Tag: justice

HOA adudication at OAH: a rebirth of constitutionality, abuse, and legislation

It seems that with the “rebirth” of Arizona administrative agency adjudication of HOA disputes in 2011, CAI and other the pro-HOA supporters want to stifle this due process protections that has leveled the litigation playing. Although not the answer to all issues, with its 42% win ratio favoring Pro Per homeowners, it is a very good start. In continued attempts to deny homeowners a fair and just hearing, the first OAH case in 2011 reveals a challenge to the constitutionality of the new statute, feeble as it may be. To better understand the issues at hand, let’s review the activity took place in two arenas in 2008: the courts and at the legislature.

1. Courts. After several prior years attempts to obtain a just hearing process in HOAs, a hard fought battle resulted in the passing of HB 2824 in 2006 that established OAH adjudication of HOA disputes. After a full year of complaints in 2007, 2008 started with several constitutional challenges to the new laws. Starting early in 2008 with Waugaman and the OAH appeal to the superior court, the new statute was found unconstitutional. At the close of the year the Merrit OAH case broadened the court ruling to apply to all HOAs. At the same time of Waugaman, Gelb filed an OAH Petition that resulted in an appellate court affirmation of the superior court ruling in 2010, making the ruling precedent.

2. Legislation. While the CAI attorneys attempted to end OAH adjudication, legislation was introduced in 2008 to stop the abuse of process at OAH, whereby the HOA attorneys were trying to make OAH just like a civil court proceeding with the formality of the rules of court. The two prominent bills, HB 2724 and SB 1162, were defeated, but they caused panic in CAI and with HOA attorneys. Among other things, these bills sought:

HB 2724

“notwithstanding any provision of the declaration, an amendment to the declaration is void and unenforceable against any unit owner who entered the association before the adoption of the amendment unless the amendment was approved by unanimous consent of all unit owners . . . .”

the association shall enforce that provision of the condominium documents against all other unit owners who can reasonably and readily be determined to be in violation. . . . the association bears the burden of proving that the association enforces that provision uniformly. . . . Any provision in the condominium documents that is not uniformly enforced pursuant to this section is deemed unenforceable for purposes of any pending enforcement action.

Except as expressly prescribed in this chapter, the requirements of this chapter including any rights conferred by this chapter shall not be modified by agreement or otherwise waived. A person shall not use any device to evade the limitations or PROHIBITIONS of this chapter.

SB 1162 (two separate issues presented)

A. Amendments. “An amendment to the condominium documents does not apply to any court or administrative action filed before the amendment is adopted.”

B. Attorney fees – penalties.

the administrative law judge shall not award attorney fees or costs and a court shall not award attorney fees or costs in any appeal from an administrative order unless the administrative law judge or court makes a finding that the attorney or party did any of the following:

1. Brought or defended a claim without substantial justification.

2. Brought or defended a claim solely or primarily for delay or harassment.

3. Unreasonably expanded or delayed the proceeding.

4. Engaged in abuse of discovery.

If the administrative law judge or court makes a finding pursuant to subsection C of this section, the administrative law judge or court may allocate the payment of attorney fees among the offending attorneys and parties . . . [This was designed to punish the abusers, the HOA attorney and HOA, as the homeowner was overwhelmingly a Pro Per.]

“without substantial justification” means that the claim or defense constitutes harassment, is groundless and is not made in good faith.

Please bear in mind that, “Good faith, a state of mind consisting in ((1) honesty in belief or purpose, (2) faithfulness to one’s duty or obligation . . . (4) absence of intent to defraud or to seek unconscionable advantage.” (Black’s Law Dictionary).

Are we seeing a second attempt at abuse of process in OAH adjudication? Today, the first Petition was challenged with a feeble constitutionality challenge. Of the first 3 Petitions filed, 2 resulted in the quick use of a civil court permitted Motion to Dismiss being filed with one Petition having already been dismissed. In the newest Petition, filed just last week, the HOA has not yet responded. As I have previously written, the other Petition appears to be proceeding with a pre-hearing conference, where I suspect a discussion of the Motion to Dismiss will occur. The OAH records are not clear. From the OAH stated purpose of pre-hearing conferences and topics for such a hearing (A.R.S. § 41-1092.05(F)), it seems the question of OAH jurisdiction will be raised a a legal matter – “Clarify or limit procedural, legal or factual issues.”


If this is indeed the case, using motions to dismiss to over-power the homeowner and to avoid any audiotape record of the hearing — an invaluable resource not readily available in trial court proceedings — I strongly urge that legislation be introduced as indicated above to put a stop to this abuse. Legislation to stop “ex post facto” amendments, which is a violation of Constitutional restrictions, must be proposed and sponsored in January.

If, on the other hand, the Petitions did not conform to the statutes for OAH adjudication, then all those looking to file a Petition must read the OAH letter from its Director addressing homeowners in HOA proceedings — Homeowner Petitions Against An Association. A must read for all.

Legal-academic aristocrat – advocate exchange on HOA bad faith conduct

I am responding to Mr. Berding’s undated blog entry, First Thing We Do, Let’s Ban All the Bloggers! , a no-name identification of the author of the blog, namely yours-truly. Why is Mr. Berding afraid of mentioning my name? After all, I’m not an attorney. He chose to copy my Commentary rather than to provide a link to my blog, with all those other commentaries.

Ok, it does appear that Mr. Berding is quite perturbed about my statements and quotes from a D & O insurance article that uses the phrases “bad faith,” “criminal intent,” and “fraudulent acts.” He’s upset that I emphasized these words in my Commentary (WordPress Blog). Yet, Berding misleads the readers of his own blog by referring to my Commentary as, “suppose this is a blog.”

Yes, the ugly truth does hurt, Mr. Berding, doesn’t it? And I suppose posting on those blogs, like yours, those CAI blogs, and the Adams Kessler blogs does make them right and important, but forget about those advocate written blogs. Spoken as a true legal-academic aristocrat making Philosopher-King (educated elite setting forth what is good government to the rulers) pronouncements.

Mr. Berding then invokes the legalistic argument of allegations and no proof, as if this were the time and place for legal confrontation. His attitude reminds me of the slogan commonly found on court buildings and other judicial buildings, “Equal Justice Under the Law.” This slogan contains a hidden premise, or assumption, that the law is just and fair. Suppose it isn’t, as advocates maintain? Then the slogan is reduced to a meaningless and empty statement. And those with power derived from these unjust laws just love to argue, “It’s the law! It’s the law! We have done nothing wrong!” And that’s were ethical and moral questions of good faith – honesty and integrity, or an honest intent to act without taking an unfair advantage over another person – come into play.

Our public policy permits the law to inflict financial damages, and the possible loss of all one’s equity in his home, for violating the CC&Rs, yet gives only a “ slap on the wrist” to violations by the HOA board. It permits “after an opportunity to be heard” to satisfy the due process requirement for hearings on violations, there being no explicit statement, as found in the public arena: “by an independent tribunal with the right to present evidence, demand proof and to confront witnesses.” It is absent from the CC&R contractual agreement. And where state legislatures maintain a hands-off posture, providing no oversight accountability or effective enforcement against board violations in a “see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil” banana republic posture. And justifies this pro-HOA support with, “Well, that’s what the homeowner agreed to. Now he’s just trying to get out of a contract.” What kind of society do HOAs create?

I’m sure he would be shocked, as were the editors at KPHO, the Phoenix CBS-TV affiliate, when they conducted a poll on the PTSD HOA Syndrome (click on image), and found out that 68% of the respondents agreed it existed. Or that an overwhelming 91% respondents in a Truth in HOAs Disclosure Poll said NO to signing an agreement to accept, beforehand, the conditions as set forth in the poll — misrepresentation, fraud, no meeting of the minds, etc. No, after all, his philosophy accepts the belief that “the king can do no wrong.”

As to his CAI remark, all he had to do is to attend these seminars and discover for himself the lack of homeowner protection material presented at these seminars. For example, important info for homeowners can be found in my latest Commentary (HOA boards cannot escape wrongful acts by their managers), information regarding the relationship between the HOA and the management firm. It is is an agency relationship that carries with it immense protections for the homeowner against both the management firm and the HOA board. It’s not on the agenda.

As to misleading and out-of-context statements about the D & O article, Mr. Berding misses my point, which is that the board can be sued and here are the grounds for suing. Also not found in an educational CAI, town sponsored seminar. He discredits my work as “emotional,” “lacking objectivity,” and that I “don’t contribute much that is useful to their chosen subject.” So sayeth the Philosopher-King, or is it the “weavers” from The Emperor’s New Clothes?

Come down from the clouds Mr. Berding, and see what is happening around you. I challenge you to answer the following 4 questions that were posed in March 2006 to Mr. Durso, then Editor of CAI’s Common Ground,

I ask the legislators, the public interest organizations and policy makers to consider the following questions:

1. Is it proper for the state to create, permit, encourage, support or defend a form of local government of a community of people, whether that form of government is established as a municipal corporation or as a private organization that is not compatible with our American system of government?

2. Is it proper for the state to permit the existence of private quasi-governments with contractual “constitutions” that regulate and control the behavior of citizens without the same due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment; that do not conform to the state’s municipal charter or incorporation requirements; or do not provide for the same compliance with the state’s Constitution, statutes or administrative code as required by public local government entities?

3. When did “whatever the people privately contract” dominate the protections of the US Constitution? The New Jersey Appeals Court didn’t think so. Does “constructive notice”, the “nailing to the wall”, the medieval method of notice, measure up to the requisite level of notice and informed consent to permit the loss of Constitutional protections?

4. Please state what, if any, are the government’s interests in supporting HOAs that deny the people their constitutional rights?

I await your reply, or a reply from any of the legal-academic aristocrats.

HOA boards cannot escape wrongful acts by their managers

Given the fact that the HOA manager and/or firm acts “in place” or “on behalf of” the board under a contractual relationship that explicitly identifies the manager as an “agent” or “management agent,” the HOA can be held liable for the acts of its manager. (See study of Arizona management contracts).

Under tort law (the common law of wrongful acts) of vicarious liability (the tort doctrine that imposes responsibility upon one person for the failure of another) and respondeat superior, the board cannot ignore, walk away or refuse to take corrective action action against the manager without incurring liabilities.

First, from the HOA’s obligations, under the officers and directors duties to act in good faith and as a prudent man, the board is obligated to act against its manager where state laws and the governing documents have been violated, or when the manager is clearly committing wrongful acts, like making false statements, harassing a homeowner, etc.

Second, let’s look at what the Restatement (3rd) of Agency (2006) has to say about the liabilities of the agent and principal (manager – board). (Of course, one would not expect to see this material covered in any government sponsored seminar, or manager licensing education, like at the Leadership Centre in Phoenix, which is supported by the towns of Chandler, Mesa, Gilbert, Queen Creek, Apache Junction). “Direct liability” refers to suing the party as such. The main points are summarized below:

¶ 7.01 An agent is subject to liability to a third party (homeowner) harmed by the agent’s tortious conduct.

¶ 7.03 (1) A principal is subject to direct liability to a third party harmed by an agent’s conduct when . . .

(a)(ii) the agent’s conduct, if that of the principal, would subject the principal to tort liability; or . . .
(b) the principal is negligent in selecting, supervising, or otherwise controlling the agent;
(2) A principal is subject to vicarious liability to a third party harmed by an agent’s conduct when . . . the agent commits a tort when acting with apparent authority in dealing with a third party on or purportedly on behalf of the principal.

¶ 7.05 (2) When a principal has a special relationship with another person [as the board with a homeowner], the principal owes that person a duty of reasonable care with regard to risks arising out of the relationship, including the risk that agents of the principal will harm the person with whom the principal has such a special relationship.

¶ 7.06 A principal required by contract or otherwise by law to protect another cannot avoid liability by delegating performance of the duty, whether or not the delegate is an agent.

AZ tenants have more AG protection than property owners in HOAs

The current AZ Attorney General, Tom  Horne, proudly displays and offers a 48 page handbook for tenants, basically covering the Landlord and Tenant Act, ARS 33-1301 et seq. It contains 2 full pages of where to get help, and sample forms. It can be found under Publications/Handbooks. What about a handbook for homeowners living in HOAs covering Condo and planned communities acts?

Both the L & T and HOA acts deal with private contracts, so that can’t be the distinguishing excuse not to provide a warning guide or advisory, which I’ve repeatedly urged be developed and quickly offered to homebuyers and those already under HOA regimes. It’s not like there are no issues of material fact, like misrepresentation, consent to be governed, loss of individual property rights, freedoms, privileges and immunities; and private governments not subject to the Constitution. Or that problems do not continually appear in the media. Homeowners who have written the AG’s office, and the Real Estate Commissioner receive a standard, No my job. Get the Legislature to write new laws.

Unfortunately, the problem you complained about is not within our jurisdiction. Our office enforces the Consumer Fraud Act, however, the Act does not allow our office to pursue private disputes. Our office represents the state of Arizona and cannot act as a private attorney for individual citizens.

The position of the Arizona Attorney General is unacceptable. The public policy position of the State of Arizona is unacceptable. It strongly reflects HOA protectionism even to the extent that the State permits the denial of constitutional protections for the people. And in a state that has loudly and firmly urged support for the Constitution and the need to uphold the laws of the land! I offer my Truth in HOAs disclosure poll — please vote your conscience, showing a solid rejection of these hidden facts, and the KPHO, HOA Syndrome survey: YES, it exists!,poll showing that HOA boards do inflict emotional stress on homeowners who disagree with the board.

I urge the Legislature to require ADRE and the Attorney General’s Office to provide a Truth in HOAs handbook containing the facts, the negative aspects, of living in an HOA. Such a handbook must address the issues contained in the Truth in HOAs Disclosure Agreement as set forth in the poll mentioned above.

Arizona Tenants’ Rights and Responsibilities Handbook

AZ independent HOA tribunal again under constitutional attack

The Arizona independent tribunal, Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), must really be hurting not only the CAI lawyers, but all lawyers, too. OAH does not pay attorney fees and HOAs cannot expect to get fees from the homeowner. They have to pay from the total of assessments collected. And with a national law firm at its side, it will be paying big, very big.

In the opening rounds of this second period of adjudication, the first ending with 42% of the cases won by the homeowner, a national law firm undertook the defense of an HOA on the issue of an amendment to the CC&Rs. The amendment forced a homeowner to stop building her home, which she was legally entitled to under under her existing CC&Rs. In Wozniak v. North Slopes POA, OAH No. 11F-H1112001-BFS, filed July 22nd, the attorney seeks dismissal of the case based on 2 black and white claims: the homeowner failed to indicate what law or governing document provision was violated, and that North Slopes was, by definition, not a planned community and, therefore, not subject to OAH adjudication – the HOA does not own any property in the subdivision.

BUT, this did not stop Karen Karr of the national firm of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith from an opening barrage against the constitutionality of the old statute — old news and moot – and the claims that the new statute is also unconstitutional. She is a labor management attorney. Obviously, the ALJ would dismiss the Petition based on the “black and white” laws and need not entertain the constitutionality question (as an earlier OAH case appealed to the superior court bypassed the constitutionality question). So why the fuss? Headlines? Coaching from you know who lobbyist firm who got scathed by its initial foray into the constitutionality issue, and seeks others to do its work? The one who promised to attack the new statutes? Could that be Carpenter Hazlewood?

The attorney spends 1 1/2 pages (of 7) on reciting history, not applicable to the new statute, and fails to state the fact that the AZ Supreme Court did not allow the appellate case of Gelb to serve as precedent when it declined to hear an appeal. In another 1/2 page, unsupported allegations are made as to the constitutionality of the new statute – no case law, no constitutional law, no administrative agency law. Why on earth bring constitutionality up in such a feeble manner?

My guess is that we will see another attempt, maybe more, to unseat justice for homeowners in HOAs. I mean, it took Carpenter Hazlewood 4 tries before it won  the appellate court, but not precedent, decision in Gelb.

BTW, why DFBLS did not outright reject this Petition is a mystery. Clearly it did not meet the requirements of proper adjudication. (While the new DFBLS Petition form asks for specific statutes alleged to have been violated, it does not ask about specific provisions of the governing documents that are alleged to have been violated). If DFBLS had properly rejected the Petition, it would have had to return the $550 fee.

Furthermore, I can understand the ALJ giving the Petitioner a chance to answer, but this ALJ, who is experienced in HOA matters, does not ask the homeowner to address these jurisdictional issues right-out, but seeks a pre-trial conference and entertains a motion for continuance.

Is there a “plot” to raise OAH expenses on frivolous matters in order to obtain evidence for a fee increase?  An increase that was already on the drawing board even before the law became effective in July.