Tag: Homes Association Handbook

HOA-Land Organic Laws

Organic Law is “the set of foundational laws or regulations, like those in a constitution or charter, which establish the essential framework of a government.” It is the fundamental basis of a government.

The U.S. Code defines the organic laws of the United States to include the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Northwest Ordinance, and the U.S. Constitution. (See US Statutes At Large, 1789 –1875, Vol. 18, Part I, Revised Statutes (43rd Congress, 1st session), p. v and vi).

In contrast, The Homes Association Handbook and UCIOA constitute, in my view, the organic law for HOA-Land. Together with their derivatives, as applied to HOA Declarations, they set the HOA’s  political tone and governing policies, which clearly rejects the US Constitution as the law of the land.

National defender of HOA-Land legal structure, Community Associations Institute, CAI, had this to say in its amicus curiae to the NJ appellate court in Twin Rivers (2006).

“In the context of community associations, the unwise extension of constitutional rights to the use of private property by members (as opposed to the public) raises the likelihood that judicial intervention will become the norm, and serve as the preferred mechanism for decision-making, rather than members effectuating change through the democratic process. [p. 19].”

The Collected Writings TOC 1

Announcing “HOA Constitutional Government: the continuing battle,” is now available on Amazon as a Kindle eBook. See https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CSC5LCY8. Paperback to follow.

I have included a table of contents of 56-issues reflecting perspectives, views, opinions, and documentation that point the way to HOA substantive reforms.  Readers may not agree, accept, or like what is stated in these issues that have been essentially avoided over the years; they are of immense educational value  and necessary for a realistic picture of HOA-Land. Part 2 of the TOC to follow.

See: HOA Constitutional Government: collected posts.

I.  On Reform Legislation . . .

d.  Decl. of Indep. from HOA government — 2000 . . .

e.  A united, national front to HOA reform legislation (2023)      . . .

f.   Two distinct levels for HOA legislation (2019)   . . .

g.  Analysis of The Homes Association Handbook (2006) . . .

h.  America’s homeland: HOA law vs. Home rule law (2022)        . . .

i.   Preface to HOA Common Sense (2021)    . . .

j.   HOA Common Sense, No. 1: The New America of HOA-Land (2013) . . .

k.  the NJ Supreme Court opinion in the Twin Rivers HOA case (2008) . . .

l.   CAI firmly supports the New America of HOA-Land (2011)     . . .

m. Authoritarianism in America; authoritarianism in HOA-Land (2022) . . .

l.   AZ bill, SB 1148, seeks to restore OAH adjudication of HOA disputes (2011) . . .

m. Arizona’s new “Take That George!” law: defend HOA statutes (2010)           . . .

n.  AZ Rep. explains failure of HOA reform legislation (2013)      . . .

o.  The Florida (HB 1397): police powers and the loss of fundamental rights (2009)  

p.  Landmark FL HOA law imposes criminal conduct (2023)       . . .

q.  Colorado senator’s guide to effective HOA legislation (2013)  . . .

r.  NC reform bills need your support (2023)          . . .

s.  North Carolina: second battleground for people’s rights in HOAs (2013) .  .

t.  CA bill AB 1410 –  a step backwards for HOA homeowner rights (2022)       .  .

u.  Substantive SC HOA reform bill – end foreclosure (2019)       . . .

v.  Effective HOA reform legislation (2023) . . .

w. HOA member Declaration of US and State citizenship (2015) . . .

The HOA legal scheme is ab initio unconstitutional

TO:     Legislative leaders in every state

The HOA legal scheme based on the Homes association Handbook is ab initio unconstitutional

In March 2006 I wrote Christopher Durso, editor of the Community Associations Institute’s (CAI) monthly house organ, Common Ground, asking four questions in regard to the constitutionality of HOA’s  (CID, POA, planned unit development, etc.) legal scheme.  My concern was that CC&Rs are a devise for de facto HOA governments to escape constitutional government as presented in  the 1964 “bible” that brought forth the legal scheme, The Homes Association Handbook. 

Replacing democratic local governments with authoritarian private governments:  Is this good public policy? 

“Public policy today rejects constitutional government for HOAs allowing them to operate outside the law of the land. The policy makers have failed to understand that the HOA CC&Rs have crossed over the line between purely property restrictions to establishing unregulated and authoritarian private governments.”

Here are the four questions:

 1. Is it proper for the state to create, permit, encourage, support or defend a form of local government of a community of people, whether that form of government is established as a municipal corporation or as a private organization that is not compatible with our American system of government?

2. Is it proper for the state to permit the existence of private quasi-governments with contractual “constitutions” that regulate and control the behavior of citizens without the same due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment; that do not conform to the state’s municipal charter or incorporation requirements; or do not provide for the same compliance with the state’s Constitution, statutes or administrative code as required by public local government entities?

3. When did “whatever the people privately contract” dominate the protections of the US Constitution? The New Jersey Appeals Court didn’t think so (CBTR v. Twin Rivers, 2006). Does “constructive notice,” the “nailing to the wall,” the medieval method of notice, measure to the requisite level of notice and informed consent to permit the loss of Constitutional protections?

4. Please state what, if any, are the government’s interests in supporting HOAs that deny the people their constitutional rights?

Please respond  to these fundamental questions of HOA constitutionality.

Can and will constitutional scholars reply to 4 HOA questions?

In March 2006 I wrote Christopher Durso, editor of the Community Associations Institute’s (CAI) monthly house organ, Common Ground, asking four questions in regard to the constitutionality of HOA’s  (CID, POA, planned unit development, etc.) legal scheme.  My concern was that CC&Rs are a devise for de facto HOA governments to escape constitutional government as presented in  the 1964 “bible” that brought forth the legal scheme, The Homes Association Handbook. 

As of this date, these questions remain unanswered by CAI, by state legislatures and attorney generals, by constitutional think tanks such as the CATO Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Federalist Society, and by the many constitutional scholars. Is it because any response would be seen as an attempt to defend the indefensible as it would require a rejection of the Constitution and a recognition of the HOA community secession from the Union.  State governments, including the judiciary, exhibit a willful blindness that makes the Constitution a meaningless piece of paper that can be ignored by private contracts unassailable from government interference.

Replacing democratic local governments with authoritarian private governments: Is this good public policy? “Public policy today rejects constitutional government for HOAs allowing them to operate outside the law of the land. The policy makers have failed to understand that the HOA CC&Rs have crossed over the line between purely property restrictions to establishing unregulated and authoritarian private governments.”

Here are the four questions:

 1. Is it proper for the state to create, permit, encourage, support or defend a form of local government of a community of people, whether that form of government is established as a municipal corporation or as a private organization that is not compatible with our American system of government?

2. Is it proper for the state to permit the existence of private quasi-governments with contractual “constitutions” that regulate and control the behavior of citizens without the same due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment; that do not conform to the state’s municipal charter or incorporation requirements; or do not provide for the same compliance with the state’s Constitution, statutes or administrative code as required by public local government entities?

3. When did “whatever the people privately contract” dominate the protections of the US Constitution? The New Jersey Appeals Court didn’t think so (CBTR v. Twin Rivers, 2006). Does “constructive notice,” the “nailing to the wall,” the medieval method of notice, measure to the requisite level of notice and informed consent to permit the loss of Constitutional protections?

4. Please state what, if any, are the government’s interests in supporting HOAs that deny the people their constitutional rights?

Once again  I await their replies.

Cc:  HOA Constitutional Government

HOA advocate credentials are lacking

Should the FEDS get involved in HOA-Land abuse even though HOAs are controlled by state laws?  It would need to come under the approach that state laws are so varied that uniform laws must be adopted, and not by ULC that is steeped in the past and promotes more bad laws. This “what state are you in and that’s the law” has been a general argument for federal law and is a reason for federal intervention in the courts.

With all due respect for the hard work of several reform social media groups, getting the attention of state legislatures and DOJ/FBI depends upon the credentials of advocates. Can they make arguments at the level where the courts and lawyers will stand up and take notice? This is a longtime failure of HOA reform efforts even though they have obtained important reforms here and there over the years.

These reforms, for the most part, are rooted in “operational” reforms that affect the laws now on “the books” —  the overwhelming bad laws dealing with day-to-day operations and functions of the HOA. This reform legislation is needed to bring  a fair and just treatment under the constraints of the HOA legal scheme until reforms of substance are adopted.

Allow me to explain with an example.  There are many “good” laws that are designed to protect the homeowner and his rights, and put restrictions on the HOA. They may even have strong enforcement provisions with criminal violations.  Great? On the surface yes because enforcement is still the task not of the state, but the homeowner who has to bring such charges. The state – district/county attorneys and attorney generals — are not obligated to act. BUT, by definition, a crime is an act harmful to the state beyond one person. “Crime is “the intentional act usually deemed socially harmful or dangerous . . . prohibited and punishable by law.”

This “not my job,” hands-off posture constitutes an error of omission by the state that, under the obligations of the Constitution.

“We the People of the United States, in Order to . . . establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility . . .  promote the general Welfare . . ..”

Stay with me.  What is necessary is to rewrite the CC&Rs that is based on The Homes Association Handbook, as the Founding Fathers did when they threw out the Articles of Confederation for the US Constitution.  There has been and is little support for this approach, which I believe is the result of a lack of understanding and a fear that their HOA would be abolished —  a very successful fear mongering by CAI. And that includes a fear of CAI.

Over the years I filed an IRS tax-exempt complaint against CAI for having the customers of its members also a member of the business trade group in violation of its tax-exempt status. In 2005 CAI had to drop HOAs pe se from membership. Earlier this year I filed a 40-page complaint with the antitrust division of DOJ arguing that CAI was a monopoly, and has acted to thwart competition and the free entry into the HOA education market. 

Recently I asked for support of my appeal to the Federalist Society  to encourage and promote dialogue on the constitutionality of and loss of citizen rights in an HOA. The Society’s mission is educational for lawyers and student lawyers, and has a national  program of local law school chapters to debate issues. (Notable attorneys and government officials attend these meetings. My grandson had the opportunity to meet the Governor.)  I argued that new lawyers sally forth lacking the truth about HOA-Land serving to perpetuate the unjust laws.

HOA reformers and groups must present themselves as knowledgeable advocates, united nationally, who understand the law and the judicial process.  Reformers need to be able to stand up before CAI, the courts, and state legislators and win!  As I posted elsewhere, I am still waiting for an answer to my 2006 challenge to debate the CAI “elite” lawyers who are members of CAI’s CCAL.

As the renowned international management consultant Peter F. Drucker made clear, “A mission statement has to be operational; otherwise, it’s just good intentions.“