Tag: legislature

Legal-academic aristocrat – advocate exchange on HOA bad faith conduct

I am responding to Mr. Berding’s undated blog entry, First Thing We Do, Let’s Ban All the Bloggers! , a no-name identification of the author of the blog, namely yours-truly. Why is Mr. Berding afraid of mentioning my name? After all, I’m not an attorney. He chose to copy my Commentary rather than to provide a link to my blog, with all those other commentaries.

Ok, it does appear that Mr. Berding is quite perturbed about my statements and quotes from a D & O insurance article that uses the phrases “bad faith,” “criminal intent,” and “fraudulent acts.” He’s upset that I emphasized these words in my Commentary (WordPress Blog). Yet, Berding misleads the readers of his own blog by referring to my Commentary as, “suppose this is a blog.”

Yes, the ugly truth does hurt, Mr. Berding, doesn’t it? And I suppose posting on those blogs, like yours, those CAI blogs, and the Adams Kessler blogs does make them right and important, but forget about those advocate written blogs. Spoken as a true legal-academic aristocrat making Philosopher-King (educated elite setting forth what is good government to the rulers) pronouncements.

Mr. Berding then invokes the legalistic argument of allegations and no proof, as if this were the time and place for legal confrontation. His attitude reminds me of the slogan commonly found on court buildings and other judicial buildings, “Equal Justice Under the Law.” This slogan contains a hidden premise, or assumption, that the law is just and fair. Suppose it isn’t, as advocates maintain? Then the slogan is reduced to a meaningless and empty statement. And those with power derived from these unjust laws just love to argue, “It’s the law! It’s the law! We have done nothing wrong!” And that’s were ethical and moral questions of good faith – honesty and integrity, or an honest intent to act without taking an unfair advantage over another person – come into play.

Our public policy permits the law to inflict financial damages, and the possible loss of all one’s equity in his home, for violating the CC&Rs, yet gives only a “ slap on the wrist” to violations by the HOA board. It permits “after an opportunity to be heard” to satisfy the due process requirement for hearings on violations, there being no explicit statement, as found in the public arena: “by an independent tribunal with the right to present evidence, demand proof and to confront witnesses.” It is absent from the CC&R contractual agreement. And where state legislatures maintain a hands-off posture, providing no oversight accountability or effective enforcement against board violations in a “see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil” banana republic posture. And justifies this pro-HOA support with, “Well, that’s what the homeowner agreed to. Now he’s just trying to get out of a contract.” What kind of society do HOAs create?

I’m sure he would be shocked, as were the editors at KPHO, the Phoenix CBS-TV affiliate, when they conducted a poll on the PTSD HOA Syndrome (click on image), and found out that 68% of the respondents agreed it existed. Or that an overwhelming 91% respondents in a Truth in HOAs Disclosure Poll said NO to signing an agreement to accept, beforehand, the conditions as set forth in the poll — misrepresentation, fraud, no meeting of the minds, etc. No, after all, his philosophy accepts the belief that “the king can do no wrong.”

As to his CAI remark, all he had to do is to attend these seminars and discover for himself the lack of homeowner protection material presented at these seminars. For example, important info for homeowners can be found in my latest Commentary (HOA boards cannot escape wrongful acts by their managers), information regarding the relationship between the HOA and the management firm. It is is an agency relationship that carries with it immense protections for the homeowner against both the management firm and the HOA board. It’s not on the agenda.

As to misleading and out-of-context statements about the D & O article, Mr. Berding misses my point, which is that the board can be sued and here are the grounds for suing. Also not found in an educational CAI, town sponsored seminar. He discredits my work as “emotional,” “lacking objectivity,” and that I “don’t contribute much that is useful to their chosen subject.” So sayeth the Philosopher-King, or is it the “weavers” from The Emperor’s New Clothes?

Come down from the clouds Mr. Berding, and see what is happening around you. I challenge you to answer the following 4 questions that were posed in March 2006 to Mr. Durso, then Editor of CAI’s Common Ground,

I ask the legislators, the public interest organizations and policy makers to consider the following 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. Does “constructive notice”, the “nailing to the wall”, the medieval method of notice, measure up 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?

I await your reply, or a reply from any of the legal-academic aristocrats.

AZ tenants have more AG protection than property owners in HOAs

The current AZ Attorney General, Tom  Horne, proudly displays and offers a 48 page handbook for tenants, basically covering the Landlord and Tenant Act, ARS 33-1301 et seq. It contains 2 full pages of where to get help, and sample forms. It can be found under Publications/Handbooks. What about a handbook for homeowners living in HOAs covering Condo and planned communities acts?

Both the L & T and HOA acts deal with private contracts, so that can’t be the distinguishing excuse not to provide a warning guide or advisory, which I’ve repeatedly urged be developed and quickly offered to homebuyers and those already under HOA regimes. It’s not like there are no issues of material fact, like misrepresentation, consent to be governed, loss of individual property rights, freedoms, privileges and immunities; and private governments not subject to the Constitution. Or that problems do not continually appear in the media. Homeowners who have written the AG’s office, and the Real Estate Commissioner receive a standard, No my job. Get the Legislature to write new laws.

Unfortunately, the problem you complained about is not within our jurisdiction. Our office enforces the Consumer Fraud Act, however, the Act does not allow our office to pursue private disputes. Our office represents the state of Arizona and cannot act as a private attorney for individual citizens.

The position of the Arizona Attorney General is unacceptable. The public policy position of the State of Arizona is unacceptable. It strongly reflects HOA protectionism even to the extent that the State permits the denial of constitutional protections for the people. And in a state that has loudly and firmly urged support for the Constitution and the need to uphold the laws of the land! I offer my Truth in HOAs disclosure poll — please vote your conscience, showing a solid rejection of these hidden facts, and the KPHO, HOA Syndrome survey: YES, it exists!,poll showing that HOA boards do inflict emotional stress on homeowners who disagree with the board.

I urge the Legislature to require ADRE and the Attorney General’s Office to provide a Truth in HOAs handbook containing the facts, the negative aspects, of living in an HOA. Such a handbook must address the issues contained in the Truth in HOAs Disclosure Agreement as set forth in the poll mentioned above.

Arizona Tenants’ Rights and Responsibilities Handbook

AZ CAI’s reaction to the “new era of regulation” of HOAs

In his Sept. 15th seminar, Best Practices for Meetings in an Era of New Regulation, Arizona CAI attorney Scott Carpenter realizes that HOA abuse can no longer be denied or hidden from advocates and from the internet. He asked HOAs to stop activities that will bring further regulation of HOAs, repeatedly using the phrase, “They know us.”

At the very start of the seminar, Carpenter stated that his purpose was not to get around loopholes in the law, or to get around the law, but to show how to “adjust to the new laws.” He then proceeds to play the same “redefine game” that he cautioned HOA boards to avoid — holding workshops rather than meetings because the statutes say nothing about workshops, or not to hold regularly scheduled committee meetings since they are restricted under the statutes. His recommended “adjustments to the law” read like plain, old “finding loopholes in the law.” For example, his advice included:

law doesn’t require you to meet monthly.”
don’t discuss everything – it may go viral on the web
always use closed meetings
restrict the publication of board videos by homeowners
don’t fear emails, but don’t overuse it — will lead to more regulation
hold non-regular committee meetings
use unanimous consent to avoid meetings — just have all board members sign off on the actions — but with care to avoid more regulation

The above is definitely not in keeping with the intent of the Legislature. Carpenter, as a self-promoted expert in HOA law and experienced lobbyist for CAI, denies knowing the meaning or purpose of these “It is the intent of the Legislature” sections included in several of the new bills. An experienced attorney knows well that statute and contract interpretations and clarifications often involve the court looking into the intent of the drafters. He is letting the HOA boards know how to “get around the laws” and the intent of HOA reform legislation, raising the question of good faith conduct by HOA boards if they pursue these loopholes.

And finally, one last point, Carpenter is feeling the heat of the activities by homeowner rights advocates. He laments,

It is the homeowner advocates who say they are on the homeowners side who gave the feedback, the evil conduct of the bad boys of the management companies [no mention of the attorneys]. They’re the ones who have drafted this type of legislation.

This only creates more “us agin them” hostility. It should be noted that he did not deny that abuse goes on in HOAs.

See also AZ CAI attorney Carpenter admits CAI is no longer in control and CAI attorney Carpenter’s view on OAH bad for HOAs

AZ CAI attorney Carpenter admits CAI is no longer in control

An advocate questioned the sincerity of CAI attorney Carpenter’s repeated use of the phrase, “They know us,” in his Sept. 15th seminar, Best Practices for Meetings in an Era of New Regulation. In response I wrote,

Earlier this year I wrote that the victories of Arizona’s HB 2441 (defeated), CAI soundly thrashed by Arizona Senate, and SB 1148 (passed, overcoming Carpenter’s DFBLS/OAH court victory), New Arizona laws for 2011 session — thanks to the legislators, signaled a major defeat for CAI in the power politics game at the Legislature. The tone of Carpenter’s remarks in the seminar only reinforces my view that a major setback took place at the Legislature for CAI. All as a result of the efforts of advocates, the real homeowner rights advocates, to get involved and expose, challenge and confront the CAI propaganda. It’s working!

I will just mention a few points from the seminar. First, Carpenter laments the new age of regulation, meaning a loss of CAI influence on HOA boards.

Second, his advice on what not to do is given with cautionary remarks that his, and the boards’, statements will go viral on the web (internet), like now. And he realizes that he is helpless to stop it. So he cautions the boards not to play “redefine” games — calling a meeting a “workshop” —which will only result more regulation when a homeowner (Sally was his example) runs to the legislature to stop some HOA evil. He further advised the attendees to shut up and not be recorded for the internet distribution. In fact, he suggested a reasonable rule, in his view, that would restrict a homeowner’s right to publish his taping of the meeting on the internet.

Third, he sought to confuse issues by identifying the management class of HOA members, the directors, as the true advocates because they are fighting for “what the members signed up for.” This serves to confuse the meaning and purpose of the bona fide “homeowner advocate” label.

In short, CAI is reacting to our issues and no longer controls the playing field. Congratulations everybody!

See also, CAI attorney Carpenter’s view on OAH bad for HOAs.

For legislators: poster-child case of HOA extortion of homeowners

This Florida case is the poster-child for the “standard operation procedures” by rogue HOA boards. The situation heard too many times by this advocate, and amounting to legalized extortion because most homeowners cannot afford to go to court for justice. And the HOA, its management firm, and its attorney all too well know this!

The “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” attitude of state legislatures and their misguided belief that the HOA, like any other business  are angels can do no wrong — and will protect the rights and freedoms of its members — must cease right now! This is another example of “us agin’ them” and the destruction of trust and social capital within HOAs.

The appellate court quoted,

“The trial court found that the complaint to foreclose the lien was premature. Agreeing with the trial court, the Third District noted, ‘Had the Association accepted and applied the tendered payments, the dispute would have been reduced to an inconsequential amount, and the Association’s attorneys could not in good faith have filed to foreclose the miniscule claim remaining.’ Ocean Two Condominium Ass’n v. Kliger, 983 So.2d 739 (Fla. 3d Dist. App. 2008).”

The court held,

“What can be gleaned from this record is that the association and its accounting methods were woefully inadequate to correctly ascertain and give notice of the amounts claimed to be due. Because of this imperfect record-keeping, the association did not make a proper claim of lien, nor did it give sufficient notice in its complaint of its claim. Had it done so, in all likelihood this case would not have even been filed. Saar showed that she consistently made the payments required and had detailed records to support her payments, many of which were not properly credited by the association. She paid all sums due in accordance with the notices and claim of lien.”

SAAR v. WELLESLEY AT LAKE CLARKE SHORES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.