconscionable conduct is good for the HOA in the long-term, and that it also doesn’t apply to them.  But, unjust and unfair covenants that openly serve the interests of their attorney cannot be seen as in the best interests of the HOA.

Homeowners in HOAs must decide where they stand.  For their rights or for unconscionable conduct and acts of bad faith by the HOA board and its attorney who is not your attorney.

HOA principalities: To bee or not to bee one government under the Constitution

As a result of a conflict over bees and whether local ordinances or HOA CC&Rs governing beekeeping prevail, the Tennessee Attorney General is being asked his opinion on HOAs as public entities.  Rep. Glen Casada has sought a clarification from Tennessee Attorney General Robert Cooper “for an opinion on whether or not the HOA is considered a political subdivision of the state.”  (The AG was appointed by the TN Supreme Court, and is an officer of the court and not the Executive branch).

How shall the AG decide?   Take a very narrow view and simply declare that the HOA is a nonprofit corporation under corporation laws and not a municipal corporation; therefore it not a state entity. If so, how does he address the fact that “if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it is a duck?”  “A rose by any other name is a rose.”  A tax by any other name, assessments, is a tax.  A law by any other name, regulations or covenants, is a law.  In fact, British municipal law equates the term law with by-law. “3. British . an ordinance of a municipality or community.”

Let us assume that the AG takes a firm stand and enters into the foray.   The safest approach is to turn to the ancient public functions test of 1946 with respect to a company town and free speech. His decision would deny that the HOA is a public entity, probably, since the HOA doesn’t meet the public functions test. 

This view has always disturbed me when I examine the state’s municipality laws on incorporation of towns and villages. They ain’t got no such tests, yet they are declared public entities if they declare their allegiance to the Constitution and are approved by the state.   I guess it’s OK to use double standards when it comes to HOA governments. 

Are there any other criteria that bear on whether or not an entity is a public entity, or that it is a state actor acting as if it were indeed a state entity?  The law is rather extensive on state actors and state action. In today’s environment with the attitude of “no government interference,” applying state actor designations to HOAs will be a difficult task since it would extend the reaches of “big government.”  But, when dogma prevails over facts we must fight for “truth, justice and the American way.”

US Supreme Court holding in TN state actor case

The US Supreme Court has set several criteria for state actions and state actors, among them: a “close nexus,” a “symbiotic” relationship, “state’s exercise of coercive power”, “entwined with governmental policies”, and “significant encouragement, either overt or covert.”  They are discussed, in of all cases, in Brentwood v. Tennessee Secondary Schools, 531 U.S. 288 (2001).

I hope Attorney General Cooper will uphold the US and Tennessee constitutions, knowing full well that even homeowners living in HOAs are US citizens and citizens of the State of Tennessee, with full rights, privileges and immunities.

HOA board education or indoctrination?

Donna DiMaggio Berger of Florida’s CAN HOA advocacy group wrote about the increasing numbers of board members seeking to be educated in HOA matters and in the affairs of HOA-Land (Do most Condo & HOA Directors want to be educated?).  I agree with Donna that these private government officials need to be educated, because unlike pubic government officials there is no long term infrastructure or institutional culture to guide them. 

Neither are there the penalties against wrong-doing as we have with laws holding public officials accountable.  Yes, not only must these private officials be properly educated, but be held accountable, too.  But, accountability is not discussed.

Sadly, in regard to the educational materials, the pro-HOA believers and groups ignore the fact that the “teachings” are really indoctrination courses into how to behave in HOA-Land under its unconscionable and oppressive adhesion contract, supported by pro-HOA laws and top-down UCIOA covenants. The materials flow from the pseudo-educator, the national lobbying trade group, which seeks to maintain the inequities of the HOA legal scheme.  They teach “how to behave as a good HOA member and avoid financial and emotional stress, and the good chance of losing your home if disobedient.”  And that is, is to follow the rules and to participate under procedures that thwart participation by “outsiders.”

There is no presentation of constitutional issues, of 14th Amendment violations, of the fallacies in the “consent to agree” argument, of no clean elections laws or of unacceptable due process procedures as a few examples.  Not even a discussion of the validity of my Truth in HOAs Disclosure Agreement argument.  Not even an invitation for attendees to proclaim their US citizenship status by signing the Declaration of US and State Citizenship form.

And why not?  Why aren’t these issue made public and taught by the great HOA educators?  Maybe, just maybe, as Col. Jessup shouted out in the movie, A Few Good Men, “You can’t handle the truth!”   Why are they afraid of the truth?

If the watchdogs of the judiciary fail, it follows that the government also fails

On May 30, 2012 I file a complaint against Judge Olson, No. 12-148, for illegally closing the files on the complaint against CAI attorney Maxwell by a court appointed Receiver[1].   (See Judicial misconduct complaint filed for sealing records in AZ case against HOA attorney).  The AZ Commission writes that it has no problem with Judge Olson’s sealing of the records.

 

ORDER

 

The complainant alleged that a superior court judge improperly sealed a case. The responsibility of the Commission on Judicial Conduct is to impartially determine if the judge engaged in conduct that violated the provisions of Article 6.1 of the Arizona Constitution or the Code of Judicial Conduct and, if so, to take appropriate disciplinary action. The purpose and authority of the commission is limited to this mission.

 After reviewing the information provided by the complainant, the commission found no evidence of ethical misconduct and concluded that the judge did not violate the Code in this case. The commission does not have jurisdiction to review the legal sufficiency of the judge’s ruling. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed in its entirety pursuant to Rules 16(a) and 23.

 Dated: August 15, 2012.

FOR THE COMMISSION

 

Its first reaction to my complaint was to attack the messenger, asking how did I know about the case. (See AZ judicial conduct comm. on hidden HOA attorney case: who let the cat out of the bag?).

I am still trying to fathom the logic or rational that the judge did not violate Rule 123(d) of the Rules of the Supreme Court.  Rule 81 is the Code of Judicial Conduct that I referenced in my complaint.  Under Rule 81 there is at the very start, Rule 1.1, Compliance with the Law.   The act of sealing all the court record information by Judge Olson is prima facie evidence of a violation of Rule 123(d) (see Judicial misconduct complaint link above). 

How can the Commission say, with a straight face, “The commission does not have jurisdiction to review the legal sufficiency of the judge’s ruling.”  Who then watches the judges?    Their brethren?  Given the black and white issue here, the Code becomes a joke!

The entire beginnings of Rule 81 under Preamble and Scope speak to maintaining the integrity of the court, the confidence of the public, and avoiding the appearance of impropriety.  Words, simply words that have no meaning at all!

What is most offensive to the legitimacy of the court, and to the legitimacy of the government, is that the Commission, the watchdog of the judiciary, took a hands-off “not me” position and did nothing.  If the judicial watchdogs fail, what then of the judiciary itself that watches the government?  It, too, most fail, and so too the government.

[1] DC Lot Owners v. Maxwell & Morgan, CV 2010-004684, Pinal County Superior Court, AZ.