Tag: justice

AZ CAI attempts to unduly influence the courts

In Arizona’s Thompson v. Albertson,[1] the Arizona Supreme Court ruling in Kalway[2] was put to the test and challenged by CAI in its amicus brief.  Kalway held that

“The general-amendment-power provision and general-purpose statement were not sufficient to provide notice of future amendments. We interpret such restrictions to reflect the reasonable expectations of the affected homeowners.  We hold that a general-amendment-power provision may be used to amend only those restrictions for which the HOA’s original declaration has provided sufficient notice.”

The appellate Court addressed CAI’s 42-page amicus brief, which the court does not usually perform but special attention was warranted.  In short, CAI sought the appellate court to modify the AZ Supreme Court’s ruling that the case was a memorandum and not mandatory precedent. And as such, it did not consider its decision as mandatory precedent.  Therefore, the ruling applied only to the case at hand.

Not the first time CAI attempted to influence the Court. In 2011 CAI AZ had tried 3 times to have the court’s decision that OAH adjudication of HOA disputes was unconstitutional. I had filed as pro se amicus that was accepted and resulted, as I firmly believe, resulted in changing the appellate court decision as an opinion to a memorandum without precedent standing.

“The [AZ Supreme] Court in addition to its regular fashion of terse announcements, DENIED or ACCEPTED, added an order under its powers to do so, AZ Supreme Court Rule 111(g), that the Gelb decision was not to be published. Not being published means that it is not binding authority, or precedent. It seems then that the door is open and res judicata – already decided – doesn’t apply.”[3]

[In Thompson] Discussion, Section IV. The Amicus Curiae Brief

“¶31 Community Associations Institute (‘CAI’) filed an amicus curiae brief requesting ‘clarification’ and possible ‘limitation’ of Kalway. Whether Kalway should be clarified or limited is a question for our supreme court. . . .  (‘The lower courts are bound by our decisions, and this Court alone is responsible for modifying that precedent.’). We therefore decline CAI’s invitation to reach beyond the specific facts of this case to provide ‘direction and guidance.’”

Simply said, the appellate court rejected CAI’s attempt to overrule the AZ Supreme Court.

####

Thompson v. Albertson, No. CA-CV 23-0082 (Ariz. App. Div 10 10-24-2023

AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS INSTITUTE (CAI) (FILED WITH THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE PARTIES)

Mark Lines – #020553

SHAW & LINES, LLC

Counsel for Community Associations Institute

First, CAI continues to misrepresent itself and claim it’s “serving more than 74 million homeowners . . . CAI is representing not only itself, but also its tens of thousands of members on this important issue.” CAI fails to inform the Court of that the homeowner “volunteers” constitute an estimated 32% of its membership and have an estimated meager 14% representation in its governing board of trustees.[4]

CAI membership, at most, consists of a miniscule .05% (.00048).

Of the 33,000 CAI members, a minority of some 10,800 are ‘volunteers’ and not attorneys or managers.

‘Volunteers’ (CAVL) represent a miniscule .016% (.00016) of HOA members.

Second, the CAI argument. The AZ Supreme Court decision in Kalway[5] made reference to the vague term, “reasonable expectations” when considering the validity of HOA amendments. (The supreme court realized that the common procedural covenant that any amendment passed by the necessary vote was valid regardless of its impact on the members).

What the original declarant might have intended, and what owners first reasonably expected of the eventual use and improvement of those lots must be considered in the context of time, and reasonableness should be measured by the collective voice, exercising their contractual right to lawfully amend their covenants.

“Indeed, a “covenant can be amended to refine it, correct an error, fill in a gap, or change it in a particular way.” Kalway,  . . . That’s the power and right of the owners collectively, through a majority vote, if the dictates of time demand it.”

CAI had argued against the reasonable expectations test as being too vague when all was clear and precise in the existing amendment procedures.  The Court rejected the amicus brief because  CAI had the audacity and the arrogance to ask the appellate court to overrule a supreme court decision.  Unreal!

There cannot be change without change

As long as advocates remain silent and fail to criticize CAI’s misrepresentations —
“candor to the tribunal” ethical code violations —  before the court, the legislature, and the media CAI will remain the voice of HOA-Land.

“To succeed you must accept the world as it is  and rise above it.”

[1] Thompson v. Albertson, No. CA-CV 23-0082 (Ariz. App. Div 1)  10-24-2023.

[2] Kalway v. Calabria Ranch HOA, LLC, 252 Ariz. 532.

[3] (See AZ Supreme Court denied hearing the Gelb Petition to restore ALJ adjudication of HOA disputes).

[4] See “Why CAI is the Evil Empire.

[5] Supra n. 2.

Do we need a private, parallel government? Why?

The answer to the title question is a resounding, NO!  Here are the reasons why not. In essence, all those state HOA/Condo Acts and statutes establish and permit a parallel system of local government— that regulates and controls the residents within its borders —  to function outside the Constitution.

First, it’s time for state legislatures and the judicial system to acknowledge their   willful blindness[1] that the HOA legal scheme, with its insistence and reliance on  equitable servitudes, that “the HOA CC&Rs have crossed over the line between purely property restrictions to establishing unregulated and authoritarian private governments.”  

Professor Evan McKenzie said it quite clearly some 29 years ago in his 1994 book, Privatopia, “”CIDS [HOAs] currently engage in many activities that would be prohibited  if they were viewed  by the courts as the equivalent of local governments.”[2] It remains true today!

Second, Why are there private HOA governments when there is home rule, charter governments?[3] All the states have a version of home rule that varies in the degree of independence granted to a local governments and under what terms. Under the Home Rule doctrine local communities are permitted a large degree of independence even to the extent that state legislative action is not necessary. What is Home Rule? In simple terms, it is a grant of authority and power — of independence — from the legislature to local communities.

There are no legitimate reasons why HOA governed communities cannot exercise effective and productive self-government while  being subject to constitutional law under home rule statutes.

Third, Just what are the valid reasons for sporting and encouraging private government by the state?  Answer: there’s no legitimate and valid reason for private, local government to exist outside the constitutional framework.  Home rule doctrine existed long before the advent of the HOA legal structure in 1964. That is not to say that it would have solved all problems and be a perfect government, but it would be a government under the Constitution, part of the Union,  like all other forms of local government.  

The constitutionality of statutes is subject to the doctrine of judicial review and scrutiny.[4] I have yet to see any valid government justification in support of the HOA legal scheme that deprives citizens of their constitutional and fundamental rights, which requires meeting the strict scrutiny test. Under strict scrutiny, “the government must prove that the challenged law is both narrowly tailored and the least-restrictive means available to further a compelling governmental interest.”

To argue, as have the states and pro-HOA supporters, that state and local government have an interest in reduced expenditures and the establishment of desirable community living does not carry weight. There are valid arguments that the HOA legal scheme denies fundamental and constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment,[5] which requires the application of strict scrutiny.  It has not been tested!

It is no wonder that state legislatures, CAI, and pro-HOA supporters avoid the issues of HOAs as de facto governments, and questions of judicial review.

The 64-dollar question is: Why do HOAs continue to exist and grow? Could it be, like drugs, there is widespread demand? Or is it because of the collaboration — as a group functioning as a monopoly[6] —   of CAI, the builders/developers, real estate agents, etc. to restrict housing solely subject to private governments? Is housing in HOA-Land equal to public, free-market housing?

Adopting the US Supreme Court’s decision in Brown,[7] “’separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” Separate HOA/condo housing under private governments is inherently unequal and a violation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

The answer will be more discussed in more detail in a subsequent commentary.

NOTES

[1] Willful blindness is a legal concept that describes the state of deliberately ignoring or avoiding facts that would make them liable for a wrongful act. 

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

[3] See America’s homeland: HOA law vs. Home rule law.

[4] See Judicial Scrutiny standards judge claims of constitutionality

[5] In general, see Desert Mountain opinion (AZ) constitutionality – part 2,  and Law review on CC&Rs constitutionality – part 1.

[6] A monopoly can be “a company or group having exclusive control over a commodity or service: ‘areas where cable companies operate as monopolies.’”

[7] Brown v. Bd of Education,  347 U.S. 483 (1954).

Advocate files AZ supreme court amicus brief fighting unjust laws

We must make the injustice visible.

We must provoke until they respond and change the laws.

(Mahatma Gandhi)

An AZ supreme court amicus brief was filed by Jonathan Dessaules on behalf of the Arizona Homeowners Coalition in CAO v. Dorsey (CA-CV 21-0275) (Waiting for the Court’s decision).  Dessaules argues that the statute in question, ARS 33-1228, conflicts with the Arizona Constitution, Article 2, Section 17, and “a statute cannot circumvent or modify constitutional requirements”.

The intricate legality and constitutionality of private entities—the HOA — taking of another party’s property rights – a homeowners — is discussed in detail.  I frequently quote the brief to ensure accuracy in my review.

ARS 33-1228 “allows condominium associations to force the sale of a nonconsenting owner’s property for someone else’s private use” and is the justification for investors to shut down the HOA. However, “When a state statute conflicts with Arizona’s Constitution, the constitution must prevail.” Furthermore, it is argued that “The legislature may not enact a statute which is in conflict with a provision of the Arizona Constitution.” Consequently, the Legislature lacked the authority to enact 33-1228.

(Stay with it!) The brief goes on to say that ARS 12-1131 provides that “eminent domain may be exercised only if the use of eminent domain is authorized by this state, whether by statute or otherwise, and for a public use as defined in this article.” Public use does not allow for “forcing the sale of a holdout owner’s property to be used by the investor who owners a majority of the other units within the condominium.”

The HOA, Dorsey, counterclaimed that it wasn’t a sovereign and § 1231 doesn’t apply to private organizations, ignoring § 12-1111 that permits individuals the right of eminent domain takings. Consequently, again, it is argued that 12-1228 is invalid.

An additional powerful argument is raised that the Declaration is an adhesion contract. “A declaration is generally a ‘standardized form offered to consumers on essentially a take it or leave it basis.’” And to my long awaited legality, the brief states that “Without the contract even being presented to the purchaser for their signature,” the contract is imposed on the buyer.

Again, we see the  doctrine of “reasonable expectations” as applied to adhesion contracts. “Contracts of adhesion will not be enforced unless they are conscionable and within the reasonable expectations of the parties.” Dessaules maintains that including unconstitutional  statutes in the Condo Act is “substantively unconscionable.” Furthermore, as I have argued many times, “a waiver of a constitutional right is not within reasonable expectations of the parties.”

This is a solid amicus brief by an advocate fighting for HOA reforms to protect members’ rights and privileges.  It does not pretend to accept unjust laws.

* * * *

I would like to thank Dennis Legere, Arizona Homeowners Coalition,  for hiring attorney Jonathan Dessaules to file this important, to the point, excellent amicus brief.

Contempt of court HOA legislation

Most current HOA reform laws inexcusably assume  that the HOA and its attorney will act in good faith; common homeowner complaints across the states have proven this to be grossly false.

It seems that meaningful HOA enforcement can be attained by filing contempt of court complaints. A “contempt” is disobedience to a court order in which the homeowner can seek jail time and personal financial penalties for the contempt. VERY POWERFUL!   

“A judge may impose sanctions such as a fine, jail or social service for someone found guilty of contempt of court, which makes contempt of court a process crime. Judges in common law systems usually have more extensive power to declare someone in contempt than judges in civil law systems.” (Wikipedia).

Disclaimer; I am not a lawyer and I am not giving legal advice or opinion. Please consult your attorney. Your state certified paralegal may be able to assist you in filing the contempt motion.

Here’s how the legal system works for HOA-Land.  The board as a whole, or president, or individual directors violate the governing documents or state laws. They refuse to correct the violations so you must sue to force compliance.  When you win in court it issues an order or an injunction to perform, etc. to the wrongdoers.  The court says in effect, I’m done.  Continued violations occur; what can the homeowner do?

The homeowner can file a contempt of court motion with the same court specifying the failure to obey the court and want you want the court to do. You can seek court punishment of the violators through financial penalties and/or jail time. The original complaint must be against the HOA individuals in order  for the contempt to be feared.

Check with your attorney or get the state/county specified contempt motion form;  follow the procedure and complete the motion.

Let’s give the Board something to fear. File those contempt motions!  No one can solve your HOA problem unless you act as required. You must act or continue to live at the suffrage of the board , or move out.

Below are examples.

To file a contempt of court, you need to1234:

Beware settlement agreements and gag orders

In reality, Life does not go according to Hoyle.

We are all quite aware that many lawsuits are settled with a gag order attached, especially when CAI is involved (not in this lawsuit).  To my surprise and disbelief, in Arizona, a gag order is not material to an agreement between to parties in a lawsuit.

A recent Arizona appellate decision involved a court ordered settlement conference in which the parties verbally agreed to the terms of the settlement and a written agreement was prepared to be submitted to the court. The homeowners removed the HOA’s version with respect to a gag order, informing the HOA they did not agree to the gag order. The court was informed that the digital recording of the settlement conference was not available for an unknown reason, whereupon the court then ordered litigation and a hearing as to the settlement agreement.  H’mmmm!

The trial court held that the HOA’s version was valid, which not surprisingly was appealed. Following Arizona’s precedent, the court would support the trial court’s ruling “if the trial court’s disposition is correct for any reason.” It seems that the judicial system back’s its own kind – judges make no mistakes. The justification for upholding the HOA’s version was found in Rule 80(a) of the rules of civil procedure.  

First, the fact that the parties agreed to put the agreement in writing doesn’t count if there is an agreement.  Second,

The law “favors enforcement when it is clear that the parties intended themselves to be bound,” and “absent or uncertain terms are not fatal to the enforceability of an otherwise binding contract.

In other words, picky, picky no matter what impact it has on the parties. How can the court hold that an agreement was reached when there are 2 versions and only one party signed? Yes, the judicial system has its flaws!  BEWARE! 

Source: Robertson v. Sierra Pines, CA-CV 23-0069 (ARIZ. App. Div1 (9-14-2023).