Tag: independent principalities

CAI maintains HOAs are protected by and do not violate the Constitution — not so!

Much to my surprise and astonishment I stumbled upon CAI’s press release on its website.[1] It informs the reader that all is well with the HOA legal scheme and there are no waivers of constitutional rights or other constitutionality problems. In fact, CAI claims that the Constitution protects the CC&Rs’ contract.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, Americans do not waive their constitutional rights when they move into a community association. In fact, courts have found that community association residents, by enacting reasonable rules for their own communities, are actually exercising their constitutional rights of association, contract, expression and assembly. . . . By purchasing homes in association-governed communities, buyers enter into constitutionally protected agreements with their neighbors.

The U.S. Constitution gives community association residents the right to govern their own communities without the need to get government’s permission to adopt rules. This prerogative is at the core of individual property rights and is a tradition that dates to the very founding of our nation.

I am not surprised at CAI’s failure to mention yours truly by name, the only outspoken advocate on HOA constitutional violations[2] that emphatically objects to and challenges CAI’s simplified arguments that misrepresent the law.

 

First paragraph fallacies:

Apparently agreeing to  free speech restrictions on displaying signs or flying the flag and due process protections are not considered a waiver or surrender of rights by CAI. CAI’s position that the right to associate and to enter into private contracts is protected by the Constitution is a false and naïve argument. Can you and I privately agree to violate the Constitution, and to associate in community where its government is not subject to the same restrictions as public government?

There are conditions for a voluntary waiver and surrender of constitutional rights that the CC&Rs agreement fails to meet, especially when it comes to implied waivers — those not specifically stated. But somehow the courts enforce the CC&Rs as if they met the requirements for constitutional waivers, like the Twin Rivers[3] case that CAI is relying on. CAI doesn’t mention its amicus curiae that argued “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 . . . .” If no rights were waived, why then is CAI so concerned about restoring them?

I have raised the valid argument of misrepresentation in the selling process and that the buyer was misled and not fully informed as to the consequences of his entering HOA-Land. No one, who firmly believes that HOAs are good for America, has stepped forward and publically signed the Homeowner Association Consent to be Governed Agreement: A Model Act[4] that a sign-off of explicit waivers and surrenders of constitutional rights (in paragraph 3), including a waiver of the equal protection of the laws.

Second paragraph fallacies

I explain in “HOAs violate local home rule doctrine” (see note 2 below) that HOAs are allowed operate far beyond state laws relating to home rule statutes, granting HOAs independent political government powers are denied to legitimate home rule communities. Consequently, HOAs are being treated with special laws for special entities in violation of the Constitution, federal and state.

The question that I have raised, and ignored by CAI in its release and in other communications, is summed up in the following statement: “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.” In essence, HOAs have been allowed to operate outside the Constitution as authoritarian independent principalities, violating the fundamental principles and values underlying our American way of life.

While CAI publicizes its claims to be working for productive, healthy and desirable communities, it is apparent that these communities are not part the American system of democratic government. It advertises that it is an educational organization, yet conducts surveys to promote its view of what is good for HOA-Land.

References

[1] https://www.caionline.org/PressReleases/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx? sourcedoc=/PressReleases/Media%20Statements/Homeowners%20and%20Constitutional%20Rights.doc&action=default. October 7, 2015. (I don’t know how long this has been there, but CAI has revised its website recently.)

[2] See in general, CC&Rs are a devise for de facto HOA governments to escape constitutional government; Unconstitutional delegation of power to HOAs; HOAs violate local home rule doctrine and are outlaw governments.

[3] CBTW v. Twin Rivers, 929 A.2d 1060 (2007).

[4] An example: “d). I understand that the association, as a private entity and not an arm of the state, is not subject to the restrictions and prohibitions of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution that otherwise protects the rights of the people against actions by public government entities; (g) that there are no equivalent clean or fair elections procedures to protect the integrity of the HOA election process as found in public government elections.” http://pvtgov.org/pvtgov/agree-disclose-license.pdf.

CC&Rs are a devise for de facto HOA governments to escape constitutional government

This commentary takes a long look at the validity of HOA covenants and the need for judicial enforcement in order to invoke state action with respect to fundamental rights and freedoms.   It informs the reader that such enforcement depends upon the member’s voluntary agreement to be bound by the declaration, and raises issues of the lack of genuine agreement.  The agreement requirement is not analyzed under contract law, but under HOA law that has been designed to protect the HOA and position the declaration as the supreme law of the HOA community.

Long ago in 1994 Professor McKenzie wrote, “HOAs currently engage in many activities that would be prohibited if they were viewed by the courts as the equivalent of local governments.[i]

Two years after Marsh v. Alabama[ii] — the 1946 Supreme Court opinion setting the misguided “public functions” test for a municipality — the Court specifically dealt with the question of the constitutionality of restrictive covenants.  The issue in Shelly v. Kraemer[iii] was “that judicial enforcement of the restrictive agreements in these cases has violated rights guaranteed to petitioners by the Fourteenth Amendment.”

With respect to restrictive covenant enforcement the Shelly court said:  “That the action of state courts and of judicial officers in their official capacities is to be regarded as action of the State [‘state action’] within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, is a proposition which has long been established by decisions of this Court. . . . The federal guaranty of due process extends to state action through its judicial as well as through its legislative, executive, or administrative branch of government.”   The Court held “that in granting judicial enforcement of the restrictive agreements in these cases, the States have denied petitioners the equal protection of the laws and that, therefore, the action of the state courts cannot stand” (my emphasis).

Unfortunately, the Court chose a narrow view of this issue limiting it to that involving racial discrimination.  A more expansive application of the 14th Amendment can easily be applied to any covenant that violates a member’s rights, freedoms or privileges and immunities as a citizen, but that has not been the case.

The 1976 Florida case, Brock v. Watergate Mobile Home,[iv] directly addressed the question of an HOA declaration and its actions under the Declaration.  It used the Marsh “public functions” test and the additional “close nexus” test (HOA action is closely resembles government action). No state action was found.  The HOA was not like a company town and the state’s involvement, as occurred in the limited context of the case, was not a close nexus.

Please understand that CC&RS and covenants are not automatically invalid or unconstitutional.  It requires a court to declare them so, at the expense of a homeowner lawsuit.  

Also, it is important to note that the court question was not about the validity of a restrictive covenant itself, but the court enforcement of that covenant. (This requires a lawsuit in which the court upholds the covenant and a subsequent lawsuit charging a violation of the 14th Amendment.)  The Shelly court’s view was that as the 14th Amendment applied “only to governmental action, as contrasted to action of private individuals, there was no showing that the covenants, which were simply agreements between private property owners, were invalid.”   Furthermore, “[The 14th] Amendment erects no shield against merely private conduct, however discriminatory or wrongful” (my emphasis).  In Arizona, today, the appellate court is to decide whether a CAI attorney amendment to Terravita’s CC&Rs that directly contradicts state law will be held valid.[v]  Behold the power of private contracts!

In view of the above we can ask, what makes a valid agreement?  Fortunately, a condition was attached to this view, which is never ever mentioned by pro-HOA supporters including those renowned CAI attorneys: “So long as the purposes of those agreements are effectuated by voluntary adherence to their terms.”  Sadly the courts have unquestionably accepted the validity of the CC&Rs as a voluntary agreement and this consent to be bound has become legal doctrine. For example, in Midlake v. Cappuccio the PA appellate court upheld a valid consent to agree by the buyer at time of purchase: “The Cappuccios contractually agreed to abide by the provisions in the Declaration at the time of purchase, thereby relinquishing their freedom of speech concerns regarding placing signs on this property.”[vi]   There have been numerous other cases where the court has upheld a valid consent to agree per se and a waiver/surrender of constitutional rights under said holding.

But, is there a genuine consent to agree?  I have written several commentaries about the lack of a genuine consent to agree as a result of misrepresentation, fraud, half-truths and hidden factors not fully disclosed to homebuyers.[vii]  Certainly not according to contract law 101 with its requirements for full disclosure, a meeting of the minds, and absence of fraud.

Unfortunately, once again, HOA declarations and covenants are seen as a law unto themselves that is based on a cutting and pasting of various laws, including constitutionality law, to provide for the protection and survival of HOAs.  We have pro-HOA statutes in every state and a Restatement of Servitudes[viii] (covenants) that was written to promote and protect HOAs. “Therefore this Restatement is enabling toward private government, so long as there is full disclosure”[ix] (my emphasis).

The Restatement advises judges — and is regarded as precedent — that its collection of laws known as HOA law dominates all others.   Section 6.13, comment a, states: “The question whether a servitude unreasonably burdens a fundamental constitutional right is determined as a matter of property law, and not constitutional law”. Section 3.1, comment h, states: “in the event of a conflict between servitudes law and the law applicable to the association form, servitudes law should control.”

And we have CAI, the national HOA lobbying organization, repeatedly making it clear that the HOA is a city-state, an independent principality, and the decisions of the HOA are the supreme law of the community.[x]  It is easily concluded why CAI has vehemently denied and opposed any reference or declaration that HOAs are de facto governments — mini or quasi-governments — and argue that HOAs remain free from constitutional restrictions on government entities.

HOAs have been institutionalized under this state of affairs, this public policy, and unquestionably accepted as this is the way it is.  Nothing will improve the conditions to which HOA residents are subject unless HOA public policy changes. Public policy today rejects constitutional government for HOAs and allows HOAs to operate outside the law of the land.

The policy makers fail to understand that the terms and conditions of the HOA CC&Rs cross over the line between purely property restrictions to establishing unregulated and authoritarian private governments.

 

References

[i] Evan McKenzie, Privatopia: Homeowners Associations and the Rise of Residential Private Governments, Yale Univ. Press, 1994.

[ii] Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946). The holding was that a company town was no different from a municipal town.

[iii] Shelly v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948).

[iv] Brock v. Watergate Mobile Home, 502 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 4th Dist. App. 1987). This case was a civil rights violations case based on 42 US 1983 as a result of various acts by the HOA.

[v] Brown v. Terravita, 1 CA-CV 14-455. See Will Arizona allow HOA covenants to dominate state laws? and  Does the Constitution support the will of the HOA no matter what?

[vi] Midlake  v. Cappuccio, 673 A.2d 340 (Pa.Super. 1996) (PA appellate court). .

[vii] See “Consent to be governed, No. 4,” HOA Common Sense: rejecting private government;  Proposed “consent to be governed” statute, the “Truth in HOAs” bill; and court examines consent and surrender of rights in HOA CC&Rs.

[viii] Restatement Third, Property: Servitudes (American Law Institute 2000).

[ix] Id., From the Forward: “Professor Susan French [Reporter (chief editor/contributor) for this Restatement] begins with the assumption . . . that we are willing to pay for private government because we believe it is more efficient than [public] government  . . . . Therefore this Restatement is enabling toward private government, so long as there is full disclosure . . . .”

[x] See CAI: the HOA form of government is independent of the US Constitution;  Misrepresentation: CAI comes with unclean hands and Will the real CAI standup: its contradictory beliefs, pronouncements and goals.

Sun City HOA: a real independent principality

Sun City, AZ. a renowned retirement community, is an unincorporated town under the governance of the Sun City HOA (SCHOA).  It does not qualify as a planned community or as an HOA under the state’s statutes. SCHOA is a private nonprofit corporation — no mayor & no town council, governs it.  A sort of a throw back to the times when the sovereign, the king, issued charters or grants of authority to private organizations to conduct business or to govern new lands.

In modern times, does the nonprofit corporation charter by the state, the new “sovereign” of a republic, truly grant a nonprofit corporation the right to function as the legitimate government of a sub-division of the state?  This could not possibly the intent of the corporation statutes since the state abounds with municipal corporation statutes — cities, towns, special districts, etc. — and with methods and procedures for incorporating new towns and cities.  The appeal of direct democracy, local government control or “home rule” is understood, and agreeing to be governed by a business form of government under corporate laws could be viewed as a strong desire for independence from unwanted influences and intrusions.

Sun City is indeed such an independent government, not answerable under state municipality laws or the Constitution, as it is not subject to the planned communities statutes. Sun City is just subject to the broader corporation statutes that were in no way written to establish a democratic form of political government.  This sort of independent principality status has more in common with a tribal society where the inhabitants of the village are loyal first and foremost to their tribe and village, and to the leaders of the tribe, than to their state or country.

This tribalism reveals itself as the Sun City HOA does not require mandatory assessments, yet each deed requires that the owner make mandatory payments to another nonprofit, the Recreational Centers of Sun City (RCSC).  And in order for RCSC to qualify for common area real estate tax treatment, all owners “must be obligated to pay mandatory assessments to maintain and manage the common areas.”    Consequently, to accomplish this reduced tax basis without having to be subject to state planned community laws, a separate agreement is required to be signed by the owner agreeing to pay, not the HOA, but RSCS dues.  This is extraordinary, since the deed itself could simply require mandatory payments to a bona fide HOA that would own and manage the common areas, as is the case with a genuine HOA.

The strong desire to independent of state laws, yet to use them as above, required an amendment to the common area valuation statutes, ARS 42-13402 et seq., adding the “must be” clause above in 2000 (Ariz. Sess. L. Ch 196; HB1251).  What could have possibly been the intent of this statute other than to bestow a gift upon Sun City, an unincorporated community, tax benefits amounting to an estimated $113,000 per year, or $1,130,000 over the past 10 years?

Today, the residents of this independent “principality” are coming once again before the legislature, with the SCHOA attorney (a member of the national pro-HOA lobbying group, CAI), to deny the state its legitimate right to regulate and control the public streets within Sun City (HB 2153).  Suddenly, parking has become a safety issue in spite of the fact that, from the very beginning, the county planning board approved these alleged unsafe streets, and legal mechanisms are available to SCHOA to obtain variances on a case-by-case basis.

Don’t buy it!  Sun City is demanding complete freedom from the state with no interference into the “internal affairs” of their principality.  State cooperation, provided it is consistent with the aims and goals of Sun City, however, is acceptable and welcomed.

Goldwater Institute: separate and unequal constitutions for HOAs

In reply to my Arizona Capitol Times Commentary of December 12th, Constitutional Center Director Nick Dranias believes HOAs are bona fide consensual relationships and regulating homeowners associations would “stand the Constitution on its head.”  (See Goldwater Institute: regulating HOAs “stands Constitution on its head”).

In the late 1950s the Southern states enacted a Poll Tax and instituted certain “tests” in order for citizens to be eligible to register to vote.  No federal or state laws were violated, since the states were permitted to determine the methods for registering citizens, so long as it was not based on race (15th Amendment).  Of course, the tax was set at a level very few Blacks could afford to pay, and among the test questions were such gems as (LBJ: Master of the Senate, Robert A. Caro, p. x, 2002).
Name all of Alabama’s 67 county judges.
What was the date that Oklahoma was admitted to the Union?
How many bubbles in  bar of soap?
While legal, these state laws were intended to keep Blacks from voting, and were plainly an unjust and unfair vehicle to support the will of the local power groups.  Today, we can ask about the intentions and use of privately developed HOA restrictive covenants, and the arguments by the legal-academic aristocrats promoting the supremacy of servitude laws over constitutional law:
Can private, contractual governments be used to  circumvent Constitutional protections?  If so, then what becomes of the Constitution?  Can the people opt-out of the Union?  President Lincoln didn’t think so, and Americans paid dearly to make that point.
The Goldwater Institute’s continued dialog on HOAs and the Constitution reflects the view of HOAs as independent principalities existing outside the Constitution, and thus establishing a new order for Americans, a New America of HOA-lands.

The HOA Principality

A few years ago I made the comparison that HOAs were a modern version of the independent city-states of ancient Greece and medieval times. I was wrong. I was wrong because these city-states had no higher-level government, no king or emperor, to whom they were answerable. That’s why they were independent city-states.

The more accurate comparison would be to principalities that exist in small numbers today in Europe; such as, the Principality of Monaco. They exist within the boundaries of a larger political body, the country or nation, and are essentially self-governing with their own laws. They are governed by an almost absolute ruler, the Prince. They are protected, a “protectorate” you might say, by their surrounding nations and exist by this “higher” government choosing to honor the principality in accordance with its laws.

Today, in the United States of America, the federal and state political bodies have issued “charters” to private individuals, granting them the status equivalent to a principality, much as the kings and emperors of the 16th – 18th centuries handed out charters to loyal followers. These modern charters are known as homeowners associations and are issued without requiring a republican form of government or subjecting all of its citizen-members to the privileges and immunities that apply to all citizens of the US.

If you follow the arguments of the longtime promoter of HOAs, the Community Associations Institute, CAI, you will find that its justification for this state of affairs and private government does not address the US or state constitutions, but the lesser laws of the land, the real estate common laws of servitudes. These opposing views is quite apparent when you follow the arguments by the Frank Askin of the Rutgers Constitutional Law Clinic and CAI in the Twin Rivers New Jersey case on HOA constitutionality questions.

I am not arguing against the right for communities to set their own special ordinances and special taxes for community amenities, but for the guarantees of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to all people. If we are to remain true to that contract between the federal and state governments, embodied in their respective constitutions, then the era of the HOA principality must come to a swift and decisive end.

See CAI’s Amicus Brief