Tag: homestead protection

AZ bill returns homestead protection against HOA claims.

We must make the injustice visible. We must provoke until they respond and change the laws.[1]

Arizona alert – strike everything HB 2648 (2024)  returns homestead protections against HOA claims.  

“ARS 33-1807 and 33-1256. “B. THE COMMON EXPENSE ASSESSMENT LIEN PRESCRIBED BY THIS SECTION IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION.”

Let’s go back into the forgotten history of the homestead exemption in Arizona, starting in 2004,[2] 2007[3] and 2023.  The issue was and is the use of statutes to mimic the common boilerplate of the CC&Rs:   Statutory vs consensual lien. “A 12 item list is presented mimicking the CC&Rs, a common tactic to legitimize contractual challenges to the governing documents.”[4]

In 2004, still learning the ropes, I did not follow up on the state actors controversy based on the ARS statutes saying (my emphasis), “‘The association has a lien on a unit for any assessment.” 

“Representative Farnsworth made quite clear that ARS33-1807(A), which opens with, ‘The association has a lien . . . . is a statutory lien and not a consensual lien – the homeowner has no choice in the matter whatsoever.” (emphasis added).”

This can only be interpreted as a mandatory statute making the HOA an arm of the state, acting in place of the state – a state actor.[5] No, and, if, or buts! It is not a consensual lien if mandated by the state!

A second argument raised many times subsequent to 2004 questions the validity of a genuine consensus – “an agreement to be bound.”  In short, the argument raised in Common Sense[6],

“First, the application of contract law to the CC&Rs agreement reveals the many invalid aspects of the CC&Rs as a bona fide contract.  It is obvious from a simple review of contract law.  Yet, courts have held that the CC&Rs are a contract or are to be interpreted as a contract, and have even analyzed the meanings of CC&Rs in the same manner as a contract. But, the courts do not question the validity of the CC&RS contract with respect to contract law.  The courts resort to equitable servitudes law, which simply requires the acceptance of a deed in order to bind the home buyer to the CC&Rs sight unseen.”

On this point alone, HB2468 must be strongly supported. The controversy of statutory vs consensual is avoided to the relief of homeowners.

It is the Achilles heel of CAI’s reason for being  — cruel foreclosure and no homestead exemption as a punishment to coerce obedience.

Notes

[1] Mahatma Gandhi, fighting for India’s independence from British rule, 1948.

[2] HOA Homestead Exemption Exclusion (SB1470) (2023) (A 2004 look back and a comment by Fred F).

[3] See, The constitutionality of legislation: AZ Gov. vetoes homestead exemption bill (2007);

Arizona SB1330 restores lost homestead protection in HOAs (2007).

[4] See, All state “may/shall” statutes imply HOAs as state actors.

[5] See in general, Are HOA state actors created by statutory use of shall/may? (Section 2, paragraphs 5 +). (2019).

[6] HOA Common Sense, No. 4: Consent to be governed

AZ legislature fears HOA failures if homestead protection permitted?

Why is the exclusion of homestead protection for private HOAs a matter for  the AZ Senate FIN committee?  Is the committee afraid that HOAs will begin to fail in droves due to dead beat members retaining up to $400,000 in homestead exemptions if foreclosed on? (The HOA equivalent to public taxes).  That’s odd, because for years CAI has presented surveys that all is well in HOA-Land with a 70% – 80% member approval.  Or is there fear mongering going on again?

H’mmm.  Suppose now that the fear is real and down go the HOAs, mainly on the directors failure to manage the HOA’s funds.  Why then should HOAs get preferred treatment in violation of the Arizona Constitution, Article 2, Declaration of Rights? Let them fail as any other poorly run organization!

§32. Constitutional provisions mandatory. The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise.

§13. Equal privileges and immunities.. No law shall be enacted granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation other than municipal, privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens or corporations.

If the committee, and Legislature, proceed to withhold homestead protection then their act would be a clear violation of the AZ Constitution and subject to an easy challenge. It has happened in the past and the homeowners won! AZ Attorney General admits SB 1454 HOA to be invalid and without effect.

HOA Homestead Exemption Exclusion (SB1470)

`Please pass SB 1470, homestead protection for the people.

History of Homestead Exemption HOA Exclusion (SB1470)

In 2004 ARS 33-1806(3)(h) was added to the mandatory disclosure requirements, requiring a buyer to sign an acknowledgment that he agrees to the loss of his homestead exemption (now $400,000). Just one year later, in 2005, the statute was again amended to remove any reference to the loss of the homestead exemption.  In 2007 Governor Napolitano vetoed the homestead exemption bill on a flimsy argument – to many subjects.

Today, ADRE (real estate dept)  still does not inform consumers of the loss of their homestead exemption.

In 2007 I wrote, in part,

“They [CAI] raise the issue of a consensual agreement, the unsigned CC&R ‘agreement,’ which, under Arizona statutes, is an exception to the application of the homestead protection.  The author of the S/E amendment to the bill, Representative Farnsworth, made quite clear that ARS33-1807(A), which opens with, ‘The association has a lien . . . .’ (emphasis added), is a statutory lien and not a consensual lien – the homeowner has no choice in the matter whatsoever. 

“Any reference to a consensual lien must come from a voluntarily entered agreement, and, not from a statute. Our concern here is the alleged CC&Rs consensual agreement that may contain a provision for an agreement to a lien for unpaid assessments and the right to foreclose.  No CC&R that I have been made aware of mentions a surrender or a consent to the loss of the homestead exemption.  No real estate purchase agreement that I am aware of mentions an agreement to surrender the homestead exemption. The CC&Rs have been held as binding, not as a consensual agreement per se, but by the application of the doctrine of constructive notice, or the simple posting to the county clerk’s office.” 

This is the Legislature’s second chance to restore the equal protection of the laws to homeowners in HOAs. There is no justification for denying homestead protection when.

Resources

ARS Title 33, -Ch. 8

 33 – 1101. A. Any person the age of eighteen or over, married, or single, who resides within the state may hold as a homestead exempt from attachment, execution and forced sale, not exceeding $400,000 in value, any one of the following:

1. The person’s interest in real property in one compact body upon which exists a dwelling house in which the person resides.

2. The person’s interest in one condominium or cooperative in which the person resides.

33-1103. Homestead exemption; extent of exemption; exceptions

A. Real property that is subject to the homestead exemption provided for in section 33-1101, subsection A is exempt from involuntary sale under a judgment or lien, except in connection with:

1. A consensual lien, including a mortgage or deed of trust, or contract of conveyance.

33- 1256; 33 – 1807. A. The association has a lien on a unit for any assessment levied 14 against that unit from the time the assessment becomes due.

SB1470 (Feb. 13, 2023)

C. Subsection B of this section does not affect the priority of

10 mechanics’ or materialmen’s liens or the priority of liens for other

11 assessments made by the association The lien under this section is not

12 subject to chapter 8 of this title.