Tag: free speech

For AZ HOAs, public roads means public laws prevail

An interesting federal case came to my attention that involved public access to public roads. In this Puerto Rican case, Watchtower Bible [Jehovah Witnesses] v. Municipality of Santa of Isabel, CIV. NO. 04-1452 (2013), the First Circuit overturned the District Court’s decision and held that the Jehovah Witnesses’ free speech rights were violated.  This case was the remand from the First Circuit in Watchtower Bible v. Sagardia de Jesus, 634 F.3d 3 (2011)).

Shades of Marsh v. Alabama (326 U.S. 501), that 1946 federal case where Jehovah Witnesses attempted to distribute literature in a company town with public access. WOW! (Cited in  Sagardia de Jesus).  Marsh led to the US Supreme Court’s “public functions” test to determine if private organizations were state actors. (Today, there are other tests for HOA state action that nobody seems willing to pursue).

The municipality operated a Public Housing Agency, similar to the “projects” build in the 1950s in Chicago and New York City.  Where there are unmanned gates (“unmanned urbanizations”), entry to the public road is based upon acceptance by a resident who answers a buzzer or gets a call from the visitor. However, Puerto Rico has explicit laws that require all roads to be public roads open to all the people, with the usual police powers exceptions for the health and safety of the residents.  Like criminals don’t get access, etc.

 In dealing with the remand, to tighten the rules in accordance with the laws, the court noted that,

If access to public streets can be denied to them, then access can be denied to anyone. For example . . . the press could also be prevented from entering a gated community to cover the reactions of residents to a court ruling, as that in this case.

The court made the following general statement that has direct application to private government HOA regimes (my emphasis),

 Even today, many nations of the world inadequately protect, or worse, fail to protect, these rights that we often take for granted. This case demonstrates this Nation’s deep history of protecting civil liberties. Any antipathy by individual residents of gated communities towards Jehovah’s Witnesses or members of any other religious faith should yield to common sense and respect for the Rule of Law, product of the United States and Puerto Rico Constitutions.

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).

When can a homeowner withhold HOA assessments?

In January the Illinois Supreme Court agreed to hear the condominium case, Spanish Court Two Condominium Association v. Lisa Carlson, No. 115342, that breaks with the commonly held legal doctrine that HOA members are not permitted to withhold paying assessments, even when the HOA has failed to make necessary structural repairs to the condominium. Courts have held that HOAs are subject to servitudes law foremost, and that the common good required for the survival of the HOA is paramount.  Therefore, payments must not be withheld in spite of any outstanding controversy.

 In Spanish Court the appellate court held that a HOA condominium owner could withhold paying assessments because the relationship between the owner and HOA was similar to that of a tenant and landlord.  The contract in both situations involved mutual promises of making payments in return for HOA services to maintain and repair the property.  The court held that under contract law the withholding of payments was permitted. This decision broke with precedent, bringing justice to homeowners against special laws for HOAs.

 The courts in other cases and in other states have held that the declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) are a contract to be interpreted as a contract, but then apply servitude law over contract law, and even over constitutional law.  (See the Restatement Servitudes, § 3.1, comment h and§ 6.13, comment a).

 For example, this holding stands in contrast to the January 2013 Illinois Supreme Court ruling in Poris v. Lake Holiday POA (No. 113907) that allowed HOA security personnel to stop and detain drivers who are violating HOA rules, and not municipality ordinances. Here, servitude law prevailed over constitutional law.  And, in 2007 the Twin Rivers HOA (NJ) free speech case (CBTW v. Twin Rivers, 929 A.2d 1060) held that the business judgment rule would protect homeowner rights, and that there may be some instances where constitutional concerns could come into play.

 The Illinois appellate court admitted to the fact that its opinion stood alone in favor of the homeowner and contract law when HOAs are involved.  If the preponderance of the cases is to control, then homeowners can expect an Illinois Supreme Court reversal of the appellate decision as it did in Poris. Homeowners and justice should not be too enthusiastic about the right to withhold assessments in HOAs.

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

A free speech ‘puzzlement’: tattooing vs. HOAs

Echoing the thoughts of Yul Brynner in the 1956 King and I movie (Anna and the King of Siam), I’ve encountered a “puzzlement.”  In the just released 27 page opinion of the Arizona Supreme Court in Coleman v. The City of Mesa, No. CV-11-0351-PR, the Supreme Court ruled that the lower court must allow the tattoo artists to show that tattooing was a protected expression of free speech.  The City of Mesa had a discretionary zoning ordinance against tattooing establishments.  The higher court held that the trial court could not summarily dismiss the complaint as not having a questionable issue of law.

The complaint sufficiently sets forth claims for relief for alleged violations of the Colemans’ rights to free speech, equal protection, and due process. Whether they can prove those claims will depend on the course of proceedings in the trial court.

I will not go into the legal details of the court’s analysis, but allow me to make some comparisons with HOA free speech issues from the point of view of “consent to be governed” (not discussed in the opinion).  I refer to the pro-HOA arguments that continuing to live in your HOA is an implicit agreement to be bound by the ruling private HOA government under its pseudo-constitution and pseudo-laws. That argument, alone, the courts have repeatedly held, controls the homeowner’s consent to agree.

BUT, as we have in this case, shouldn’t operating a tattoo parlor in the City of Mesa be likewise viewed as an implicit consent to agree to city zoning ordinances, among other public laws?  And as such, haven’t the artists waived and/or surrendered their constitutional rights that they are now arguing that they still retain?  Like it is argued against HOA members? Apparently not, for the supreme court there are sufficient grounds to make such a legal argument (helped by the Goldwater Institute).

It’s a puzzlement.  Why two sets of legal doctrines?  One for the public and one for a class of citizens who live in HOAs?  A real puzzlement.