Tag: justice

Courts finally realizing the gross injustice of HOA foreclosures

The gross injustice of HOA foreclosures is slowly being realized by the courts. In Brooks, the Tennessee appellate court heard an appeal on a non-judicial foreclosure whereby the HOA sold, and bought, a “free and clear” home valued in excess of $321,740 for just $12,828, of which about half, $6,734, were attorney fees.

That’s more than 25 times the “damages” to the HOA, and more than the 10 times limit set by the US Supreme Court for punitive damages. See State Farm v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003). And, the Rivertown HOA failed to acknowledge that the homeowner had paid part of this amount before the foreclosure.

The court held, emphasis added,

In addition to finding that the foreclosure sale price shocked the conscience of the court, the trial court determined that various irregularities in Rivertown’s bookkeeping justified setting aside the sale. In its January 27 order, the trial court found that it was “unclear as to what amount would have brought Plaintiff to a zero balance on assessments[.]”

Brooks v. Rivertown on Island, No. W2011-003260COA-R3-CV (Tenn. App., Dec. 6, 2011).

“and justice for all” not available by HOA due process clause

The Dec. 1, 2011 Condo Issues.com blog by Tyler Berding has, as it title, the long hoped for condition sought by homeowners: “And Justice for All.”  Except the author, Steve Weil, fails to make the case that such is the condition in HOAs with their disgraceful, commonly found  due process clause: “after notice and an opportunity to be heard.” Period. Citing almost identical California law only supports the legislature’s pro-HOA authoritarian regime and its denial of fundamental protections of individual rights and liberties. Apparently he never saw the 1979 Al Pacino movie by the same title.

Weil goes on to make his “expert” legal view by citing the Aliusi v Fort Washington Golf Club case, which is not a private government HOA dispute. He speaks of 1) revealing the name of the accuser, 2) the submission of evidence, and 3) makes a good point on the details required by a proper notice, or “indictment,” of wrong-doing. He buries the principles of “and justice for all” in his discussion of issues 1 and 2 above, but, reading between the lines, agrees with the right to confront witnesses and to see and challenge the evidence. Weil concludes with, “the reason for “due process” is to give one who is the target of a hearing a fair chance to defend him/herself.”

However, he makes the pro-HOA assumption, an ipse dixit, that the board, the “jury”, is indeed interested in justice, for if it truly were, it would establish an independent tribunal for hearings. “Giving the owner this opportunity helps reveal the real and relevant facts and thus also aids the board’s decision-making process.”

Finally, the author well understands the moral and ethical aspect of legitimate government and laws. He ends with the need for homeowner acceptance of HOA justice with, “an owner who feels they were given a “fair shake” is much more likely to agree with the board’s disciplinary decision and comply with the governing documents.” It is a long established doctrine, going back to the Greek philosophers, that the legitimacy of government depends on fair and just laws, and the fair and just enforcement of these laws. It is well established that HOA private governments are unjust and authoritarian in structure with a façade of democracy — just because a member can vote does not make an entity a democracy.

There are no due process protections for homeowners in HOAs that would pass judicial scrutiny. Arguments that buyers agreed to be bound to the CC&Rs and bylaws is a mockery of the facts, as the selling process is ripe with misrepresentation — false statements, half-truths, and “no negatives.” See Truth in HOAs disclosure poll — please vote your conscience.

Call for HOA action: “Occupy Wall Street” vs. Occupy the Legislature

“Occupy Wall Street”! What a way to get attention! How about an “Occupy the Legislature” demonstration against unjust and unfair HOA foreclosures with their intimidation, threats, and cruel and unusual punishment? In every state — especially Florida, Nevada, Arizona, Texas and California.

The pro-HOA supporters’ reason for the need for foreclosure rights can be found in the defective HOA legal scheme that is similar to a partnership. In partnerships there are a limited number of financial supporters, the owners, who are jointly and severally responsible for all the HOA debts — those with the money pay for those without the money. A legality. And like a privately held small business, the financial base is relatively small and limited to the homeowners who have very little practical means to escape their obligations by leaving the HOA.

Those who feel that foreclosure is needed need to ask themselves, Does the means justify the end? An “I don’t care” response is unacceptable, and legitimizes the authoritarian HOA government. Foreclosure is a special law for a special group that violates state constitutions — the equal protection of the laws, special laws for private organizations, and “color of law” constitutional violations. No state has declared its intent or purpose for the statutes – they wouldn’t dare – that justifies a legitimate government interest that can withstand judicial review of the statute. And that review is a strict review that looks to a necessary and compelling reason to deprive citizens of their rights.

And remember, there is that huge cloud hanging over the genuine and freely given, after full knowledge of all the material facts, consent to the CC&Rs. CC&Rs, a real estate doctrine based on equitable servitudes and not constitutional law, do not legally require an explicit signature or explicit surrender or waiver of constitutional rights, or for a bona fide consent to be governed by the de facto HOA political government.

Homeowners must let go of their irrational fears that the HOA would be shut down. They must stop their blind adherence to the CAI chant of “no government intervention” that really is a belief that HOA governments, unaccountable to the Constitution and state governments, are far better than public government with its police powers to protect citizens from abuse by other citizens.

An Occupy the Legislature movement is a grass roots, ground level action. It must come from local homeowners organized under local leadership, behind a fixed purpose. And right now, “Stop HOA foreclosures” is a very appropriate mission.

See HOA foreclosures:  will the real CAI stand up

HOA foreclosures: will the real CAI stand up

In reading the Carpenter Hazlewood (CHDW) October 28, 2011 eNewsletter, Lien Foreclosure: Is it Still a Viable Option?, I asked myself : Did the CAI attorneys lack “candor toward the tribunal” (as required by attorney Professional Conduct Rule 42, ER 3.3, as can be found in all states) when opposing foreclosure reforms all these years? It seems that CAI presents more than one personality, more than one face, depending upon its audience. CHDW (and CAI firm Ekmark & Ekmark) had vehemently opposed foreclosure reforms as far back as 2004 when, in Arizona, HB2402 sought relief and justice for homeowners. Never once did the legislators hear what is now admitted to in this article by Ms. Patel.

The following excerpt from Who prosecutes on behalf of homeowners in HOAs? (2010) reveals the attitude of CAI lawyers in 2004. Through the questioning and testimony of Ms. Koepke (Ekmark & Ekmark) by the FMPR committee in February 2004 (based on the audiotape record of the committee hearing), we learn,

In her testimony Ms. Koepke had stated that she was an ethical person of integrity who foreclosed only as a last resort upon the instructions of her HOA clients. However, she had a problem with making use of alternative methods of collecting debts as are available to all lien holder in other arenas, and saw no moral issue with completely stripping the homeowner of all his equity for a few pieces of silver. Her justification was that they were “scofflaws” who needed to be punished to deter future untimely payments. In the complete audio, you will hear the committee Chair informing Ms. Koepke that such actions were “unconscionable.” I added a commentary as an addendum, which presented a few background cases and incidents in which Ms. Koepke was involved. This short commentary video can be found at Foreclosures.

A few important questions not answered by the CAI attorneys are: 1) Why should the HOA be allowed foreclosure rights when it has not advanced any real, hard cash like a bank or other lender? 2) Why aren’t alternative means of collection, as available to all other entities, not satisfactory? and 3) Why this special right for HOAs?

The current Patel article, addressed to HOA directors and managers not the legislators, shows another attitude toward HOA foreclosure.

Assuming foreclosure eligibility requirements are met, whether foreclosure is a viable option depends largely on what other liens, interests, and encumbrances burden the subject property. . . . If the property is not subject to a mortgage or there is a minimal first mortgage, foreclosure is a viable option as there is likely equity in the property. . . . Even if the property is subject to a recorded first mortgage and there is no equity in the property, foreclosure still may be a viable option. Sometimes the threat of foreclosure alone is enough to get a delinquent owner’s attention. . . . the owner will often pay the association in order to keep his/her home.

This is an admission of the discriminatory nature of the foreclosure process — works only if the homeowner was an upstanding citizen who had paid his mortgage and assessments for many years, and had created all that equity that the HOA now seeks. It is also an admission of the punitive and intimidation motives of the HOA — “the owner will often pay the association in order to keep his/her home” — without facing the reality that “you can’t get blood from a turnip”! What the foreclosure process does do, and is not mentioned by these CAI attorneys, is that the attorney can claim fees many times in excess of the amounts owed the HOA.. So, who really benefits? Is this good public policy?

Important questions for all homeowners:

1. What are the CAI attorneys telling your legislators today?

2. Are they being candid with the legislators, or are they pursuing their — the CAI, not the HOA – personal agendas?

3. What are you doing to make sure the legislators are being given the whole story?

 

For further reading . . .

Special Message to McCain and Obama on Homeowner Protections in HOAs

Right to Foreclose laws are supposedly good for HOAs, so why are fees increasing?

Do HOA foreclosures violate 14th Amendment?

Homes in HOAs are Lifetime Collateral for HOA Survival

AZ legislation needed to insure justice and to stop OAH abuse

Legislation to stop further HOA abuse at the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings is in order today. Signs of potential abuse are surfacing, and we must act ASAP to stop it immediately.

From the OAH website, “Pointers” link, here’s what OAH has to say in 2001 about pre-hearing conferences: THE PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE – IT WORKS (emphasis added).

Once a request for a hearing date is filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, the parties can expect a setting within a quick and short time, leaving a precious minimum of adequate time for pre-hearing discovery and preparation. A pre-hearing conference will help counsel and parties to get around these two obstacles. Both discovery and a reasonable timeline – which will insure better preparation for an effective hearing – can be obtained through a pre-hearing conference. Early settlement discussions can also be triggered. . . . One possible negative of an early request, however, is that the other side may not be fully prepared, but this exposes a situation that you may wish to know early.

The above reads much like the “quick and dirty” technique — my words — of a motion for summary judgment, legal as it may be. It contains contradictory assertions that justice will be served due to pre-hearing conferences, and that the “other side may not be fully prepared, ” which in our HOA context applies to the Pro Per homeowner.

It appears that the two Petitions invoking the pre-hearing conference, of the first 3 OAH Petitions, reflects a move to “get the case quickly closed.” Note that the pre-hearing conference must be requested, and we know by whom, or by the sua sponte by the ALJ, “on his own”. My recollection of the initial 2006 – 2009 phase recalls just a few pre-conference hearings. The 2001 belief, unsupported in the HOA adjudication environment where the homeowner does not use an attorney, states,

Once a pre-hearing conference has been held, the Administrative Law Judge and counsel will know each other better. Subsequent status or telephonic conferences are easier to have once everyone knows each other better. Therein lies a powerful but not always evident benefit of an early pre-hearing conference – positive rapport and trust can be established among the participants.

There is a legitimate concern of an abuse of process. The belief expressed above assumes that the HOA attorney is acting in good faith and not abusing the process. However, 2008 legislation, in particular HB 272 4 and SB 1162, challenged this assumption (sadly, they were defeated). See Arizona HOA cases update — OAH and HOA adjudication at OAH: a rebirth of constitutionality, abuse, and legislation. There is no reassurance that justice will be done by this procedure — this is NOT civil court, and to turn OAH into civil court only serves the HOA attorneys.

There is no mention of allowing the homeowner to revise his Petition or Response, or to extend the hearing date, or to allow more time for discovery by the homeowner. The important value of OAH adjudication is to level the litigation playing field in the interest of fair play and justice, and not to force the homeowner to hire an attorney to deal with the rules of civil procedure as used in the courts. And I have a further concern, because (emphasis added)

Under the rules of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the Administrative Law Judge is not required to memorialize the outcome of a pre-hearing conference (see OAH procedural rule 19-112). Therefore, the best practice is to request that the Administrative Law Judge issue a written pre-hearing order memorializing all directives and agreements.

This means no minutes and no audiotaping which served the interests of justice so well in the first go-around of OAH adjudication in the 2006 – 2009 period. These invaluable hearing audiotapes exposed the conduct and attitudes of the HOA and its attorneys, allowing the public to hear the nature of the HOA’s evidence and justifications for its actions. It is hard to reconcile their performance at OAH with their public statements implying a good faith, for the community, motive.

It appears that the HOA attorneys, like their HOA clients, do not want the public to know what really goes on in HOAs — hurts property values. Homeowners demand justice and fair play, and expect the Legislature to act accordingly and to protect them from abuse — helps property values.