Tag: justice

AZ CAI’s reaction to the “new era of regulation” of HOAs

In his Sept. 15th seminar, Best Practices for Meetings in an Era of New Regulation, Arizona CAI attorney Scott Carpenter realizes that HOA abuse can no longer be denied or hidden from advocates and from the internet. He asked HOAs to stop activities that will bring further regulation of HOAs, repeatedly using the phrase, “They know us.”

At the very start of the seminar, Carpenter stated that his purpose was not to get around loopholes in the law, or to get around the law, but to show how to “adjust to the new laws.” He then proceeds to play the same “redefine game” that he cautioned HOA boards to avoid — holding workshops rather than meetings because the statutes say nothing about workshops, or not to hold regularly scheduled committee meetings since they are restricted under the statutes. His recommended “adjustments to the law” read like plain, old “finding loopholes in the law.” For example, his advice included:

law doesn’t require you to meet monthly.”
don’t discuss everything – it may go viral on the web
always use closed meetings
restrict the publication of board videos by homeowners
don’t fear emails, but don’t overuse it — will lead to more regulation
hold non-regular committee meetings
use unanimous consent to avoid meetings — just have all board members sign off on the actions — but with care to avoid more regulation

The above is definitely not in keeping with the intent of the Legislature. Carpenter, as a self-promoted expert in HOA law and experienced lobbyist for CAI, denies knowing the meaning or purpose of these “It is the intent of the Legislature” sections included in several of the new bills. An experienced attorney knows well that statute and contract interpretations and clarifications often involve the court looking into the intent of the drafters. He is letting the HOA boards know how to “get around the laws” and the intent of HOA reform legislation, raising the question of good faith conduct by HOA boards if they pursue these loopholes.

And finally, one last point, Carpenter is feeling the heat of the activities by homeowner rights advocates. He laments,

It is the homeowner advocates who say they are on the homeowners side who gave the feedback, the evil conduct of the bad boys of the management companies [no mention of the attorneys]. They’re the ones who have drafted this type of legislation.

This only creates more “us agin them” hostility. It should be noted that he did not deny that abuse goes on in HOAs.

See also AZ CAI attorney Carpenter admits CAI is no longer in control and CAI attorney Carpenter’s view on OAH bad for HOAs

For legislators: poster-child case of HOA extortion of homeowners

This Florida case is the poster-child for the “standard operation procedures” by rogue HOA boards. The situation heard too many times by this advocate, and amounting to legalized extortion because most homeowners cannot afford to go to court for justice. And the HOA, its management firm, and its attorney all too well know this!

The “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” attitude of state legislatures and their misguided belief that the HOA, like any other business  are angels can do no wrong — and will protect the rights and freedoms of its members — must cease right now! This is another example of “us agin’ them” and the destruction of trust and social capital within HOAs.

The appellate court quoted,

“The trial court found that the complaint to foreclose the lien was premature. Agreeing with the trial court, the Third District noted, ‘Had the Association accepted and applied the tendered payments, the dispute would have been reduced to an inconsequential amount, and the Association’s attorneys could not in good faith have filed to foreclose the miniscule claim remaining.’ Ocean Two Condominium Ass’n v. Kliger, 983 So.2d 739 (Fla. 3d Dist. App. 2008).”

The court held,

“What can be gleaned from this record is that the association and its accounting methods were woefully inadequate to correctly ascertain and give notice of the amounts claimed to be due. Because of this imperfect record-keeping, the association did not make a proper claim of lien, nor did it give sufficient notice in its complaint of its claim. Had it done so, in all likelihood this case would not have even been filed. Saar showed that she consistently made the payments required and had detailed records to support her payments, many of which were not properly credited by the association. She paid all sums due in accordance with the notices and claim of lien.”

SAAR v. WELLESLEY AT LAKE CLARKE SHORES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.

HOA advocates must deal with reality for success

In a study I did in 2009 on Bar complaints in total, using its reports, only 15% of the complaints submitted 2005 –2008 resulted either in a Bar sanction, or a Supreme Court finding of a violation of law – 9% for the SC and 6% for the Bar. Of all the cases involving the HOA attorneys, I am aware of only 2 cases that resulted in “guilty” findings – one brought by a court appointed Receiver and one by a judge.

The State Bar’s real name is, The Benevolent and Protective Order of Attorneys (BPOA).

Complaints filed against an attorney must follow the same process as in civil court: cite the laws and Rules of Conduct broken, and supply concrete evidence of wrongdoing.

In the past I posted copies of the Arizona AG’s response to requests for help, as well as ADRE’s “not my job” response.  Both agencies said, “Go tell it to the Legislature.”

Arizona Attorney General will not prosecute for HOA justice

ADRE: Licensed AZ R.E. agents can do as they please in HOAs — Not My Job

 

 

HOA boards can be sued and not covered by insurance

Much of the abuse by boards, the management firms, and attorneys are tortious acts that are illegal and also constitute a fraud upon the members. You will not hear this at pro-HOA seminars sponsored by local governments and/or taught by CAI attorneys.

“D & O” means “directors and officers.”

“Most, if not all, D&O policies contain a provision that excludes intentional criminal and fraudulent acts committed by board members,” says Collins. “However, [our policy] will continue to defend the directors and/or officers until such time that a criminal action can be proven. The policy will then cease to provide any further protection once it is determined that a board member knowingly committed a criminal or fraudulent act.”

D&O coverage also doesn’t indemnify a board or board member against decisions made “in bad faith,” or with illegal intent. If a board is found to have acted in an illegal manner—deliberately discriminating against a prospective buyer, for example—and are hit with punitive damages, members are on their own when it comes to paying them.

The reason for pursuing these actions acts of bad faith is to force the homeowner into court, where the attorney gets his fees and the HOA gets a free ride, most of the time.  Directors and officers are legally bound to act in good faith toward their members.

The ABC’s of D&O

See also Will legislators stop CAI attorney acts of bad faith?

Gross injustice: HOA declarations not a contract, but held binding as a contract

In Epernay CA v. Shaar the Texas appellate court again avoided declaring that a declaration of CC&Rs is a contract, but use the carefully worded, CC&RS “are subject to the general rules of contract construction,” followed by, “In construing contracts. . .” Other courts have declared CC&Rs to be a contract without providing evidence, making the declaration a dicta (ipse dixit made by a judge). Others have referred to cases that, themselves, are also dicta utterances.

 

The reason for this is that HOA governments under CC&Rs are held to be subject to the laws of equitable servitudes, which simply requires the filing of the CC&Rs with the county in order to be binding on the unsuspecting homeowner. He doesn’t even have to read the CC&Rs or even explicitly consent to agree in general, or to agree with the surrender or waiver of all his rights stated or implied in the CC&Rs. If indeed CC&RS were to be considered a bona fide contract under contract law 101, they would be thrown out the window.

 

See the responses to the Truth in HOAs poll where 92% said they would not agree to the conditions in HOAs as disclosed in the Disclosure Agreement.

 

Additionally, if the requirement for the genuine consent with full knowledge, and the absence of misrepresentation, were applied under contract law, the CC&Rs would be thrown out the window.

 

Why have the courts followed servitude laws over constitutional law with its requirements for the equal application of the law – contract law – and due process protections against special laws for special private organizations? Why have the courts or state legislatures failed to declare HOA governments to be an unconstitutional delegation of legislative powers to private organizations? Or to be state actors under the criteria set forth by the US Supreme Court (and not the ancient and misplaced holding of the “public functions” test)?

 

If people can get together a draw a contract, call it CC&RS, and operate as private governments not subject to the 14th Amendment, why do we need constitutional government? That’s secession, isn’t it?