Tag: legislature

path to HOA legislative reform victory

Include the following “fill-in [ ]” model as “Section 1” to all bills proposing HOA reform legislation:

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of [ ]:

Section 1. It is the policy of this state that notwithstanding any provision of [insert the appropriate planned community or condominium acts] to the contrary,  the CC&Rs or Declaration for any planned community, condominium association or homeowners association shall state that, “The association hereby waivers and surrenders any rights or claims it may have, and herewith unconditionally and irrevocably agrees to be bound by the US and State Constitutions and laws of the State as if it were a local public government entity.”

Understanding how the  courts form opinions; 1864 abortion decision

The surprising opinion by the AZ Supreme Court in the 1864 abortion law[1] is an excellent learning tool for HOA advocates on how opinions are reached. The Court went to length to explain the affected laws and how the courts, in general,  proceed to interpret the statutes upon which a case is based.

Here are some key take-away reasonings (emphasis added).

  • [T]he question presented is . . . whether the later statutes “repeal or otherwise limit” the earlier statute.
  • Clear and unequivocal language determines a statute’s meaning, reading each word, phrase, clause, and sentence in such a way to ensure no part of the statute is void or trivial.
  • This analytical approach is premised on foundational trust in legislative competency, and this Court “presume[s] that the legislature knows the existing laws when it enacts or modifies a statute.”
  • If the statutory language is ambiguous . . . we may use alternative methods of statutory construction, including examining the rule’s historical background, its spirit and purpose, and the effects and consequences of competing interpretations.
  • “A statute is not ambiguous merely because the parties disagree about its meaning,” it is ambiguous if the “meaning is not evident after examining the statute’s text as a whole or considering statutes relating to the same subject or general purpose.”

In my view the above “rules” allows the court to defend its opinion, sometimes evident that it was previously decided  no matter what.  “We will give him a fair trial before we hang him.”

As to the opinion itself, the Justices recite a series of legislative statutes and amendments on abortion rights over the years. In consideration of the above, please be patient and see what a court may have to deal with.

  • The federal 1864 statute applied to the Arizona Territory (1901) and adopted by the State of Arizona in 1913. In 1928 the AZ Legislature adopted statutes on abortion as a crime.  ARS §§13-211 to – 213.
  • In 1971 with Planned parent v. Marks the appellate court remanded back to the trial court that held the statutes were unconstitutional (1973). On appeal the statutes were considered constitutional. Subsequently, ROE was overturned.
  • The AZ statute was inconsistent with ROE, making the AZ statute unconstitutional once again and did not allow enforcement of the AZ law ARS 13-211. See Nelson). The Legislature did not repeal  ARS 13-211.
  • In 1977 the statute was recodified as §13-3603.
  • In June 2022, the Supreme Court overturned Roe, thereby eliminating the federal constitutional right to abortion and returning “the eliminating the federal constitutional right to abortion. (see Dobbs).
  • FINALLY, in 1973 we have the runner up to today’s opinion when AG Brnovich and Planned parenthood fought over what law applies. The Court held that the 1864 law was never nullified nor repealed by the AZ statutes.
  • The Court concluded: “We conclude that § 36-2322 does not create a right to, or otherwise provide independent statutory authority for, an abortion that otherwise provide independent statutory authority for, an abortion that repeals or restricts § 13-3603 . . . .”

Note 1. Planned Parenthood AZ v. Mayes, as AZ AG, No. CV-23-0005-PR (April 9, 2024).

HOA reform advocates: the enemy is us

Let me start by saying that I have the utmost respect to the handful of persons, advocates, who have actively supported HOA reforms of substance over the years, and have had some success.  To all others I say, the enemy is us.

I well understand the reasons and justifications of people refusing to get actively involved. Personally, talking over the phone and through emails, that most do not have the temperament, want someone to solve their own personal issue with an attempt to expand it nationally, fear retaliation, fear legal issues and the government, and just don’t care about government issues in general.

The numerous social media reform groups, some old but most are new less than 3 years, have not only failed but have  resisted the establishment of a unified,  bona fide and legitimate, national entity; argued as far back by Evan McKenzie when interviewed by Shu Bartholomew, to the best of my recall, sometime before 2004. Today, I must regrettably say some groups make this claim, but they are in name only.

And so, the many Davids believe that they can defeat the mighty Goliath of CAI. The newbie leaders who rise from time to time and disappear a few years later, start by believing that CAI acts in good faith and they can work things out for the protection of homeowner rights. They quickly discover that they have been had, been played with, and realize they are helpless to withstand the entrenched CAI. Today, many who are beginning to be actively involved realize the dominance of CAI over their legislature.

Watch AZ CAI lobbyist at work, 2010, before committee dodge questions, make false statements, and avoid hard questions. Who Controls public streets? HOA or municipality? Part 2 of 3 (youtube.com). (Early quality video).

As the adage goes, as a figural demonstration of one’s commitment to reforms, “put your money where your mouth is.” However, in reality, I have asked people to buy my book, HOA Constitutional Government, as a demonstration of national commitment on a national website, Amazon, but have received token response.

In my announcement I  clearly stated, and still abide by it, that if there were such a legitimate national reform group I would assign all my royalties to that organization.  $15.00 is a trivial show of commitment but will be effective for recognition of national support. BUY NOW! Amazon books.

Taking a positive perspective, I noticed over the past few years a growing trend toward legislation and court decisions in several states affirming constitutional and fundamental rights of HOA members. That’s a good sign that advocate messages and communications are having an effect. 

Now is the time to strike while the iron is hot! Get unified, get organized, get focused, and stop the HOA social media reform groups’ fragmentation of me first, NIMBY policy.

AZ bill returns homestead protection against HOA claims.

We must make the injustice visible. We must provoke until they respond and change the laws.[1]

Arizona alert – strike everything HB 2648 (2024)  returns homestead protections against HOA claims.  

“ARS 33-1807 and 33-1256. “B. THE COMMON EXPENSE ASSESSMENT LIEN PRESCRIBED BY THIS SECTION IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION.”

Let’s go back into the forgotten history of the homestead exemption in Arizona, starting in 2004,[2] 2007[3] and 2023.  The issue was and is the use of statutes to mimic the common boilerplate of the CC&Rs:   Statutory vs consensual lien. “A 12 item list is presented mimicking the CC&Rs, a common tactic to legitimize contractual challenges to the governing documents.”[4]

In 2004, still learning the ropes, I did not follow up on the state actors controversy based on the ARS statutes saying (my emphasis), “‘The association has a lien on a unit for any assessment.” 

“Representative Farnsworth made quite clear that ARS33-1807(A), which opens with, ‘The association has a lien . . . . is a statutory lien and not a consensual lien – the homeowner has no choice in the matter whatsoever.” (emphasis added).”

This can only be interpreted as a mandatory statute making the HOA an arm of the state, acting in place of the state – a state actor.[5] No, and, if, or buts! It is not a consensual lien if mandated by the state!

A second argument raised many times subsequent to 2004 questions the validity of a genuine consensus – “an agreement to be bound.”  In short, the argument raised in Common Sense[6],

“First, the application of contract law to the CC&Rs agreement reveals the many invalid aspects of the CC&Rs as a bona fide contract.  It is obvious from a simple review of contract law.  Yet, courts have held that the CC&Rs are a contract or are to be interpreted as a contract, and have even analyzed the meanings of CC&Rs in the same manner as a contract. But, the courts do not question the validity of the CC&RS contract with respect to contract law.  The courts resort to equitable servitudes law, which simply requires the acceptance of a deed in order to bind the home buyer to the CC&Rs sight unseen.”

On this point alone, HB2468 must be strongly supported. The controversy of statutory vs consensual is avoided to the relief of homeowners.

It is the Achilles heel of CAI’s reason for being  — cruel foreclosure and no homestead exemption as a punishment to coerce obedience.

Notes

[1] Mahatma Gandhi, fighting for India’s independence from British rule, 1948.

[2] HOA Homestead Exemption Exclusion (SB1470) (2023) (A 2004 look back and a comment by Fred F).

[3] See, The constitutionality of legislation: AZ Gov. vetoes homestead exemption bill (2007);

Arizona SB1330 restores lost homestead protection in HOAs (2007).

[4] See, All state “may/shall” statutes imply HOAs as state actors.

[5] See in general, Are HOA state actors created by statutory use of shall/may? (Section 2, paragraphs 5 +). (2019).

[6] HOA Common Sense, No. 4: Consent to be governed

All state “may/shall” statutes imply HOAs as state actors

The use of the words “shall” and “may” have generally accepted meanings in state laws and statutes. Their use in bills and laws relating to HOA-Land raises the highly controversial question of: Are HOAs state actors?  “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.”[1]

Arizona’s HB 2575 creates HOAs as state actors with the slick use of the legal differences between these terms. BUT, as applied to sui generis HOAs, implicitly create state actors. The bill introduces a new section (emphasis added) with, “ARS 33-1820. Powers of the association. Subject to the provisions of the declaration, the association may:” A 12 item list is presented mimicking the CC&Rs, a common tactic to legitimize contractual challenges to the governing documents. Very clever!

Item 4 is particularly onerous because of the use of the introductory “the association may.” A 12 item list is presented mimicking the CC&Rs, a common tactic to legitimize contractual challenges to the governing documents. Very clever!

Item 4 was particularly onerous because it permitted the HOA Board to lobby in the name of the members.

“[the association may ] 4. Institute, defend or intervene in litigation or administrative proceedings in its own name on behalf of itself or two or more members on matters affecting the association or planned community or the members’ interests.”

After 3 sessions ending with “ret on cal,” (retain on calendar)  I emailed my may/shall state actor argument (as summarized here) to the legislative leadership resulting in the sponsor’s amendment rewording item (4). In relevant part, “the association may not institute, defend or intervene in litigation or arbitration in its own name on behalf of itself or a member.”

Thus, a potential constitutionality challenge was avoided as I had instituted in 2013, and won, with the help on a nonprofit legal organization, Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest (ACLPI).[2]

Although the bill passed out of the House with the other argument that the 12 items also reflect an implied state arm it was a major victory 1) on a broad constitutionality issue and 2) a punch in the nose to CAI who actively sponsored this bill, according to the AZ Homeowners Coalition.  CAI can be beat!

There are other arenas to challenge and expose CAI for what it is and stands for.  I present some 56 events over 24 years that serve to guide what worked and what did not work for advocates to successfully challenge the Evil Empire. Organized into 4 sections: On Reform Legislation, On The Bill of Rights, On the Judiciary, and On Civics.[3]  Available on Amazon, paperback or Kindle.

References

[1] See in general, Are HOA state actors created by statutory use of shall/may? (Section 2, paragraphs 5 +). (2019).

[2] Suing the AZ Legislature: AZ Attorney General admits SB 1454 HOA to be invalid and without effect.

[3] Read the book, HOA Constitutional Government: the continuing battle.