Tag: law

HOA laws that fail to protect the people from harm

I have written many times about the loss in the protections of individual rights, freedoms, privileges and immunities that continues in our country.  I wrote about the presumption that all laws passed by the legislature are constitutional, because, apparently, the sovereign can do no wrong.  After all, the legislature is the voice of the people, isn’t it?

BUT, this false analogy to the king can do no wrong ignores the fact that the king was not bound by any constitution or charter, and was free to do as he pleased.  But, we have, or are supposed to have, a constitution with restrictions on government.  We also have the doctrine of judicial review of legislation, subjecting the laws to pass judicial scrutiny.

Of the three levels now part of the doctrine of judicial scrutiny, the peoples’ rights fall into one of three categories. The least protective is a legitimate, rational government interest (basically anything the government says is important to the people goes); the strictest is a compelling and necessary interest, reserved for explicit fundamental rights violations.

I have always been bothered about many HOA laws purported to be in the best interest of the people, yet deprive or deny a category of people, those living in HOAs, of their constitutional rights (free speech in many forms, due process protections) and the equal protection of the laws. In Arizona, for example, the horrendous SB 1482 omnibus (read ‘ominous’) bill did just that: granted special rights to HOA managers and left homeowners with unequal legal representation; rejected a private agreement to prevent crimes to allow real estate agents to be able to rent homes in HOAs, a long time frowned upon right.

In the recent Arizona appellate opinion in Vong v. Aune (non-HOA case that explains judicial scrutiny), the court held that, “Courts have found a legitimate purpose lacking where a regulation fails to protect the public from harm.” ¶ 18.  Did I miss something?  Did the Rules Committee that has the duty to check for constitutionality miss something?

Of course the game is still in favor of the government where the burden is put on the homeowner challenger.  He must show that the alleged good for the community is overwhelmingly overridden by the damage to the HOA homeowner public class, and is contrary to public policy. It raises the question of one class of people losing constitutional protections so that others may . . . . may what?

Sadly, public policy as shaped by court and legislative decisions seems to be on the side of the HOA.

When do majority CC&R amendments trample minority rights?

 

The generally accepted legal doctrine upheld by the courts in many states is that any CC&Rs amendment validly passed by the amendment procedures in the CC&Rs is binding on non-consenting homeowners.  This doctrine ignores the content and relevancy of the amendment to the intent and purposes of the drafters, the developer.

The questionable word game involved in this issue deals with the meaning and use of ‘modify’ or ‘change’ as compared to ‘new.’  Does your CC&RS say modify or change, or does it also include the words add or new?  Some courts make no distinction and thereby unconstitutionally modify the CC&Rs contract by depriving non-consenting homeowners of their property rights that they believed they possessed at the time of purchase.

(In general, the dictionaries define ‘modify’ as a change, and ‘change’ to mean ‘to make different,’ but excluding any reference to ‘new.’)

With this presumption in favor of the HOA, these courts fail to determine if this is what the unsuspecting home buyer understands, and that he has been given appropriate notice. Is he aware that ‘change’ also means ‘new’ or ‘add’?  Simply said, we are dealing the ex post facto CC&Rs amendments that deprive a homeowner of his rights without his consent and without any compensation.

In the April 2014, the Washington State Supreme Court opinion in Wilkinson v. Chiwawa,[i] said, wait a minute with respect to rentals.  ‘Change’ or ‘modify’ does not mean ‘add’ or ‘new.’  It held that,

While Chiwawa homeowners knew that existing restrictive covenants could be changed by majority vote so long as the changes were consistent with the general plan, they did not buy into the creation of new restrictions unrelated to existing ones. . . . When the governing covenants authorize a majority of homeowners to create new restrictions unrelated to existing ones, majority rule prevails “provided that such power is exercised in a reasonable manner consistent with the general plan of the development.”

This rule protects the reasonable, settled expectation of landowners by giving them the power to block “`new covenants which have no relation to existing ones'” and deprive them of their property rights.

The Association could not adopt the restriction without unanimous consent. This is the contract into which the parties bought and the expectation that we must uphold.

One of the most notorious examples of this type of amendment occurred in OSCA[ii] where mobile homeowners were forced to pay dues for a country club, owned by the developer and not owned by the HOA, and open to the public on a fee basis.  It helped increase the value of the HOA, was the justification for the amendment.

What does your CC&Rs say?  Watch for those CAI attorney rewrites that sneak these words into your CC&Rs without proper notice, as for example, Arizona requires.

And remember, who writes these state laws?   The  HOA stakeholders that do not include the homeowners!

References

[i] Wilkinson v. Chiwawa, Wn.  No.86870-1, p. 6,7 (April 17, 2014). The issue was an amendment that prohibited short-term rentals when the CC&Rs were silent on duration.  Was it a new covenant or a modification to the one that simple said renting was allowed.

[ii] OSCA Development v. Blehm, No. E320843 (Cal. App. Dist. 4 1999).

A lesson in HOA reforms and power politics in AZ

 

For those who still believe that HOA reform legislation is not political, and in particular not power politics, take heed from the following analysis of events at the Arizona Legislature.  It deals with SB 1454 reborn as SB 1482 this year and substituted for the identical bill, HB 2695.

It begins at the start of the session when no bills were introduced to repeal the statutes found invalid in last year’s SB 1454 by the court.  Calls to the Senate President and Speaker of the House, and Secretary of State, to correct this seemingly oversight went unheeded. That was puzzling to say the least.

First, SB 1482 was introduced by Senator Griffin and amended, and passed unanimously by the Senate. It sat in the House for an unheard of 7 weeks until this week.  It past the deadline for being heard in a committee of the House, per the rules, and was presumed dead.

Second, HB 2695 was introduced by Rep. Ugenti for the fourth incarnation of the “omnibus HOA bill.” It was also amended and made identical to SB1482. It passed the House Committee of the Whole (COW) over 4 weeks ago, but was not put on the final vote agenda giving the illusion that it was dead. It passed the deadline to be heard in the Senate.

Neither bill could be heard in the other branch, according to the usual rules.

Finally, after the budget negotiations were resolved this week, a few bills were attended to that included the presumed dead HB 2695. It was ready for the final vote this week.  Why now?  That wouldn’t help because it could not be sent to the Senate for a vote since that deadline, too, had past.

So, the clever plot unfolded when SB 1482 was substituted HB 2695, in compliance with the legislative rules, because it had already passed out of the Senate and there was no need to go back to be voted on all over again.

All in time to withstand a possible Governor’s veto as the session will not end before any veto. This allows the legislature to override the veto because it has more than a 2/3 approval of both houses.  It was all carefully planned out and timed!  The bill was passed 49-6 with 5 NV.

Why the theatrics is not clear.  Didn’t have the votes and had to wait?  I believe that the timing is too coincidental, and reflects a successful plot that demonstrated the power of the HOA stakeholders over the legislature. You know, let them think they won and we will stick it to them for last year’s law suit.  We will show them who’s boss!  Not unexpected based on Ugenti’s prior behavior and attitude.

Getting the Feds involved in HOA reforms

As apparent from the Illinois Supreme Court opinion[i] favoring HOAs, the Feds need to get involved. However, the Feds, like state attorney generals, have no specific authority to get involved – HOA/condo states are state laws, except for those federal laws like the American Disabilities Act and Fair Housing.

A broader approach is necessary in order to wake up the Feds, and that can come about by an appellate or US Supreme Court case decision on 1) violations of a homeowner’s constitutional rights, or 2) a violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause brought under federal law § 42 U.S.C. 1983, Civil action for deprivation of rights. This approach would be similar to the whistle blower law suits of Erin Brockovich or Jeffrey Wigand (tobacco nicotine is addictive).

Read the paper at constitutional rights . . . .

 

[i] See IL Supreme Court holds HOAs “are a creature of statute,” and not contractual.

IL Supreme Court holds HOAs “are a creature of statute,” and not contractual

Last month the IL Supreme Court opinion in Spanish Court[1] reversed the right of an owner to withhold assessments in view of the HOA’s failure to fix and maintain.[2] In its argument, frequently making use of pro-HOA activist and CAI CCAL attorney in Florida, Gary Poliakoff, the Court stated,

 

Although contract principles have sometimes been applied to the relationship between a condominium association and its unit owners based on the condominium’s declaration, bylaws, and rules and regulations . . . the relationship is largely a creature of statute, defined by the provisions of the Condominium Act. . . . Although these duties may also be reflected in the condominium declaration and bylaws, as they are in this case, they are imposed by statute and exist independent of the association’s governing documents. Accordingly, a unit owner’s obligation to pay assessments is not akin to a tenant’s purely contractual obligation to pay rent, which may be excused or nullified because the other party failed to perform. ¶ 21.

So much for the sanctity of the CC&Rs contract! The Court, guided not only by Poliakoff, but by a CAI amicus curiae brief,[3] rolls with the punches and chooses when and when not to uphold the contractual nature of the governing documents.

The Court avoided dealing with the equitable aspects of withholding assessments just like withholding rent, rejecting the favorable appellate decision that held,

[T]he obligation to pay assessments, and the obligation to repair and maintain the common elements, as mutually exchanged promises, and concluded that under principles of contract law, a material breach of the repair obligation could warrant nonpayment of assessments. ¶ 7.

Adding fuel to the fire, the Illinois Supreme Court followed the CAI propaganda that the HOA’s survival depends on assessments being paid immediately and without question.

This section [of the IL condo act] was adopted to provide a constitutionally permissible, quick method for collection of assessment arrearages. . . . The necessity of a “quick method” for collection of past due assessments, unencumbered by extraneous matters, is manifest when we consider the manner in which condominium associations operate . . . . the condominium form of property ownership only works if each unit owner faithfully pays his or her share of the common expenses. When a unit owner defaults in the payment of his or her assessments, the resulting forcible entry and detainer action is thus brought “for the benefit of all the other unit owners.” ¶¶ 29 -30.

Permitting a unit owner’s duty to pay assessments to be nullified would thus threaten the financial stability of condominium associations throughout this state. . . . For the same reason that taxpayers may not lawfully decline to pay lawfully assessed taxes because of some grievance or claim against the taxing governmental unit, a condominium unit owner may not decline to pay lawful assessments. Trustees of the Prince Condominium Trust v. Prosser, 592 N.E.2d 1301.” ¶ 32.

 

Here we have the alleged dicta [non-supported court opinions], and becoming part of the Illinois public policy, that the survival of the HOA/condo is first and foremost. The HOA rises to the same level as a public entity, with the questionable governing documents now having contractual validity and court support to deny homeowner rights, freedoms, privileges and immunities.

 

Welcome to the New America of HOA-Land.

References

 

[1] http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2014/115342.pdf.

[2] See appellate decision Court decisions: HOA Enlightenment Movement vs. the Dark Ages.

[3] “Spanish Court Condominium Association II vs. Carlson (Illinois),” CAI Amicus Curiae Activity 2013.