Tag: just laws

No unreasonable HOA expectations

A healthy democratic society cannot be said to exist without  a representative government making fair and just laws. A practical, real-life approach gave rise to the legal concept of reasonableness in an attempt to classify and designate conduct underlying a fair and just administration of the law. The reasonableness doctrine has finally come to HOA disputes in regard to reasonable expectations.

CAI has opposed the doctrine of reasonable expectations as too vague, too iffy, and disrupts the order and structure of the HOA “community.” In its amicus brief CAI argued that “reasonableness should be measured by the collective voice, exercising their contractual right to lawfully amend their covenants.”

The full commentary is a lengthy legal exposition examining 3 Arizona cases on the application of a homeowners’ reasonable expectation at time of purchase. Read it here: Reasonableness public policy. “reasonableness should be measured by the collective voice, exercising their contractual right to lawfully amend their covenants

HOA willful blindness

An interesting aspect of the law came to my attention unexpectedly arising from the Trump lawsuits: willful blindness. This post takes a broader view of the HOA-Land legalities.

“Willful blindness, also known as conscious avoidance, is a judicially-made doctrine that expands the definition of knowledge to include closing one’s eyes to the high probability a fact exists.” ( The Supreme Court’s Willful Blindness Doctrine Opens the Door to More Wrongful Criminal Convictions | The Heritage Foundation).

The mens rea fundamental principle to uphold a wrongful act  required actual knowledge of  the wrongdoing by the accused, and can be found quite commonly in the statutes. So, evidence of actual knowledge had to be proven. This principle, although it had good intentions, failed to address the question of the accused lying, “I didn’t know I violated the law.  Honestly!”

But what if the evidence clearly shows that it had to be obvious to any reasonable person that the law was being broken?  What then? In the name of justice, the courts accepted the willful blindness doctrine. “C’mon, everybody knows that the act was a violation of the law” and cannot be denied by claiming dumb ignorance.

“the prosecution must show that the defendant was aware of a high probability of the fact in question but deliberately avoided confirming it. The prosecution must prove that the defendant was subjectively aware of the risk involved and that he or she consciously avoided learning about it.” (Willful Blindness Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.).

HOA willful blindness affirmative defense

I am sure most readers are aware of alleged lies made by the HOA, its managers, and directors, including its lawyers that come as a surprise to the average owner. “They’re lying, they’re lying,” the homeowner shouts to no avail. What to do? Take charge now that you are informed about the law, and even educate your attorney likewise, to raise an affirmative defense.  You charge the HOA with willful blindness as its obvious it violated the law by knowingly turning a blind eye to its actions.  Example, not reading the obvious applicable governing documents or state laws on the issue at hand.

“An affirmative defense is a defense in which the defendant introduces evidence, which, if found to be credible, will negate criminal liability or civil liability, even if it is proven that the defendant committed the alleged acts. The party raising the affirmative defense has the burden of proof on establishing that it applies.” (affirmative defense | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)).

Please take note on how powerful this doctrine is in holding the board of directors and managers to the wire when acting outside the law. It will put stop to their outright falsehoods and lies, and hold then to knowing the law and governing documents. It will require their attorneys to make the law and governing documents clear to the board.

What makes for a good HOA member attorney??

First, what indeed does a lawyer  do?   There are family, corporate, injury, property, constitutional, etc. lawyers with  specialty in that  particular area. Of course, we see lawyers  saying they can represent you in many areas.  Ahem! Second, there is the level of expertise and competence in their chosen field. 

Now a homeowner needs to find a litigation attorney with expertise in the courts and lawsuits. You need a litigation attorney when dealing with a  rogue board that ignores the law and governing documents. (Please don’t be afraid to call it like it is).  Sitting down in a delusional kumbaya scenario is laughable to a rogue board (not aloud of course).  But going to court introduces another important element that has a direct bearing on the judge’s decision:  the specifics of the relevant HOA, contract, and property laws and precedent — decisions in prior related cases. And don’t forget the governing documents.

And guess who has the most credibility, as they frequently remind everyone, but good ol’ CAI.  And the local CAI attorney has the benefit of CAI Central’s collection, distribution, and advice on HOA related cases across the country.  So, which way will the judge lean when no one offers opposing arguments?  Towards the experts in HOA-Land law or towards the stumbling local run of the mill attorney?  Don’t miss understand me, I’ve witnessed some damn good, highly paid attorneys fall by the wayside.

Therefore, what must be done to achieve a balance and justice for you, the homeowner under the gun? Obviously, the attorneys must be educated, and those already educated and knowledgeable must speak out.  Where does it begin??  In the law schools across the country that have played their part by errors of omission  in failing to educate budding lawyers going forth in ignorance of HOA injustices.  

Homeowner price for justice and enforcement

Stan Hrincevich, President of the Coloradohoaforum.com, wrote a YourHub, Denver Post opinion on May 4th, HOA homeowner’s rights and voting rights of yesteryear.  Stan severely criticizes HOA justice for homeowners and the inequality of the financial costs to obtain justice.

“You have the right to vote but now you have to pay a poll tax and can’t afford to vote. . . . However, this seemingly fair mode of governance ensuring the rights of the homeowner and HOA is as much an illusion as ensuring voting rights in the late 1800s accompanied by the poll tax. HOA justice for homeowners is a pay-to-play enforcement system. If one has deep financial pockets, time, and legal resources, one can pursue one’s rights under their HOA governing documents. Others without such resources cannot.”

He recommends non-judicial hearings which, I assume, would include stronger enforcement of the decisions and the law than currently today in Colorado and in every other state. Implied is a reduced cost to homeowners  – the removal of the present day poll tax. 

I’ve also argued that the current status of HOA justice has the same effect as if it were a poll tax (made unlawful by LBJ in 1964)[1]. But the real obstacle to homeowner justice is the lack of state enforcement of HOA board violations of the law and the governing documents.  The vast majority of the reform laws rely on the good will of the HOA board and its attorneys to act in good faith with the intent of the law.  However, the conduct and acts of the HOAs and their attorneys has demonstrated that this reliance is unfounded. They should be held accountable as if they were municipal government employees.

“If there is no penalty [for] disobedience, the resolutions or commands which pretend to be laws will, in fact, amount to nothing more than advice or recommendation.”    (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #15)

“Your HOA board (BOD) is unaccountable under state laws with trivial, if any, penalties, or punishments for violations of state laws or the governing documents?  Without meaningful enforcement to hold BODs accountable and to serve as a detriment to continued violations, you are forced to sue just to get compliance.”[2]

I strongly agree with Stan, reform can only come from the legislature enacting just laws and removing pro-HOA laws.

Notes.

  1. Poll Tax postings on HOA Constitutional Government. To say that a homeowner can go to court for a redress of grievances would be like saying that there was nothing wrong with the 1950s Poll Tax abomination, used as an effective, legal at the time, devise to stop voter registrations. (April 2010 Letter to NC House Select HOA Committee); 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 (Dec. 2008, Goldwater Institute: separate and unequal constitutions for HOAs);  Civil action amounts to a bar against justice much as the imposition of poll tax in the South in the 1950s used to prevent blacks from registering to vote. Justice for the average homeowner cannot be had a price which he cannot afford while the association is allowed to use member dues to hire a lawyer (June 2006, Where’s California’s Homeowners Bill of Rights?

2.      See HOA-Land Nation “Did you know?” Part 2 (2019).

CA bill AB 1410 –  a step backwards for HOA homeowner rights

In 2018, California Civil Code §4515 was a major step in restoring fundamental protections for free speech by members with respect to HOA governing issues.

“(a) It is the intent of the Legislature to ensure that members and residents of common interest developments have the ability to exercise their rights under law to peacefully assemble and freely communicate with one another and with others with respect to common interest development living or for social, political, or educational purposes.”

AND JUSTICE FOR ALL

Now, AB 1410 seeks to restrict these rights under the guise, it seems, that the HOA website is private and therefore it can adopt restrictive rules legally. In a typical “what you see is not what you get” maneuver, the bill would grant the HOA the power to moderate message content in strict opposition to legal holdings — that content based free speech is protected and any editing must be unbiased.

The bill sections start with §4515,

“(b)  The governing documents, including bylaws and operating line 4 rules, shall not prohibit a member or resident of a common interest line 5 development from doing any of the following:”

But watch out, what is granted is now removed under (b)(6) subparagraphs (B) and (C), and especially (D). In a “flip-flop,” designed in my view to confuse the average homeowner, it then informs the homeowner that he is still protected because the HOA must follow the rules it is attempting to circumvent. (pp. 93-94).

What’s the point? To make  it difficult for homeowners to understand the legislation and their rights all well knowing that those in power will only cite the pro-HOA points and omit the pro-homeowner protections.

GOTCHA AGAIN! Don’t fall for it!

This attempt by Rep. Rodriquez feels like an anti-slapp move if it were in the courts — an action to stifle free speech. Marjorie Murray presents 2 instances of where an anti-slapp motion can and should be used against the HOA. Contact Murray (info@calhomelaw.org) for more information.

Center for California HOA Law opposes the bill and urges Californians to contact their representatives and Judiciary Chair by phone. The committee will hear this bill this week.