Tag: federal law

CAI response to HOA COVID-19 payments

The following is the form letter CAI HQ is urging everyone to send to Congress to oppose a federal bill granting exclusions for HOA assessments.  HOAs “uber alles.”
“I am writing to strongly oppose legislation like H.R. 6423 and S. 3565 that impose a national moratorium on debt collection during the COVID-19 national emergency.
This legislation is too broad and will harm the financial interests of households in homeowners associations, condominium associations, and housing cooperatives (collectively, community associations).
. . . .
“When one homeowner is unable to pay assessments, these costs are passed to other homeowners in the community. This increases housing costs, spreading financial distress to other community households. [Part of the HOA contract is the implication of a joint and severable liability by the homeonwers. Didn’t you know this???]
“Community associations are working with homeowners suffering from the economic impact of the COVID-19 national emergency. A recent survey by Community Associations Institute indicated a 20 percent increase in requests for forbearance or payment plans by homeowners who are unable to pay assessments. Beyond this goodwill, community associations are subject to state laws that require payment plans for delinquent assessments.  [Not clear whether or not HOA honored them].
CAI logo
“I ask that you oppose extreme legislation like H.R. 6423 and S. 3563. Thank you for considering my views and I look forward to your reply.”

What HOA issues are appropriate for federal intervention?

In my comment (see PVTGOV comment) to Evan McKenzie’s post in his Privatopia Papers blog, Las Vegas HOA corruption probe continues,  (February 26, 2013) I supported McKenzie’s opinion that congressional hearings on HOAs was in order.  In North Carolina and Nevada several homeowner rights advocates felt the same and Norm McCullough contacted Nevada Congressman Joe Heck, who responded on April 22 with,

 I can certainly understand and appreciate your frustrations. Since HOAs are governed by local or state law rather than federal, it would be best to contact your state assemblyman or state senator and local county officials with your comments.

Please be assured that I will keep your comments in mind should this issue be brought to the attention of the House of Representatives for legislative action.

A careful reading of the first paragraph above leads to the obvious: “Not my problem. See your legislators” (my words).  However, he extends hope for homeowners in the second paragraph above, “If HOA issues get here, I’ll remember what you wrote” (my words).  Congratulations to Norm.

Well, just what are federal issues aside from constitutional issues that abound with HOAs?  Let’s take a look at some other recognizable federal laws or “acts”.  There’s the Americans With Disabilities Act, Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, Truth in Lending, Truth in Advertising, Right to Work, etc. all of which deal with practices within an industry that cross state lines.  These are the nationwide practices that need the broad reach of the federal government.  And all the above resulted from abuse against the consumer by the respective industry.  With HOAs, we have very strong legitimate arguments pertaining to constitutional violations that amount to state actions in all states.

If advocates wish to be effective at the national level, they must rise above HOA operational concerns and address issues of national import.  They must be able to understand and deal with these fundamental issues of democratic governance. 

And they must accept the fact that since 1973 CAI has been the aggressive protagonist for the HOA legal scheme or structure that is offensive to our principles of democratic government.

Pro Se wins federal HOA discrmination appeal

The federal 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion in Mehta v. Beaconridge clarifies what actions constitute a violation of Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq. Mehta filed as a Pro Se. He appealed the District Court’s dismissal of his complaint as lacking substance.

Here are relevant excerpts:

 The FHA grants homeowners a cause of action against homeowners’ associations for invidious discrimination or retaliation linked to the terms, conditions, or privileges accompanying their property.

 Under the FHA, a homeowner may sue a homeowners’ association if the association engages in invidious discrimination when failing to provide maintenance services or when limiting the use of privileges, services, or facilities associated with the homeowner’s dwelling.

 With regard to Mehta’s claim of retaliation, the FHA makes it unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of their fair housing rights.

After Mehta complained of this disparate treatment, the association placed his family’s account on delinquent status and barred them from using the subdivision’s pool, club house, and tennis court. The association then performed uncalled-for work on their gate (switching the gate from swinging inward to outward) without providing them notice or obtaining their consent, and billed them for it. When Mehta’s family refused to pay, the association fined them and threatened to place a lien on their home. Apparently fed up with their complaints, one of its employees shouted at him, “you are not moved out yet, you Indian.”

Mehta sued under the Fair Housing Act, see 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(b), 3617.

Mehta alleged that, after he complained of disparate treatment, the association retaliated against his family by “not allowing [his] family to go to [the] pool” or to facilities such as the “clubhouse, pool, and tennis court.” He pleaded, as well, that the association maliciously designated their account as delinquent and then performed nonsense work on their fence, billed them for it, and later threatened to file a lien on their home. Mehta has, therefore, provided fair notice of his retaliation claim.

With regard to Mehta’s claims of discrimination, he alleged that the association doled out privileges and services to white homeowners, while withholding them from his family. He further alleged that the association failed to maintain their home’s aluminum siding, roof, sump pump, sidewalk and parking space, while providing those services to white homeowners; and the association engaged in preferential treatment when maintaining the grounds of the subdivision. And Mehta alleged that an association employee shouted at him in racial terms, “you are not moved out yet, you Indian.” These allegations suffice to state a plausible claim of discrimination.

In summary, the judgment of the district court is . . . VACATED with regard to the dismissal of the FHA and Illinois law claims of intentional discrimination and retaliation.

Mehta v. Beaconridge Improvement Assn, No. 11-1505 (7th Cir. July 28, 2011).

 

 

Please note that constitutional protections and statute protections exist on an issue by issue basis. That is, if the court did not reaffirm that homeowners in HOAs have this right, then the homeowner must seek legislation to restore that lost right, which is the basis of HOA reform legislation dealing with substantive issues (as opposed to HOA operational issues)