Tag: HOA property takings

Supreme Court finds taking excess foreclosure funds unconstitutional

The Supreme Court landmark decision in Tyler v. Hennepin County (No. 22-166, May 23, 2023), addressed an appeal by a  non-HOA homeowner in Minnesota who was foreclosed on by the state.  She brought “claims under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment.” It has an immense impact on the constitutionality of HOA foreclosures. The Takings Clause is applicable to the action of states by means of the 14th Amendment.

(These claims of unconstitutional foreclosures and excess fines as a punished were argued in my 2013 pamphlet, HOA Common Sense: rejecting private government, No. 8, “Draconian punishment and intimidation.”)

In Tyler, the Court maintained that while states have imposed property  taxes,

“Such taxes are not themselves a taking, but are a mandated “contribution from individuals . . . for the support of the government . . . for which they receive compensation in the protection which government affords.”

And it posed, “The question is whether that remaining value is property under the Takings Clause, protected from uncompensated appropriation by the State.”  The Court answered,  “Our precedents have also recognized the principle that a taxpayer is entitled to the surplus in excess of the debt owed.” 

The Court’s reasoning extended the Takings Clause to other arenas beyond taxes,

“Finally, Minnesota law itself recognizes that in other contexts a property owner is entitled to the surplus in excess of her debt. Under state law, a private creditor may enforce a judgment against a debtor by selling her real property, but “[n)o more shall be sold than is sufficient to satisfy” the debt, and the creditor may receive only “so much [of the proceeds) as will satisfy” the debt. . . . Likewise, if a bank forecloses on a home because the homeowner fails to pay the mortgage, the homeowner is entitled to the surplus from the sale.”

The Supreme Cout concluded,

“Because we find that Tyler has plausibly alleged a taking under the Fifth Amendment, and she agrees that relief under “the Takings Clause would fully remedy [her] harm,” we need not decide whether she has also alleged an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment.”

In a broad, extended view of this decision, one can say that any state law that does not allow excess funds from foreclosure to belong to the debtor, by public or by private foreclosures, would be deemed unconstitutional.  And that goes for HOA foreclosures!  No longer need we address the opposition that HOAs are private contracts and the Constitution and laws of the land do not apply.  This momentous Supreme Court decision has knocked down the doors for homeowners in HIOAs.  

Homeowners do not have HOA ‘eminent domain’ protection

You all know about public domain eminent domain protection: the government cannot take your property for public use – public benefit — without fair market compensation, which you can negotiate and take to court if necessary. Acquiring your property is a “taking.” 

According to the courts,  it is not well known that the government’s denial of a natural use of your property is considered an informal taking, and compensation must be paid. I am surprised to learn that almost any personal property owned by the homeowner can be subject to a taking by the government. (Investopedia).

As an HOA member you do not have an equivalent HOA government taking protection whereby you are compensated for any takings or modifications demanded by the HOA. While HOA government takings per se are rare except for foreclosure rights, the HOA does demand that the homeowner replace or remove approved  landscaping trees or shrubbery, additions like sheds, playsets,  repaint the exterior, etc. At the homeowner’s expense!

I’ve found many times that corrective action is delayed until after completion of the approved homeowner improvements, and the HOA demands that it be torn down by the homeowner. Grossly unjust and unfair: it’s the incompetence of the HOA failing to act within a reasonable time while construction begins.

However, it’s understandable and acceptable if the governing documents specify, for example, that exteriors just be repainted every 15 years, or roofs inspected for necessary repairs every 20 years or so, etc.

The argument used by the HOA generally falls into keeping with the image  of the properties and maintain property values, for the benefit of the members, the HOA ‘public.’  As it stands, the owner/ member has no right to demand compensation and is another instance of constitutional protections lost in HOA-Land.