Tag: enforcement

The legislature does no wrong when enacting HOA laws, or does it?

Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio

A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.

What’s that you say, Mrs. Robinson

Joltin’ Joe has left and gone away.

(Hey, hey, hey . . . hey, hey, hey)

 

(from the song, Mrs. Robinson, Simon & Garfunkel, 1967)

Franklin Delano Roosevelt recognized that a country in crisis needs to confront the illusions that led it astray and return to the values that can form a firmer foundation.

(Rediscovering Values On Wall Street, Main Street and Your Street, Jim Wallis, 2010)

 

As many state legislatures are now dealing with HOA reform legislation, I examine the question of unconstitutional bills being made law, and the failure of legislators to understand their acts under the “due process of law” restrictions of the 5th and 14th Amendments.  Essentially, the legislature cannot enact laws that favor one group over another without an explicit, valid justification for such laws. The legislature must cease protecting HOAs at the expense of the rights and freedoms of its citizens who live under these regimes.

Looking at our current condition in every state with HOA “Acts”, we must understand that, conforming to the historical pattern for civilizations and nations, the US is on the downside of its “life-cycle.”   The people, and their elected representatives, have forgotten its reasons-for-being — the values, principles and beliefs that founded this experiment in representative democracy.   We have become a nation under the rule of man, not law, as well demonstrated by  our concern for who gets  to be the next US Supreme Court Justice, the next person to determine and to make law.

As formerly held with respect to kings and emperors of long along, we have returned to the notion that the legislature can do no wrong and is above reproach, as well demonstrated by the legal doctrine that all laws are presumed to be constitutional.  The oversight by the courts is a myth in reality, because a strong burden is placed on the people to prove beyond a doubt that the law violates the Constitution.   And the legislative Rules committees that are obligated to check the constitutionality of a bill is also a myth.  In short, we have returned to “The sovereign can do no wrong.”

Due Process of Law constraints

However, the fundamental due process of law obligations set forth in the Constitution do impose restrictions on legislative free-wheeling law making.  Essentially, “due process of law” requires not only proper procedures be followed, but the law at issue must be valid and legitimate.  To enforce a law solely as to the procedural processes would make a mockery of legitimate government, if the law to be enforced is unconstitutional itself.  This point is made quite clearly and empathetically by Timothy Sandefur (Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Winter 2012, p. 337),

“One can easily imagine such a legislature enacting a statute vesting lynch mobs . . . to adjudicate and punish perceived wrongs . . . or a statute assigning automatic death penalty for such vague ‘crimes’ as being ‘uppity.’”

For those readers who believe that this statement is wholly unbelievable and unreal, it is quite close to what is occurring with HOA statutes across the country. They easily amount to special laws for special groups without a legitimate government justification and interest.  Justifications that would pass the requisite judicial scrutiny other than just “a reasonable government interest.” (The silence by the legislatures and government officials as to a legitimate government interest for HOA laws only confirms the lack of any valid justification. See Rights of Man, Thomas Paine.)

Legitimate Law Making

What then, does due process of law impose on the legitimacy  of legislature lawmaking?  Sundefur argues that, “The Due Process Clause was written to ensure that government does not act without reasons, nor for insufficient, corrupt or illusory reasons.”  (p. 287); “This obligates the government to act in a lawful manner.” (p. 290).  He defines a lawful act as “a use of the state’s coercive powers in the service of some general rule that realistically serves a public, not a private end” (my emphasis), and is “a prohibition against government acting in an arbitrary way.” 

In other words, where there is no rational purpose or explanation for the law, as we see with many HOA laws, the law is not legitimate.

“Legislation that singles out a particular business . . . for no legitimate reason or uses irrelevant distinctions as an excuse for treating people differently . . . exercises government power in an arbitrary way.” (p.308).

We are well aware that many statutes deny homeowners rights that they would otherwise enjoy if they were living outside the HOA regime.  (I will skip the arguments concerning a valid contract under contract law, the lack of genuine consent, and the superiority of servitudes law over constitutional and contract laws that allows for the surrender of rights and freedoms under these conditions.)  We know that many HOA statutes can be seen as punitive, such as foreclosure rights; fines without proper due process; granting of “open” liens; allowing HOA fines to accumulate while adjudication of a dispute begins or is occurring; and the mandate that assessments be paid regardless of any dispute with the HOA.

 Sandefur argues that statutes of this type that “burden a group for no other reason than that the victims exercise too little political influence to defend themselves . . . are more like  punishments than law,” and maintains that “Legislation of this sort is arbitrary, based on no other principle except the ipse dixit of force.”  That is, Sandefur is saying, by the mere pronouncement or enactment by the legislature without any justification of supporting arguments – an ipse dixit – the legislature is commanding obedience to the law.

 

If angels were to govern men

Allow me to address the question of why. Why is this happening, especially with HOA statutes?  First, we have forgotten that the structuring of government was based on the realities of human nature, and not on some idealized standard of behavior that the people must strive to attain.  (This level of behavior, for example, would be the unrealistic demand that if HOA members would only get involved in HOA government all problems would go away.)

Second, as Madison wrote, “If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”   The “presumption of constitutionality” doctrine stands in contradiction to the realities of this country and the structuring of government.  It allows the legislators, like HOA boards, to be unaccountable for their acts in passing all sorts of laws without regard to the restrictions of the due process of laws clause.   It is just another example of Sandefur’s argument that ipse dixit laws go unchecked because the people have too little political influence. 

As an aside, as I now write,  Arizona’s HCR 2104 would require every bill  to state the authority under the Arizona Constitution that would  allow this legislative action.  Sadly though, the bill was not meant to go anywhere as it is a “vehicle” or placeholder bill.  It has been sitting, not even heard, in the Judiciary  Committee, and the session ends in April.

And the worst due process of law offense of all is for the legislatures and courts to stand aside and allow these de facto, authoritarian governments to exist outside the social contract known as the Constitution of the United States of America.

Does civil government rule or does it submit to private HOA groups?

Dear Arizona Senators,

I continually am amazed at the opposition to this bill and the mistaken belief that any private contract can supersede legitimate local government. We all know that there is no absolute right to private contracts! HOAs are ignoring their role in a democratic society to obey the rules, as they like to say about homeowners in HOAs. They should follow the rules of this society and go to the planning board for a variance. Like they repeatedly say, “Homeowners can go to the courts, to agencies, to get a fair deal, etc.” but that’s not for the HOA that insists on making their own rules. It is simply a power play as to who rules the municipality.

The legislature has no choice but to uphold public government authority. If problems exist or changes are desired, since the HOA does not own the public roadway, the HOA can do what all citizens are entitled to do, go to their planning board and ask for a variance. The fact that the initial planning board approved these private roadways speaks to the retention of public government authority, otherwise it could have required private streets.

Please bear in mind, since CAI loves constitutional challenges as it fought over the proper delegation of authority to DFBLS, the court ruling in McLoughlin v. Pima that held,

However, it 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

and

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, (Emmett McLoughlin Realty v. Pima County, 58 P.3d 39 (Ariz. App. Div. 2 2002), ¶ 7).

HOAs have usurped and assumed public government functions! And we all know accountability to and proper supervision by state the does not exist with HOAs to meet this constitutional requirement. They cannot have their cake and eat it, too! They cannot demand special consideration not to be held accountable and then do as they please.

Please make it clear to all persons that we are one state, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.  Please pass this important bill.

Note:  This bill, SB 1113 and its House duplicate, HB 2030, simple reassert public government control over public streets within an HOA subdivision.  HOAs have fined homeowners for any car parked in front of their homes.

AZ SB 1468 – holding HOA boards personally liable for going to court

SB 1468 is one of three bills that will put into place strong and effective penalties against HOA boards who use the threat of law suits to intimidate and punish homeowners into keeping their mouths shut. This bill will hold directors personally liable for the HOA’s attorneys fees if they lose in court.

This long needed enforcement of HOA laws against the boards, rather than just the members, comes about as a result of the HOA industry failing to police itself and to oppose intentional and rogue HOA violators. HOA lobbyists pay lip service to the ”5%” bad boards, but oppose any meaningful attempt to reign them in, a gross failure to act as a good corporate citizenship. Well, it’s time to pay the piper! HOAs “have gotten away with murder” against widows, retirees, single parents, minorities, and those who do not have the money or stamina to buck the HOA. Many of which are simply having the board to just comply with the law and governing documents.

Not only are the boards themselves directly at fault, they are also guilty of abdicating their duties and responsibilities under the law and governing documents to their hired hands, the attorneys and management firms. They are negligent in allowing their agents to act without accountability and without proper oversight and restrictions. The HOA attorneys make money win or lose by going to court. The HOA attorneys often step across the line and collude with the president and wayward boards to violate the laws and governing documents under the excuse of “in defense of my client.” They violate Arizona R. Civ. P. 11(a) (federal rule 11(b)) that requires,

The signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certificate . . . that to the best of the signer’s knowledge, information and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it [the complaint] is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law . . . and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass . . . or needlessly increase the cost of litigation.

and Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct, 1.2(d), counseling client to break the law, and  1.13(b), Organization as Client, with respect to knowledge of client breaking the law.

Former Arizona Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission Chair, David D. Dodge, wrote about attorney “overzealousness” in the June 2005 edition of Arizona Attorney. (See my Commentary, HOA attorney fiduciary duty to homeowners).

The pro-HOA forces will immediately cry, “NO one will want to become a board member and the HOA will fail.” Well, I got news. Not too many members are rushing to become board members today, anyway. This bill requires the legislators to not only make a just and proper approval of the SB 1468, but to take a proper and just ethical and moral stand against authoritarian, undemocratic private governments that abuse the citizens of Arizona. Violations of the laws and our principles of democratic government cannot be allowed to continue! There are existing legal mechanisms today — just as there are mechanisms for HOAs to obtain public street variances, but HOAs prefer their independent principality status rather than be part of the greater community — that will maintain the perceived planned community benefits while holding the HOA government subject to the 14th Amendment as required of all government entities. (See A proposal for the “Muni-zation” of HOAs; Stop developers from granting private government charters).

Homeowners in HOAs have been waiting a long, long time for effective enforcement against HOA violators. Passing SB 1468 would be a very good start!

PS. The other bills are HB 2445 and SB 1240.

SB 1468 changes to the law

Notwithstanding any provision in the condominium documents, if a unit owner incurs attorney fees in a court action between the condominium or the board and the unit owner regarding enforcement of the condominium documents and the unit owner substantially prevails in the action, the following apply:

1. The members of the board of directors who voted on the record to support the court action against the unit owner are personally liable to the association for attorney fees and costs incurred by the association in the action.

2. If there is no record of who voted to support the court action against the unit owner, all of the members of the board of directors are personally liable to the association for attorney fees and costs incurred by the association in the action.

Courts will enforce CC&Rs except when . . .

This Alabama appellate decision, Grove Hill HOA v. Rice, sheds light on the reasons CAI insists that the CC&Rs being strictly enforced by the HOA and the courts: the irrational fears of a slippery slope eradication of the HOA. (The HOA was seeking an injunction against the homeowners who had built a driveway not to its liking). One person, the proft-seeking developer, is allowed to set the rules that govern the HOA community for all time to come, regardless of any political consequences with respect to the creation of a private government regime.

 

The trial court held, based on the Willow Lake opinion, emphasis aded,

 

“The Association maintained throughout the proceedings that any violation of a restrictive covenant, if allowed over its objection, necessarily dilutes the power of the restrictive covenants and thereby lessens the value of the subdivision property. We agree. In creating the restrictive covenants, the partnership expressly declared that the purpose of the covenants was `to protect the value and desirability of the Property.’”

 

However, as we are finally beginning to see a proper sense of justice for homeowners, the appellate court attempted to reject the Willow Lake precedent and held, “We do not interpret Willow Lake as requiring that an injunction is due to be granted in every case in which a resident has violated a restrictive covenant. Indeed, this court has applied the doctrine of “undue hardship . . . .” That is, emphasis added,

 

enforcement of covenants running with land `”is governed by equitable principles, and will not be decreed if, under the facts of the particular case, it would be inequitable and unjust”‘; specifically, if `”the restrictive covenant has ceased to have any beneficial or substantial value”‘ or `”the defendant will be subject to great hardship or the consequences would be inequitable,”‘ a court of equity will not enforce the covenant.

 

Unforunately, to complicate matters, “undue hardship” requires “clean hands” on the part of the homeowner in that he had no prior knowledge that his act was in violation of the CC&Rs. The court held that the homeowner had prior knowledge and therefore had “unclean hands,”  stating “that a restrictive covenant should be enforced if the defendant had knowledge of it before constructing an improvement contrary to its provisions, even if the harm is disproportionate.” The homeowner lost and had to undo the driveway at a cost of $15,000 to him.

 

 

Grove Hill HOA v. Rice, No. 2100293 (Ala. Civ. App. July 29, 2011).