Tag: due process

Is Florida’s SB 596 a good bill? YES! Part 1

This post is in response to several comments to Florida SB 596 creates a bona fide state HOA agency as necessary state oversight.   I read the 124 page bill and some general comments are in order. 

First, the bill contains just technical corrections, word changes, and division name changes in the last part, after page 40 or so.  The first part deals with the enforcement powers given to the division on condos and HOAs, and the next part deal with some regulatory changes – how HOAs are to operate. This is not a complete rewrite of Chapter 720 as occurred with California’s Davis-Stirling Act that regulates HOAs.

Second, as to changes in the law, opposing the bill because it does not contain a revision that you feel is necessary is not rational.  If the bill proposes changes that you do not like, try to get the sponsor to see it your way.  Others may not see it your way.  But this condition can be handled in subsequent bills.  However, if you feel that the bill’s “bad” seriously outweighs any “good,” then it is understandable that you may be opposed to the bill.

Third, as to some of the general objections made that the bill is too big and is not properly written legislation, I object.  I’ve read many bills from several states, and like law suit filings, the format and organization of the bills varies according to the existing structure and organization of a state’s statutes or code. 

The substantive changes in SB 596 deal with the new enforcement statutes, and some improved changes to the existing statutes.  They are not overwhelming compared to many pro-HOA bills that have been adopted by states.  I do agree that some changes really need to be fixed if they are to be consistent with the intent to protect homeowners, but not so serious as to oppose the bill. 

Fourth, it should be remembered, as Alexander Hamilton once said, “If there is no penalty [for] disobedience, the resolutions or commands which pretend to be laws will, in fact, amount to nothing more than advice or recommendation“ (Federalist Papers #15).  And that’s the overriding intent of this bill — accountability through enforcement. No more free rides for HOA boards. 

Homeowners should be concerned about a watering down of the enforcement provisions, as has occurred in other states, than with nit-picking other issues.  The enforcement is by the state, as it should be, and not out of the homeowner’s pocket.  Florida cannot say that not punishing violators of the law is good public policy.

And, in contrast to the “sky is falling” clamor, accountability will not do in HOAs.  This country has survived for some 230 years subject to the constraints and restrictions of the US Constitution. So can HOAs, but perhaps those who live off the unjust current state of affairs cannot?

Part 2 will contain some details of this bill.

Arizona’s HB 2371 empowers unlicensed HOA property managers to avoid UPL

In short, HB 2371 would allow untrained and unlicensed HOA property managers to represent HOAs in small claims court, but does not allow the homeowner to be represented.  Yet, real estate agents, who are required to take continuing education courses in agency, real estate, and contracts law, are not allowed to represent others in court.  And even licensed paralegals cannot represent others! Why allow untrained and unlicensed HOA managers to represent a special class of nonprofit entities?  What legitimate reason is there for this provision except to provide income for the special interests?

The only justification for this bill, which was by offered by the Sponsor, was that it was not controversial and it was agreed to at a meeting of all the stakeholders. However, the stakeholders did not include any homeowner advocacy group, and this bill is very much not only controversial but un-American as well.  This is the second such bill brought by a state representative in the past 3 years, the other being HB 2441, the “minority control” bill in 2011, that was rightfully defeated in the Senate.

In January of last year HOA managers were put on notice by the AZ Supreme Court opinion (UPL Advisory Opinion, 12-01) on the Unauthorized Practice of Law, and one firm in particular, a member of two HOA special interest trade organizations, was found to have engaged in the unauthorized practice of law (in RE: Board of Legal Document Preparers v. AAM, LDP-NFC-09-L094 and LDP-NFC-10-L026). 

So, it appears, the problem of managers engaging in UPL activities is to be resolved by introducing a bill to “make it all good without any requirement for training and licensing!  This is a disgraceful bill! A bill that treats the good people of Arizona, who are subject to unregulated HOA private governments, as second-class citizens.  It insults the good people of Arizona!

Furthermore, HB 2371 goes on to allow “contractors” (that can not only be managers, but landscapers, pool maintenance people, etc.) of HOAs to represent HOAs before the Office of Administrative Hearings. It allows attorney fees to be awarded only for the Petitioner if he wins. Under the law, OAH is not permitted to award attorney fees, so this bill is needed to make it happen.

 But, it is only for HOA adjudication hearings and not for any other agency hearing!  With HB 2371, the unlicensed and untrained manager will get fees paid by the Pro Se homeowner who turns to OAH because of no attorney fees.   Records show that some 90% of the homeowners were Pro Se not using an attorney, while the HOAs were almost 90% represented by an unnecessary attorney. (Based on detailed OAH records for the first 66 cases in 2006-7).

 The purpose of OAH adjudication was to provide an increased level of judicial protections for homeowners in HOAs without the need for an attorney in an informal setting, and without the need to understand the rules of court.  The HOA attorneys have been trying for years to turn OAH into civil court proceedings under 100 rules found in some 200 pages of legalese. But, the bill does not require that the HOA manager learn and understand the civil rules or the law.  

Once more the citizen, the whole reason for the existence of a democratic system of government, is smashed down to the bottom of the food chain by an unconscionable bill.  A disgraceful and insulting bill!  The Senate committee cannot allow this bill to pass in good conscience.  It must be soundly thrashed.

HB 2371 will be heard in the Arizona Senate Government & Environment Committee on a Monday to be determined.

State legislatures and HOAs: When will they ever learn?

It should not come as a surprise to anyone that state legislators have allowed the HOA legal scheme, which they have played a strong hand in supporting, to deny the equal application of the laws for all, and the loss of constitutional protections. 

Free speech, flying the flag, due process, clean elections, etc. have been denied by HOA regimes.  Even noted CAI member attorney, Adrian Adams, speaking about HOAs in the Davis-Stirling online Newsletter article, Animal Sacrifice: “Just as private organizations can restrict free speech, they could conceivably restrict religious practices that negatively impact other members.

The denial is basis on the specious and false argument of a “consent to agree.”  A consent that falls dismally short of meeting Supreme Court judicial scrutiny for constitutionality. All the HOA has to show is an HOA interest for the benefit of the entire community and the courts will find no problem, just as if the HOA were a government entity that has some legitimate interest in the issue.

Furthermore, legislators accept the argument that any validly passed CC&Rs amendment binds everyone including any dissenters, regardless of its relevance, bearing, or reasonable expectancy of the restrictions being imposed on owners.  It’s the “general government interest” approach. It appears that public government attributes are ascribed to the contractual HOA, with the contractual terms are being ignored.  All reform legislation is an attempt to restore those rights wrongfully denied the homeowners, on a case by case, HOA by HOA, state by state basis. 

HOAs are not de jure governments — not state entities.   But, they are de facto governments operating under state legislature protections, but in contrast to all other government entities, without constitutional protections.  HOAs are unrecognized governments as is Cuba, but functioning nevertheless every day.

When will legislatures learn?  When will they undertake an independent study of HOAs with a truly independent “think tank”?  Like the Arizona State’s Morrison Institute for Public Policy.[i]  When?  Perhaps never, since they don’t seem to really want to know, and perhaps because they know what the findings will show.

[i] “Morrison Institute provides public policy research for government agencies, private associations, nonprofit organizations, and communities. In conducting research, analysts draw upon a variety of disciplines and methods: collecting original data through public opinion surveys, interviews, and consultation with experts; and analyzing existing information through review of published research reports, current legislation, and statistical data.”  (See http://morrisoninstitute.asu.edu/about/about-the-morrison-institute).

HOA democracy at work: dysfunctional adoption of amendments by minority vote

 

OPEN LETTER TO  TERRAVITA CA MEMBERS

Understand what a YES vote means for Terravita and your image as a citizen

Summary

The writer provides an example of how HOAs create a dysfunctional, un-American community, using arguments against the adoption of CC&Rs amendments on two occasions by the Terravita CA in Scottsdale, AZ.  In the first instance, amendments that violated Arizona statutes in regard to the content of the ballot were approved in 2010. One non-disclosed amendment made significant reductions in the requirement for adoption of future CC&Rs amendments, from a supermajority vote to a minority vote.  (In 2011, the Legislature defeated a CAI drafted bill that would allow for minority control of HOAs). 

The current amendment reflects an undisguised intent to punish one member for filing Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) Petitions against Terravita.  Attorneys are not awarded fees at OAH because they are not required, yet the poorly constructed amendment removes attorney fee awards in civil court actions.  As a result of the approval of the non-disclosed “minority control” amendment in 2010, a minority of only 307  out of 1380 votes will be required to adopt this Board approved punitive amendment. 

Without any prior open discussion or debate, the distributed Absentee Ballot is one-sided in favor of the Board without opposing arguments. Adopting these amendments by a minority of members reflects an un-democratic and dysfunctional culture within Terravita.  The objectives of the “corporate state” are primary and individual property rights are secondary. Members are urged to reject the amendments.

Read the full letter here . . .

Az & TX legislators criticized for failures to support homeowner rights in HOAs

I let the Arizona Legislature know that advocates are not as stupid as they would like to believe (See Observations on AZ legislative treatment of HOA reform bills We know what is going on and has been happening for years with respect to legislative support for private government HOA regimes. HOAs that deny homeowners their rights and freedoms while imposing harsh penalties only on the members and not on the HOA boards.

The attitude of the legislatures appears to be: The HOA must survive at all costs – it’s a matter of national and state security so constitutional protections be damned.

A leading Texas advocate has added to this exposure of legislative cooperation, support, and coercion to permit HOAs to rule without accountability. Read her Open letter.

There are 4 main constitutional issues that are continually ignored by the legislatures: clean elections procedures; due process and the equal application of the laws; ‘consent to agree’ fallacy; and that the Constitution is only about ‘no contract interference.’ These issues must be addressed and reforms instituted, but they are not addressed because the legislators well know that they are defending the indefensible if they speak out.

It falls to the true advocates for HOA reform to have the courage to speak out about the reality of the HOA legal concept. They need to set the record straight about legislation supported and promoted by the so called “stakeholders”, the vendors (read as HOA attorneys and managers) who make money from the unrepresented and truly affected class, the private property owners, the homeowners.

Send a message to your state legislature.