Tag: justice

Can and will constitutional scholars reply to 4 HOA questions?

In March 2006 I wrote Christopher Durso, editor of the Community Associations Institute’s (CAI) monthly house organ, Common Ground, asking four questions in regard to the constitutionality of HOA’s  (CID, POA, planned unit development, etc.) legal scheme.  My concern was that CC&Rs are a devise for de facto HOA governments to escape constitutional government as presented in  the 1964 “bible” that brought forth the legal scheme, The Homes Association Handbook. 

As of this date, these questions remain unanswered by CAI, by state legislatures and attorney generals, by constitutional think tanks such as the CATO Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Federalist Society, and by the many constitutional scholars. Is it because any response would be seen as an attempt to defend the indefensible as it would require a rejection of the Constitution and a recognition of the HOA community secession from the Union.  State governments, including the judiciary, exhibit a willful blindness that makes the Constitution a meaningless piece of paper that can be ignored by private contracts unassailable from government interference.

Replacing democratic local governments with authoritarian private governments: Is this good public policy? “Public policy today rejects constitutional government for HOAs allowing them to operate outside the law of the land. The policy makers have failed to understand that the HOA CC&Rs have crossed over the line between purely property restrictions to establishing unregulated and authoritarian private governments.”

Here are the four 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 (CBTR v. Twin Rivers, 2006). Does “constructive notice,” the “nailing to the wall,” the medieval method of notice, measure 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?

Once again  I await their replies.

Cc:  HOA Constitutional Government

HOA home is security against HOA failure

On a FB advocacy group, a member offered advice to another who was in a late payment dispute with their HOA and being sued. She said pay in protest, which is nice but leaves loose ends and can be, and will most likely be, rejected by the HOA.  I replied:

Interesting and I hope it works. Way back an aggravated homeowner in dispute who refused to pay assessments was sued. Rationally, and applying a fair, just and acceptable solution to debt disputes, told the judge that she would place the owed money in escrow until the case was resolved. The judge said, NO! That was way back in 2003 and things are a little bit better now, and there is another judge. Make the plea to the judge and not the HOA.

I’ve come to believe that state legislatures regard HOAs as a state security interest – in contrast to a national security interest– and can impose what amount to martial law that allows the curtailment of your rights and freedoms. In short, it seems that the HOA could not be allowed to fail so pay up or die. At the cost or your home and all your equity in foreclosure. Talk about intimidation!

YOUR HOME HAS BEEN PLEDGED AS SECURITY TO THE HOA, without saying so in your “fully agreed upon’ CC&Rs!

Never, ever say this to the court

In this Arizona appellate decision [1], the plaintiff, Danko, failed to follow the Rules of Civil Procedure that every state has.  The defendant, Leavitt,  filed for dismissal due to a deficient brief, upon which the plaintiff begged the court for leniency for failing to comply with the Rules. He claimed that he was filing pro per, without a lawyer.   Plaintiff further asserted that “his claims should not be dismissed because of “meaningless” rules.” The court “found Danko had not sufficiently pleaded facts to support any of his other claims and dismissed them with prejudice as well” as required by the Rules.

The terse reply by the court makes the point that rules are rules.   

“In furtherance of these goals, we have “a responsibility to see that litigants conform to an acceptable, minimal level of competency and performance and we owe this responsibility to the judiciary, the bar and, more importantly, to all litigants and the people as a whole. An appellant who fails to make a bona fide and reasonably intelligent effort to comply with the rules will waive issues and arguments.”  

“Waived” means the party surrenders all rights to continue.

The court made a strong statement on not granting any leniency to pro per litigants;

Further, we hold litigants like Danko who choose to proceed without representation to the same standards as attorneys. Indeed, requiring a reviewing court to expend significant time and effort to make a party’s arguments for them not only wastes finite judicial resources, but is additionally improper because it trespasses dangerously close to the realm of impermissible advocacy.

Take heed!  Rules are rules. Learn the rules before going to court.

Notes

1.  Danko v. Leavitt, No. 1 CA-CV 22-0525 (Ariz. App. Div.1, 8-17-2023).

Law review on CC&Rs constitutionality – part 1

While the title of the Ken Stahl Pepperdine Law Review article[1] addresses the “validity of private deed restrictions” (CC&Rs) and “an unconstitutional taking” (eminent domain) with respect to affordable housing, Stahl’s investigation covers many of the HOA constitutionality concerns that I’ve raised over the years. He warns about legislative “overrides” – statutes that impinge on CC&Rs – and the balance of governmental powers between the state/county and private, contractual governments.

While the article is focused on California’s dealing with its affordable housing crisis, my annotations are questions focusing on the constitutionality of the  HOA CC&Rs. The article covers a lot of ground – 55 pages of legalese — and so I will make several commentaries or, in this case, research memoranda. Starting at the beginning, the Abstract and Introduction materials, Professor Stahl speaks to:

  • California legislature invalidating CC&Rs. We  are aware of statutes regulating what HOAs can and cannot do on things like “pets, clotheslines,  signs and flags” but the legislature is going a bit further in regard to local zoning, home rule statutes, and “overriding” many covenants in the interest of affordable housing. 
  • “The doctrine of “home rule” that places some outer limits on the ability of state legislatures to preempt local regulatory power.”
  • Home rule statutes exist in all states that allow a high degree of community independence from state/legislative interference on local matters.  The HOA scheme avoided these statutes that would provide all the current benefits but subject the HOA to the Constitution – HOA could not hide behind “not us, we are private” nonsense.
  • This overriding is facing concerns of the state “taking” of property rights that HOA members agreed to under a private contract. This invokes eminent domain concerns of just compensation as I have raised with respect to the questionable HOA contract’s taking of a member’s property rights.
  • All fifty states have detailed legislation regarding the governance and management of HOAs, including voting rules, budgeting, disclosure, and so forth, and a few states authorize state agencies to regulate HOAs.
  • “HOAs are ubiquitous, vastly outnumbering local governments, and they act essentially as little municipalities, taxing residents through mandatory assessments and regulating land use with detailed restrictions, called “covenants, conditions, and restrictions” (CCRs), that often mirror local land use regulations. Indeed, CCRs are typically far more restrictive than local land use regulations in many respects.”  There you have it, almost like McKenzie’s words in his 1994 Privatopia [2].
  • The question of quasi-government HOAs is expressed  as “the HOA is “simply a convenient mechanism to enforce those rights.”  Recall my charge that “HOAs are a devise to circumvent the Constitution.” The rights in context above refer to “the extension of the property rights” imposed by the CC&Rs.
  • “In contrast to the local government, which is considered a public body within the quasi-federal structure of state government, the HOA is generally considered a private entity, an extension of the property rights of homeowners.”
  • The author is concerned about the aggressive nature of the California legislature in regulating and controlling HOAs, far beyond their previous involvements. They deal with “what HOAs are really about: the ability to strictly control the character of the community by excluding undesirable uses of property within the community.
  • The controversial issue of consent to be governed or agreed to be bound does not escape Stahl’s view. “Homeowners are presumed to voluntarily subject themselves to CCRs when they choose to purchase property.” He makes the strong point that public policy  “causes courts to treat them as formally private, in contrast to the coercive nature of land use regulations enacted by public municipalities.”  This is a reference to the balance of power between the  state and supposedly freely agreed to expression of homeowners, the CC&Rs.
  • The mantra of CAI and legislators – You agreed to be bound! I witnessed an AZ legislator condemn a homeowner speaker that he was trying to get out of a contract that the speaker discovered was bad and he wasn’t going to be a part of it. A deal is a deal!
  • The author believes that the newer  legislative overrides will be constitutionally challenged,  arguing “ that overrides are likely to be upheld against constitutional challenges except in very unusual circumstances.”  In other words, Stahl seems to be saying that advocates can look to favorable legislation regarding due process and the equal protection of the laws for homeowners. He has already made favorable arguments in his journal article that simply need to be focused on justice and homeowner rights than just affordable housing.

I plan  at least  2 additional commentaries concerning this article following its structure: the role of equitable servitudes (covenants) and CC&Rs, and  constitutional concerns.

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank Barbara Lorraine-Johnston  for bringing this law review article discussing many of the constitutional issues that I have repeatedly argued and commented on over the years.  The importance of advocates bringing events, court cases, statutes, papers, articles, and law journal publications cannot be overstated. I can only comment on what comes to my attention.

For additional information, visit my comments, some 1,314 since 2004, can be found at HOA Constitutional Government.  Become a Subscriber to receive automatic updates.

NOTES

[1] “The Power of State Legislatures to Invalidate Private Deed Restrictions: Is It an Unconstitutional Taking?” (pepperdine.edu). (50 Pepp. L. Rev. 579 (2023)). Kenneth Stahl is a Professor of Law and the director of the Environmental, Land Use, and Real Estate Law program at Chapman University Fowler School of Law.

[2] Evan McKenzie, Privatopia: Homeowners Associations  and the Rise of Residential Private Government (1994) and Beyond Privatopia (2012)).

HOA advocate credentials are lacking

Should the FEDS get involved in HOA-Land abuse even though HOAs are controlled by state laws?  It would need to come under the approach that state laws are so varied that uniform laws must be adopted, and not by ULC that is steeped in the past and promotes more bad laws. This “what state are you in and that’s the law” has been a general argument for federal law and is a reason for federal intervention in the courts.

With all due respect for the hard work of several reform social media groups, getting the attention of state legislatures and DOJ/FBI depends upon the credentials of advocates. Can they make arguments at the level where the courts and lawyers will stand up and take notice? This is a longtime failure of HOA reform efforts even though they have obtained important reforms here and there over the years.

These reforms, for the most part, are rooted in “operational” reforms that affect the laws now on “the books” —  the overwhelming bad laws dealing with day-to-day operations and functions of the HOA. This reform legislation is needed to bring  a fair and just treatment under the constraints of the HOA legal scheme until reforms of substance are adopted.

Allow me to explain with an example.  There are many “good” laws that are designed to protect the homeowner and his rights, and put restrictions on the HOA. They may even have strong enforcement provisions with criminal violations.  Great? On the surface yes because enforcement is still the task not of the state, but the homeowner who has to bring such charges. The state – district/county attorneys and attorney generals — are not obligated to act. BUT, by definition, a crime is an act harmful to the state beyond one person. “Crime is “the intentional act usually deemed socially harmful or dangerous . . . prohibited and punishable by law.”

This “not my job,” hands-off posture constitutes an error of omission by the state that, under the obligations of the Constitution.

“We the People of the United States, in Order to . . . establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility . . .  promote the general Welfare . . ..”

Stay with me.  What is necessary is to rewrite the CC&Rs that is based on The Homes Association Handbook, as the Founding Fathers did when they threw out the Articles of Confederation for the US Constitution.  There has been and is little support for this approach, which I believe is the result of a lack of understanding and a fear that their HOA would be abolished —  a very successful fear mongering by CAI. And that includes a fear of CAI.

Over the years I filed an IRS tax-exempt complaint against CAI for having the customers of its members also a member of the business trade group in violation of its tax-exempt status. In 2005 CAI had to drop HOAs pe se from membership. Earlier this year I filed a 40-page complaint with the antitrust division of DOJ arguing that CAI was a monopoly, and has acted to thwart competition and the free entry into the HOA education market. 

Recently I asked for support of my appeal to the Federalist Society  to encourage and promote dialogue on the constitutionality of and loss of citizen rights in an HOA. The Society’s mission is educational for lawyers and student lawyers, and has a national  program of local law school chapters to debate issues. (Notable attorneys and government officials attend these meetings. My grandson had the opportunity to meet the Governor.)  I argued that new lawyers sally forth lacking the truth about HOA-Land serving to perpetuate the unjust laws.

HOA reformers and groups must present themselves as knowledgeable advocates, united nationally, who understand the law and the judicial process.  Reformers need to be able to stand up before CAI, the courts, and state legislators and win!  As I posted elsewhere, I am still waiting for an answer to my 2006 challenge to debate the CAI “elite” lawyers who are members of CAI’s CCAL.

As the renowned international management consultant Peter F. Drucker made clear, “A mission statement has to be operational; otherwise, it’s just good intentions.“