Tag: justice

Desert Mountain opinion (AZ) constitutionality – part 2

Introduction

This 2-part Commentary on the H-O-A amendment boilerplate process entails a number of complex constitutional issues that are interlinked.  Discussing one results in discussing another, etc. in order to fully understand the validity of the H-O-A legal scheme.  [quote — ]You can’t see the forest for the trees[  –unquote  ] is the result of this complexity obfuscated by the Restatement and by the national pro-H-O-A special interest lobbyists.

In Part 1 I discussed 5 selected views by the appellate court that I see as constitutional challenges.   Herein Part 2 I present constitutionality challenges in regard to 1)  the bias found in the  Restatement of Servitudes,[1] a legal authority on court decisions and common law in favor of the H-O-A legal scheme, and 2) the freedom to contract doctrine[2] and its bearing on whether people are truly free to enter an H-O-A private government contract.

The Arizona appellate court ruling in Nicdon v. Desert Mountain[3] with respect to a CC&Rs amendment needs to be appealed to the AZ supreme court. In Part 1,  I raised the question of an on color of law denial of fundamental rights to property; on violations of the equal protection of the laws.   

Disclaimer: Understanding that in spite of my 20+ years reading hundreds of federal and state supreme court and appellate court opinions, I am not a lawyer nor am I employed by a lawyer; I only offer my views.

. . . .

Restatement of Property: Servitudes

In Item 5 of Part 1, I raised my concern that the Court relied on the Restatement of Servitudes quoting, [quote — ]A restrictive covenant is generally valid unless it is illegal or unconstitutional or violates public policy[  –unquote  ].[4]  The Restatement (American Law Institute) is accepted as legal authority even though it seems to be advancing ought to be or societal goals rather than reporting the law and factual court decisions.  

[quote — ]The Institute’s mission is [quote — ]to promote the clarification and simplification of the law and its better adaptation to social needs, to secure the better administration of justice, and to encourage and carry on scholarly and scientific legal work.[  –unquote  ] It achieves this goal through the development of Institute projects, which are categorized as Restatements, Codes, or Principles. . . . Restatements are primarily addressed to courts and aim at clear formulations of common law and its statutory elements, and reflect the law as it presently stands or might appropriately be stated by a court.[  –unquote  ][5]

The opening sentence above is the heart of the problem.  It presumes that justice is accomplished through ALI’s promotion of current court decisions, which in turn, are the reflection of a bias as  to what constitutes [quote — ]a better adaption to social needs.[  –unquote  ]  It flies in the face of  long standing constitutional doctrine on the legitimacy of the law and the consent of the governed.   It opens up to the controversy regarding the extent to which people may associate and establish contracts under freedom to and freedom of contract.

This 2000 update and marked rewrite began in 1987, 13 years ago. It is now another 21 years of substantive changes in the laws and public policy; H-O-As have now been institutionalized and accepted as [quote — ]this is he way it is.[  –unquote  ]  This is quite clear from the Forward (emphasis added):

 [quote — ]Professor Susan French [Reporter (chief editor/contributor) for this Restatement] begins with the assumption . . . that we are willing to pay for private government because we believe it is more efficient than [public] government  . . . . Therefore this Restatement is enabling toward private government, so long as there is full disclosure . . . .[  –unquote  ]

And we know there is an absence of full disclosure that amounts to misrepresentation.  Sadly, there is evidence of contradictory statements aiding and abetting this misrepresentation even in the Restatement that is used as legal authority by the courts. While the Court quoted comment a of §3.1[6] (see [quote — ]Contractual freedoms[  –unquote  ] below), it omitted comment h, which reads, [quote — ]in the event of a conflict between servitudes law and the law applicable to the association form [its private contractual nature], servitudes law should control.[  –unquote  ]

In addition, while the court referenced §6.10 it unbelievably failed to reject §6.13, comment a, which states: [quote — ]The question whether a servitude unreasonably burdens a fundamental constitutional right is determined as a matter of property law, and not constitutional law.[  –unquote  ]

Need I say more about securing the [quote — ]better administration of justice[  –unquote  ]?  Certainly not for the affected people — the H-O-A homeowners.  ALI is guilty of bias against the homeowners, the [quote — ]patients,[  –unquote  ] as analogous to the medical profession with its high degree of specialization where, working on the same body, the left hand doesn’t know about, or doesn’t care about, what the right hand is doing at the same time. 

If it is true and believable that laws are to provide justice, as widely proclaimed, the courts and the lawmakers must consider the effects of both hands on the patient. ALI must adjust its approach and remove these pro-H-O-A views and make references to applicable constitutional law.  ALI must also recognize that H-O-As are another form of local government that is not subject to the Constitution, and remove §6.13, comment a. 

The policy makers have failed to understand that the H-O-A CC&Rs have crossed over the line between purely property restrictions to establishing unregulated and authoritarian private governments.

Section 6 of the Restatement, Part D, Governance of Common – Interest Communities, attempts to deal with the governance of H-O-As in general. Section 6.16 addresses representative government.  It does not read at all like the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights.

Contractual freedoms and consent to be bound

Let’s begin with the excerpt from Desert Mountain opinion  in Part 1(1) linking the binding of the CC&Rs [quote — ]contract[  –unquote  ] by deed acceptance to the implicit consent to be bound in a single quote (emphasis added),

[quote — ]By accepting a deed in the Desert Mountain planned community, the [homeowner]  became bound by the Declaration, including properly adopted amendments. . . . when [a] homeowner takes [a] deed containing restriction allowing amendment by majority vote, homeowner implicitly consents to any subsequent majority vote to modify or extinguish deed restrictions[  –unquote  ].

By this doctrine, contract law 101 is ignored in favor of servitude law, as the Restatement advises  and an implicit waiver and surrender of a fundamental property right is accepted as valid, thereby treating the homeowner as a second-class citizen.  It does not do justice for the homeowner and should be held as an illegitimate exercise of police power by the legislature.

 In Item 5 of Part 1, I also raised the matter of the freedom to contract doctrine as contained in comment (a) of  the Restatement’s §3.1  that I now discuss in some detail here due to its constitutional complexity.

‘‘In general, parties may contract as they wish [freedom to contract] , and the courts will enforce their agreements without passing on the substance . . . The principle of freedom of contract is rooted in the notion that it is in the public interest to recognize that individuals have broad powers to order their own lives.’[  –unquote  ]   

In opposition to the above, I raised the following questions  years ago in 2005,

[quote — ]When did ‘whatever the people privately contract’ dominate the protections of the U.S. Constitution?  Please state what, if any, are the government’s interests in supporting H-O-As that deny the people their constitutional rights?[  –unquote  ]

I have not received an answer from any party including constitutional think tanks, state legislators, attorney generals, or the media.  It’s obvious that in any reply they [quote — ]would be defending the indefensible![  –unquote  ]

Freedom to contract; implied consent to be bound

The simplistic argument that remaining in the H-O-A implies consent is answered, in general,  by political scientist, professor of constitutional law, and author Randy Barnett,

Simply remaining in this country, however, is highly ambiguous. It might mean that you consent to be bound by the laws . . . or it might mean that you have a good job and could not find a better one [elsewhere] . . . or that you do not want to leave your loved ones behind. It is simply unwarranted that to conclude from the mere act of remaining . . . that one has consented to all and any of the laws thereof.[  –unquote  ][7]

I broadly address the consent issue in H-O-A Common Sense, No. 4: Consent to be governed[8]  (2008).  A deeper discussion can be found in H-O-A consent to agree vs. [quote — ]the will of the majority[  –unquote  ] (2019) wherein I quote constitutional scholars Randy Barnett, Keith E. Whittingham, and Edwin Meese.[9]

The important, selected, noteworthy quotes shown below bear directly on the defects in the top-down, take it-or leave it CC&Rs:

[quote — ]Tacit consent purports to provide a rationale for obligating those of us, by chance or choice, have not made their approval of the government explicit [Whittingham].[  –unquote  ]

[quote — ]The [quote — ]consent of the governed[  –unquote  ] stands in contrast to [quote — ]the will of the majority[  –unquote  ] . . . consent is the means whereby arbitrary power is thwarted [Meese].[  –unquote  ]

[quote — ]A law may be ‘valid’ because it was produced in accordance with all the procedures required by a particular lawmaking system, [the H-O-A amendment procedure, for example] but be ‘illegitimate’ because these procedures were inadequate to provide assurances that a law is just’ [Barnett].[  –unquote  ]

US Supreme Court must decide

I have informed readers about the  sticky-wicket that ties all these constitutional questions together as applied to the H-O-A legal structure and scheme; a sticky-wicket that must be resolved once and for all by the US Supreme Court.

References

[1] Restatement (3rd), Property: Servitudes, Susan F. French, Reporter, American Law Institute (2000).

[2] The question of  [quote — ]legitimacy of consent[  –unquote  ] is explored by Randy Barnett in his publications where he argues that there are limitations.  Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty, Randy E. Barnett, Part 1, Princeton University Press, 2004). 

[3] Nicdon v. Desert Mountain, No. 1 CA-CV 20-0129 (April 29, 2021).  

[4] Supra n.1, §3.3(1).

[5] [quote — ]How the Institute Works,[  –unquote  ] American Law Institute (ALI),website (May 3, 2011).

[6] This section of the Restatement, Validity of Servitude Arrangements, speaks to unconstitutional servitudes (§3.1(d)) and servitudes violating public policy (3.1(e)).  Worth reading.

[7] Supra n.3, p.19.

[8] See H-O-A Common Sense: rejecting private government (2008) pamphlet on Amazon.

[9] Barnett, supra n. 3; Whittingham, [quote — ]Chapter 5, Popular Sovereignty and Originalism,[  –unquote  ] Constitutional Interpretation, Univ. Press of Kansas (1999); Meese, [quote — ]What the Constitution Means,[  –unquote  ] The Heritage Guide to the Constitution (2005). Meese was the US Attorney General under Ronald Reagan.

How legislative Rules committees abort democratic HOA reform bills

In the interest of public education on the functioning of state legislatures, this paper presents information on the rules governing state legislatures — using Arizona as a representative example — that affect passing bills into law.  I focus on the Rules committee’s powers to obstruct the voice of the people, and how it can prevent — kill — HOA reform bills by the actions of the political party leaders.

The powers of the Rules committee are undemocratic and authoritarian  in nature designed to thwart, apparently, the folly of the voice of the people.  We see the same undemocratic, authoritarian powers granted to HOA boards to an even greater extent,  The national lobbying group’s promotion of the “business judgment rule,” and acceptance by the courts, is a prime example.[1]

Exhibit 1 details the Rules powers that can prevent HOA reform bills, and any other bill not liked by the powers that be, from a hearing and vote by the full chamber — by the people’s representatives. As I wrote earlier[2], Arizona’s HB 2052, a bill that has in reality been killed in the Rules committee after unanimous approval by the House and Senate government committees, is a prime example of this misuse of authority.

The Senate Fact Sheet “intro” paragraph misrepresents the content of the bill:

“Expands statutory restrictions on condominium unit owners’ association and planned community association (HOA) regulation of political signs to include signs related to certain community activity. Prohibits an HOA from prohibiting door-to-door community activity”.

Of the 8 listed “Provisions,” 2 are technical, 2 relate to political signs, and 4 — given a short sentence in the “intro” —  expand on HOA restrictions and prohibition’s protecting free political speech and expression, in the HOA public forum,[3] as curtained in my earlier “Senate Protects” posting.[4]

. . . .

The Arizona Legislature, and each and every state legislature, is  not a sovereign that can do no wrong, but has duties and obligations sworn to under oath “to establish justice . . . and secure the blessings of liberty” for the people of its state. It cannot demand respect but must earn it through good deeds.  Passing HB 2052 into law would be a sign of good faith that would earn the respect of the people.

Exhibit 1.  Arizona Legislative Council publications

“In the Senate, bills are usually not “held” in the Rules Committee for partisan or political purposes; bills which go into the Rules Committee are almost always reported out. In the House, the Chairman of the Rules Committee can “hold” (read “kill”) a bill simply by not giving it a hearing. (p. 52).

“The options of the committee chairman are a) Hear the bill and vote on it, b) Hear the bill but take no action, c) Assign the bill to subcommittee, d) Not hear the bill.  (p. 39-40).”

“The Role of the Rules Committee,”  State Senator Randall Gnant, From Idea to Bill to Law (2000). (As of April 2021).

“Each measure is assigned to the Rules Committee of the house through which it is progressing . . . . The Rules Committees assess the constitutionality of the proposed legislation. Unless they are withdrawn or discharged, all bills must pass the Rules Committee before they are heard on the floor. (p.41-42).

“An Active Calendar of the Committee of the Whole (so called in both houses) consisting of bills the Speaker or President selects for consideration by the respective Committee of the Whole (COW).

“A calendar consisting of all bills and other measures that have been reported from the committees. In the House this is called the “House Calendar.”  In the Senate it is called the “Calendar of the Committee of the Whole.” These calendars are simply a list of bills and other measures that are ready for further action by the full chamber.” (p.42-43).

Arizona Legislative Manual 2003 Edition, Arizona Legislative Council (2003). (As of April 2021).

Notes

[1] See, Reorienting the HOA board: business judgment rule (2020).

[2] See, AZ Senate protects HOA misconduct rejecting HB 2052; Arizona HB 2052 restores homeowner constitutional speech protections.

[3] See court holdings: Calif. holds HOA elections as protected free speech public elections (2019); NV supreme court upholds HOAs as public forums (2021).

[4] Supra n. 2, AZ Senate Protects.

HOA representative government and consent of the governed

George Washington wrote in his Farewell Address (1796), the Constitution “is the offspring of our choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles . . . .”  The Declaration of Independence asserted “that to secure these [inalienable] rights Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

These two quotes contain the fundamental principles of representative democracy adopted by means of a social contract, the Constitution, which are freedom of choice, ”just powers,” and “consent of the governed.” By virtue of these fundamental principles of democracy, HOAs cannot be considered as democratic governments. Period!

In his article explaining the meaning of the Constitution,[1] Edwin Meese III explains that “consent is the means whereby arbitrary power is thwarted. The natural standard for judging if a government is legitimate [and hence just] is whether that government rests on the consent of the governed.” 

In order for HOA governments to be just, legitimate and compatible with the Constitution these fundamental principles must be honored and supported. HOA “constitutions,” those CC&Rs, are not compatible with the US Constitution.

Meese further addresses the differences between “consent of the governed” and “will of the majority” that is a pro-HOA mantra. “The ‘consent of the governed’ describes a situation where the people are self-governing in their communities . . . into which the government may intrude only with the people’s consent.”

He explains that the “Will of the majority” is a political mechanism for decisions to be made by the government. In other words, the BOD makes decisions on behalf of the members based on its view of the majority will or some survey of the members. In short, in a representative democracy, like that attempted by the HOA legal structure, not all of the members are in agreement with or consent to the decisions of the BOD. It raises the issue of ‘the tyranny of the majority’ when the minority is not given due respect nor the ability to freely and equally speak out on HOA governmental issues.

Meese contends that the Founding Fathers[2] understood this weak point in a democratic government and the need to “insure domestic tranquility.”[3]

[A] government [must rest] not only on the consent of the governed, but also on a structure of government wherein the views of the people and their civic associations can be expressed and translated into public law and public policy. . . . Through deliberation, debate, and compromise, a public consensus is formed about what constitutes the public good. It is this consensus on fundamental principles that knits individuals into a community of citizens.

The structure of HOA governance is not based on and contradicts fundamental American principles and traditional values.  Furthermore, the CC&R are not even based on contract law 101 with its requirements for freely entered into, full disclosure, and explicit agreement to be bound,  but on the real estate doctrine of equitable servitudes.

To learn more about your loss of these rights and freedoms see The HOA-Land Nation Within America.

 

References

[1] Edwin Meese III, “What the Constitution Means,” The Heritage Guide to the Constitution (2005). Meese was the US Attorney General under Ronald Reagan.

[2] See in general, The Federalist Papers, #51, James Madison who explained, “Justice is the end [goal] of government. It is the end of civil society.”

[3] Preamble to the Constitution.

Why aren’t HOAs held as state actors based on USSC criteria?

Allow me to congratulate Deborah Goonan on her fine article, “USSC rules in favor of property rights — how will this affect HOAs?”[1], on constitutionality as applied to HOA-Land.  I also congratulate her for venturing in into the long standing, highly controversial and muddied waters of state actor legal doctrine.

State actor doctrine is too deep and complex to be fully addressed in a blog. I have followed this is for over 15 years having read most of the cases cited by the USSC.  Consequently, I will state some views that I feel will help her subscribers/readers to better understand a broader picture of this doctrine.

First,  the 2 fairly recent USSC cases, Knick and Manhattan, mentioned in Deborah Goonan’s post well illustrate the loss of homeowner constitutional and fundamental rights resulting from the fact that HOAs are not subject to the Constitution as are all other governmental entities; and that state legislatures have refused to make it so.

Second, the rationale for the public policy lack of vigorous pursuit of state actor doctrine in the case of the well documented and pervasive conduct of HOA boards is a slippery-slope fear factor.  This fear is stated by the USSC in Manhattan as:

Consistent with the text of the Constitution, the state-action doctrine enforces a critical boundary between the government and the individual, and thereby protects a robust sphere of individual liberty. Expanding the state-action doctrine beyond its traditional boundaries would expand governmental control while restricting individual liberty and private enterprise. We decline to do so in this case.

And so, interfering and applying state action to HOAs appears to be avoided to protect your individual freedoms.  I’m somewhat confused. Are you?  Adopting this state policy with respect to HOAs is highly misguided!

Third, although Goonan quotes the USSC use of 3 requirements for state action, the Court did reference the 2001 Brentwood v. Tennessee Secondary School[2] opinion that contained a summary of the criteria the USSC set for determining state action.  Omitting the obvious “exercising exclusive government functions” that requires no further discussion I listed these state actor criteria:

    1. From the State’s exercise of “coercive power,”
    2. when the State provides “significant encouragement, either overt or covert,”
    3. when a private actor operates as a “willful participant in joint activity with the State or its agents
    4. when it is controlled by an “agency of the State,”
    5. when it has been delegated a public function by the State
    6. when it is “entwined with governmental policies,” or
    7. when government is “entwined in [its] management or control.”

In regard to the institutionalization of HOAs, or as I refer to it, HOA-Land, the above tests 1 – 3, and 5 -6 would provide clear and convincing evidence that the policies of state legislatures, as demonstrated by the enacted pro-HOA laws, have created HOAs as state actors who willingly undertake state actions

Fourth, As you can see, there is plenty of “ammunition” to argue that HOAs are state actors.  By the simple use of the word “may” in the statutes raises the highly controversial question of: Are HOAs state actors? “May” is commonly found as “the board may set the time of the annual meeting,” or “may charge . . . .”  The overlooked impact and consequence of this word is to legalize activities and actions that were all-to-fore not legal rights granted to the HOA.  They are now made a legal activity, if your BOD so chooses.[3]

That’s easily “supportive”, “cooperating,” “encouraging,” and “entwined” in both public policy – more taxes from high value properties – and in the “management and control” of the HOA as we see how state laws mimic the governing documents, thereby legalizing them.

Fifth, HOAs have been described as sui generis – one of a kind.[4]  Sui generis presents a view of HOAs as private government principalities supported by your state legislature and is used to justify special laws for a special organization, the HOA. Existing constitutional law is inadequate to support this model of local governance and so, in violation of US and state constitutions,  we see all those HOA/PUD/condo “Acts” in almost every state.  These Acts constitute a parallel supreme law of the land with sharp contrasts to the US Constitution.

 

Finally, state actor doctrine can be a very powerful tool in the hands of HOA reformers, but the public policy of a feared slippery-slope defense must be overcome. It can be overcome IF advocates make a strong case that this public policy as applied to HOA-Land is misguided; and the failure of the courts to apply state actor doctrine harms the people living in HOAs.

In the name of justice, a serious look into this doctrine with regard to HOAs must be undertaken by independent think tank political scientists under the auspices of a Congressional mandate. Like setting up and independent counsel to conduct the investigation into HOA-Land.

 

References

[1] “USSC rules in favor of property rights — how will this affect HOAs?”, Deborah Goonan,  IAC, July 15, 2019. Contains links to the 2 USSC cases.

[2] Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Ass’n, 531 U.S. 288 (2001). I have made frequent reference to Brentwood in my Commentaries in HOA Constitutional Government.

[3] “Are HOA state actors created by statutory use of shall/may?,” George K. Staropoli, HOA Constitutional Government (April 2019).

[4] A non-inclusive list: Tyler P. Berding, “The failure of the HOA to protect against obsolescence”; Steven Seigel, attorney who analyzed Twin Rivers NJ decision, Wm & Mary Bill of Rights Jnl 1998.

HOA-Land Nation publication to aid constitutionality

The important question of HOA constitutionality has generally been avoided and given token lip serve by all interested parties: homeowners, homeowner rights advocates, state legislators, real estate departments, attorney generals, nonprofit private entities proclaiming a defense of the Constitution, and the media at large.

Even the renowned Wayne Hyatt’s[1] statement in 1976 went ignored.

“One clearly sees the association as a quasi-government entity paralleling in almost every case the powers, duties, and responsibilities of a municipal government.   All of these functions are financed through assessments or taxes levied upon the members of the community, with powers vested in the board of directors, council of co-owners, board of managers, or other similar body clearly analogous to the governing body of a municipality.”[2]

Clearly challenging the constitutionality of the HOA model of local government and legal scheme is well beyond past due. To correct this horrific and inexcusable oversight I have published, The HOA-Land Nation Within America,[3] a white paper, an exposé of the HOA legal scheme violations of the Constitution. The eBook and paperback editions can be found on Amazon.

This task of constitutional HOA reforms may appear overwhelming and almost impossible to achieve, but constitutional HOA reforms can happen. It will take tremendous effort and perseverance, and a “never give up” mentality. David Cole passionately makes this point[4]

“If Americans now and in the coming years insist that . . . our most fundamental values, including equality, human dignity, fair process, privacy, and the rule of law, and if we organize and advocate in defense of those principles,” we will succeed in bringing about the necessary fundamental and constitutional reforms to the HOA legal scheme in existence since the HOA “bible” was released in 1964. In order to accomplish this important task, “it will take a persistent civil society, a vigilant media, brave insiders, and judges and other government officials who take seriously their responsibility to uphold the Constitution. But first and foremost, it will take an engaged citizenry.”

“The defense of liberty depends . . . on citizens engaging collectively to fight for the values they believe in. . . . The preservation of liberty through a written constitution . . . has survived . . . because ‘we the people’ have consistently taken up the charge to define, defend, and develop liberty in our own image, so that it reflects our deepest commitment , not just those of a privileged elite who do not represent us.”

It falls upon the homeowners in HOAs, as has always, to advance constitutional arguments that are valid and credible.    And that takes knowledge and understanding of the issues.  The HOA-Land Nation, and other of my publications and Commentaries, as well as those of others, provide the “ammunition” that will pass the valid and credible challenges to be expected from CAI and other lawyers, provided the arguments do not get bogged down in irrelevant arguments from the opposition.

CAI cannot handle a broad Bill of Rights challenge. Period!  I have never been challenged  by CAI because they well know that they are defending the defenseless.

Read the book, paperback or eBook, and spread the word.  Use it in those many HOA violations where state statutes support the HOA.  Work to hold seminars and conferences to openly discuss the issues raised in The HOA-Land Nation.  Expose their defense of HOAs, now!

 Notes

[1] Wayne Hyatt was a prominent figure in the promotion of HOA-Land as well as an important person in creating CAI in 1973, serving as its second president.

[2] I have extensively quoted Wayne Hyatt’s 1976 statement on HOAs as mini-governments, as cited in the 1983 California case, Cohen v. Kite Hill.

[3] I have concluded that there exists an HOA-Land Nation within America that is comprised of fragmented and local HOA governments across the country and have designated them collectively as “HOA-Land.”  The commonality of their declarations of CC&Rs, flowing from the 1964 Homes Association Handbook (ULI publication), their shared beliefs, values, traditions, and institutions qualify HOA-Land as a nation.

[4] David Cole, National Legal Director of the ACLU, Engines of Liberty, Basic Books (2016).