In Scott Carpenter’s video seminar on 2011 Changes in the law for Arizona, May 23, 2011, Carpenter speaks of the possibility of raising the “steep” fees at DFBLS. He states that “in speaking with the people at DFBLS, they are considering changes in the fees” to meet the requires of the law that HOA adjudication fee would cover all costs.
The DFBLS website already has wording, “Filing fee amounts are to be determined.”
See more at AZ DFBLS seeking to raise HOA fees already??
Yesterday, May 24th, the Arizona Supreme Court simply DENIED hearing this Petition to vacate the lower court ruling that the Arizona agency, DFBLS, had violated the separation of powers doctrine when hearing HOA disputes . Disappointing, but not surprising given the new laws to take effect on July 20th, that addressed the separation of powers opinion. It still allows DFBLS to deny accepting complaints since ARS 41-2198(3), the statute authorizing DFBLS, was not vacated. It still stands.
Consequently, in the event that a complaint is filed on or after July 20th and DFBLS denies accepting the complaint, another challenge to the constitutionality of the law would be necessary. If DFLS accepts the complaint, rest assured that Darth Vader is ready with another challenge.
Why is this possible? Doesn’t the appellate court opinion serve as precedent and that’s that? NO, the door was opened by the Court! The Court in addition to its regular fashion of terse announcements, DENIED or ACCEPTED, added an order under its powers to do so, AZ Supreme Court Rule 111(g), that the Gelb decision was not to be published. Not being published means that it is not binding authority, or precedent. It seems then that the door is open and res judicata – already decided – doesn’t apply.
Why allow another shot” at constitutionality? Maybe, as I have argued, the arguments in support of the law relied on the same two cases, Cactus Wren and Hancock, accepted as controlling in both Gelb and in Waugaman (in the only other case that involved a decision, the superior court decision Troon v. DFBLS, Waugaman, LC2007-000598, Maricopa County), left something to be desired. Like the entire body of constitutional law and on the administrative procedures act concerning the acceptance of quasi-judicial authority of executive agencies. Yes, sharing does occur, and none of the applicable rulings were based on the extent of the agency’s regulatory functions, as the DFBLS cases were, (Gelb essentially followed the arguments in Waugaman).
July 20th will be the next phase of the fight by homeowner rights advocates for due process and the equal protection of the laws. The AZ Supreme Court just “punted.”
See AZ Supreme Court to decide whether or not to proceed on Gelb and HOA adjudication
In Arizona, neither its Attorney General nor real estate department, ADRE, will get involved in HOA issues. The AG’s broad authority includes consumer protection involing real estate transactions and white collar crimes. ADRE’s stated mission also claims that it protects consumer home buyers: “We want to protect consumers from being harmed in real estate transactions.” Like with the AG, there’s is no exception in the laws for transactions and acts involving HOAs. (These agencies can’t explicitly exclude HOAs without incurring charges of violations of the constitutional prohibition against the unequal application of the laws).
The AG’s office, under its revised web site for the new AG, offers a number of consumer guides from auto purchases, Indian arts & crafts, predatory lending, and telephone scams, but not a word about HOAs. There is no “Truth in HOAs” pamphlet Its “Protecting Consumers” reads (emphasis added),
Consumer fraud, as defined by Arizona law, is any deception, false statement, false pretense, false promise or misrepresentation made by a seller or advertiser of merchandise. In addition, concealment, suppression or failure to disclose a material fact may be consumer fraud if it is done with the intent that others rely on such concealment, suppression or nondisclosure. Merchandise may include any objects, wares, goods, commodities, intangibles, real estate or services.
ADRE has Commissioner’s Rules, having the effect of law, that includes R4-28-1101, Duties to Clients. It, too, cautions about revealing material facts (emphasis added),
A. The licensee shall also deal fairly with all other parties to a transaction.
B. A licensee participating in a real estate transaction shall disclose in writing to all other parties any information the licensee possesses that materially or adversely affects the consideration to be paid by any party
When asked, for the third time over 7 years, why ADRE doesn’t enforce this rule when it comes to HOA transactions, its typical answer dealt with their non-regulation of HOAs, and, in this recent reply (emphasis added),
However the Department has to be advised, typically by way of official complaint, that there is an apparent abuse of the laws occurring. At that time, the Department would investigate and proceed from there. Without knowledge of a perceived violation occurring, the investigation cannot begin.
What we have here is a failure to act, a failure of government authorities to make their allegations about consumer protection — in effect their propaganda that deceives the people — a reality. It’s an instance of “the tail wagging the dog.” In regard to ADRE, the people, not the agency, must act. The agency will not act under its powers until some individual claims that a violation had occurred. I say again, ADRE wants you, the homeowner to file a complaint before it acts — “the Department has to be advised, typically by way of official complaint.”
But, what about adopting another approach like that used by police departments with their Internal Affairs department, which on its own, investigates seemingly suspect behavior, without a person having to come forth. This failure makes the true role of ADRE is BPOA— the Benevolent and Protective Order of Agents.
These deceptions reflect the deception found in the judicial branch misleading motto, ”Equal Justice Under the Law.” We all know that the laws can be unjust and selectively enforced, and we know that this is true of the HOAs laws in all states. And these deceptions reflect the ills of our society, the “Not me, I’m not responsible” attitude by those in authority.
“Blaming the wolf will not help the sheep much. The sheep must learn not to fall into the clutches of the wolf.” Gandhi.
How is your state doing? Any better? Are you protected when you by into an HOA controlled home in your state? I think not! Will you sign the Truth in HOAs Disclosure Agreement before you buy? Read and find out. Remember, you are on your own.
In his recent interview on OnTheCommons, Evan McKenzie suggested that his new book, Beyond Privatopia, is a collection of his past papers. If so, I believe the following gives a glimpse into what the reader can expect.
In 2004, Arizona advocates had a tough fight to get HB 2402 passed into law. It was to eliminate HOA foreclosures, but we had to settle for no foreclosures for fines, retaining foreclosure for assessments.
McKenzie gave his views on HOA foreclosure and the need for HOAs to survive during this hard fought battle in his Privatopia Papers Blog of March 12 and 13, 2004. (Scroll down and read the March 12th entry, “The plain truth about HOA foreclosures…”, then read his defensive entry of the 13th, “More on foreclosure.” I, too, took offense to his views.
McKenzie’s comments were not at all helpful to the people suffering this gross injustice of this law. His statements reflected the views of the legal-academic aristocracy that the state must survive, that the state comes first. And by “state” I mean the HOA. That the New America of HOA-Land is a legitimate government of the people.
An excerpt from this lengthy entry sums it up,
A third [objection] is the lack of any alternative [by advocates] that would allow HOAs to continue functioning, and advocating instead for positions that would almost certainly destroy common interest housing and leave millions of people in major financial trouble. . . . HOAs would end up competing with all the other creditors–credit card companies, tax collectors, etc.–for the money they need to fix the roof this month. Net result: the existing owners bear the burden for the non-payers. . . . That is a completely unsustainable situation.
I’ve always been against associations having dictatorial power. I’m also against going to the opposite extreme and leaving them powerless. If we go from banana republics to failed states, most people won’t like the latter any better than the former, and somebody will have to pick up the pieces of failed CIDs. Who will that be?
McKenzie presumes that the status quo preserves the HOA, and that susbstantive reforms will only leave the HOA powerless and lead to its inevitable failure. As a political scientist, he does not address the questions that maybe, just maybe, with their current defective legal scheme that HOAs should be allowed to fail. He avoids “muni-zation”, creating special HOA “taxing districts” as public entities, as an alternative. He does not address the question as to why HOAs deserve government protections to foreclose for failures to pay “taxes” as if it were a public entity. The HOA has no hard cash outlays to recoup as a lender does.
Perhaps he fears that real democracy will destroy the HOA that needs strict enforcement of “laws” and an unquestionable obedience to its often arbitrary and capricious objectives in order for it to survive. That public government intrusion is worse than today’s unaccountable private HOA government intrusion. He no longer speaks in the same terms of the constitutional arguments as he did in the 1994 Privatopia.
History shows that successful social and political change involved both an intellectual group to guide and show the way, and an operational group to make their thoughts a reality — working together. You just need to look at the American Revolution, the Irish and Indian independence movements, and the rise of communism in Russia, China and Cuba. There are no intellectual leaders for HOA reforms, and that is a prime reason why the “pink flamingo groups” are not united.
In Gandhi’s dealings with the British Raj for independence, the Brits reminded him that India was a British Colony. He replied, “India belongs to the Indians.”
In America today, America belongs to the people, not to the HOA regime.
I submitted the following comment to the shreveporttimes.com article, “A sign that we need more neighborly love.”
HOAs were never really about neighborly love. They were promoted as such a fellowship of people with a common goal, “building better communities” and “fostering vibrant, harmonious communities” by the national lobbying organization. But, in reality, they are highly divisive and adversarial because strict enforcement of often arbitrary and capricious rules abound, enforced by the “protection agency”, the HOA, whose directors are reminded that they can be sued for not enforcing the CC&RS or declaration. Couple that with aggressive HOA lawyers whose income is not based on contentment and neighborly love, but on adversity that leads to the courtroom. It’s in their best interests to preserve the HOA in its current form.
This authoritarian form of government, backed by pro-HOA laws to inflict severe penalties on homeowner offenders but give a slap on the wrist to HOA offenders, make an excellent environment for the power seekers and misguided true believers who believe that they are part of a grand and glorious new America. And for the profit-seeking developers, HOA vendors and lawyers.
IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, HOW ELSE CAN IT BE? No country, no community has ever obtained strict compliance to rules that are aimed to preserve the state, like Nazi Germany Communist Russia, without imposing restrictions on the rights and freedoms of its inhabitants “in the name of the state.” Its corporate form of government is no different from any other business where there are the managers who control and the people who are to obey. HOA directors are in the “management” class and homeowners are in the “employee” class, even though the “employees” may also be owners of the corporation. And we all know that management does not have the 100% whole–hearted agreement and support of its people.
Yet, the courts and state legislatures truly believe that the board speaks for the members on all matters, great and small. That the HOA is imbued with public government attributes and, ignoring the reality of a contract, by merely living and remaining subject to the HOA the “employee” surrenders all his rights and freedoms contrary to constitutional law. But, as we all know, how many people, employees, work and remain at a business for valid reasons other then that they fully consent to be governed by the corporation? The public officials have adopted this “remaining within the HOA” argument not because it is valid, but because it offers a plausible defense for their actions.
Want more neighborly love? Hold HOA boards accountable for their actions, and provide protections for the rights and freedoms on the owners. Forget the “we don’t want government” and get to “we want the same government protections as all others.
HOA Constitutional Government 