Tag: legislature

Want more neighborly love? In an HOA??

 

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.

Narrow interpretations of HOA law and Rule 11(a): CAI game plan?

 In order to understand CAI’s adversarial position to homeowner reforms and its activities to promote litigation challenges, we need to look into its activities and not its lofty pronouncements. As you know, Rule 11(a) requires that the attorney perform a reasonable inquiry into the genuine issues of law or fact of the HOA allegations before undertaking any law suit. (See HOA attorney failure to inquire into merits of a complaint — R Civ P. 11(a)). We can get a good idea of CAI’s motivations for pursuing litigation from its activities with respect to HOA reform laws.

In spite of strenuous opposition by advocates, the sponsor, Arizona Rep. Montenegro, pursued this bill, HB 2441, to the very last floor vote before it was soundly defeated. (See CAI soundly thrashed by Arizona Senate). His support for this disgraceful bill can only stem from 1) that he is true believer in the New America of HOA-Lands, or 2) that he succumbed to the heavy influence of the national trade organization, CAI.

Advocates had attempted to inform Montenegro and the legislators of CAI’s real intent, which was not the betterment of the community or the state of Arizona, but its own self-interests – control of the HOA landscape.  As further evidence of this opposition to the intent of the law, the former CAI chapter president and lobbyist, Scott Carpenter of Carpenter Hazlewood, released examples of what could be seen as “how HOAs can get around the law.”

In my comment to New Arizona laws for 2011 session — thanks to the legislators, I critique Carpenter’s “reasonable rules” that HOAs may impose on the recording of HOA meetings, the new HB 2445 law. One is a 24-hour prior written notice to the board, which can easily “disappear” at its convenience. Also, among is “reasonableness” are that all recordings must be on tripods and must use batteries – seems contradictory with respect to its stated concerns about safety issues. And that the HOA has a right to obtain a copy of the recording – at a reasonable cost. H’mmm, maybe the feel paranoid and that its own recordings won’t capture everything? Or is he just putting up obstacles “to make life difficult?”

Again, a CAI attorney, Carolyn Goldschmidt, takes up another controversial issue with respect to applicability of Title 10 statutes for nonprofit corporations and Title 33 statutes on HOAs and condos. (By the way, the resurrected statutes for ALJ adjudication of HOA disputes, SB 1148, does not permit the ALJ to decide issues outside of Title 33). Basically, does ARS 10-3708 or ARS 33-1812 control the holding of HOA elections and meetings? In an attempt to avoid the HOA statutes with respect to meetings and elections, Goldschmidt narrowly argues that an election without a meeting is valid under Title 10. Yet Title 33 contains strict requirements for meetings and elections – notice, ballot, agenda and quorums.

The HOA held an election that was not part of the meeting, as it claims, and the subsequent meeting just counted the votes but took no action. Say what? Isn’t a “certification” or a counting of election results at an annual meeting an “action”? And, as Goldschmidt well knows as she had participated in several OAH complaints, this dispute would not fall under the Office of Administrative Hearings jurisdiction by an ALJ. (And neither would the other very important common laws found in Chapters 6 and 3 of the Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes).

It is these actions in the real world and not the pontifications by CAI and it seminars, conferences, articles, columns or interviews that reflect what CAI is all about. That reflect CAI attorney pursuits of litigation, advertising and advising loopholes in the laws using narrow interpretations of the law, which can be highly questionable under Rule 11(a). And it is not about principles of democratic government within the New America of HOA-Lands or making for a better America or community, its about power over the HOA second form of political government. And attorney fees.

If charged with violating Rule 11(a), and so judged, can the HOA file against the attorney for its attorney fees?

New Arizona laws for 2011 session — thanks to the legislators

 
HOA laws for the 2011 session:
 
 The 7 new  laws, out of 22 bills introduced, affect due process protections for homeowners that levels the “litigation playing field”;   homeowner meeting rights, including the right to record board meetings, as a check on abusive boards and attorneys; new restrictions on transfer fees;  free speech rights to fly flags and political signs; and restrictions on fees for leasing signs.
 
They are:  HB 2245, HB 2609, HB 2717, SB 1148, SB 1149, SB 1326,  and SB 1540.  All homeowner friendly, and as many would say, making for a better community and a better Arizona. 
 
This Arizona session has been the largest pro-homeowner crop of HOA reforms in my 11 years of advocacy. 
 
And it also included a sharp rebuff to CAI in its desperate attempt to retain influence over HOA boards through lobbying our legislators.  HB 2441, the minority control / no court appeals  bill – failed.  Now, they alone, are setting out to put the spin on these new laws by offering seminars and classes. 
 
The public has no alternative to this pro-HOA special interrests propaganda since the news media remains firm in its policy of No Negatives About HOAs.  It would be impossible for the media to explain the new laws without reference to the abuses and lack of homeowner protections in HOA regimes.
 
Thanks to the tenacity of several outspoken Arizona advocates, the laws become effective on July 20th.

HOA attorney failure to inquire into merits of a complaint — R Civ P. 11(a)

  

I’ve mentioned several times that there are many instances where the HOA attorney could easily be seen as a co-conspirator against the homeowner.  I cited civil court rule R 11(a) – found in all states – that says,

 

“that to the best of the signer‟s knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry [the document] is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law; and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose.”

 

In other words, the filing a suit to collect attorney fees, win or lose.  Problem is that the HOA winds up paying when the homeowner does standup in court and demands evidence and facts.  But, in any case, the attorney gets the $$$.

 

While this case does not involve unsubstantiated violations by the HOA, or unreasonable interpretations of the governing documents or statutes, it well illustrates a very important defense argument.  In this Arizona case, CAI HOA attorney Maxwell contested HOA’s second position to the first mortgage lender’s lien, arguing that the statute applied  to first mortgages in time only.  Of course, there was the usual demand for attorney fees  since the HOA lost.  I guess that includes fees for the appeal, too.  

The court found as to the good faith of the filing attorney that,

 

“The good faith component of Rule 11 is not based on whether an attorney subjectively pursues claims in good faith, but instead is judged on an objective standard of what a professional, competent attorney would do in similar circumstances . . . . The trial court determined sanctions were appropriate because there was “no statutory basis or any extension of statute that would lead counsel to presume that Plaintiff had priority over a first deed of trust filed by the Bank[s].”

 

The appellate court said it quite pointedly: “As discussed above, the language in § 33-1807 is clear and unambiguous. Yet, both here and below, VJA bases its arguments on an interpretation of the statute that is contrary to its plain language.”

 

Don’t be afraid to remind your attorney about this Rule 11(a)  — they are usually hesitant to attack their fellow attorneys as they may be next so charged. 

Villa de Jardins Assn v. Flagstar Bank, CA-CV 2010-0177, (Ariz. App. Div. 2, Apr. 22, 2011).

Arizona OAH restoration: SB 1148 signed; supreme court “paused”

 

SB 1148 was signed by the Governor today – will become law 90 days after end of session.
 
The AZ Supreme Court did not reach a decision and the case is listed as “Continued”, probably at the next conference scheduled for May 24 (not yet on the agenda).
 
Congratulations to Sen. Biggs on behalf of all homeowners living in HOAs seeking justice!