Tag: linkedin

CAI admits desirableness of HOAs on decline

Now that hard times have come upon us, the weakness and high risk of living in an HOA has become readily apparent, and too late for all those living in HOAs. The coerced acceptance under false pretenses, and the all too eagerness for people to believe, hid the reality that HOAs are like privately held small businesses and partnerships that expose the owners to high financial risks not of their own doing.

As I wrote,

The pro-HOA supporters’ reason for the need for foreclosure rights can be found in the defective HOA legal scheme that is similar to a partnership. In partnerships there are a limited number of financial supporters, the owners, who are jointly and severally responsible for all the HOA debts — those with the money pay for those without the money. A legality. And like a privately held small business, the financial base is relatively small and limited to the homeowners who have very little practical means to escape their obligations by leaving the HOA. (Call for HOA action: “Occupy Wall Street” vs. Occupy the Legislature).

Like those caught in privately held businesses and partnership “gone south,” there is very little that can be done for homeowner-investors in HOAs. HOA foreclosure is unjust and lacks any evidence to salvage an HOA. Those very same laws that gave the image of safe investments and a happy community are at the heart of the problem. You know, like the banks giving away all those almost free mortgages.

Courts finally realizing the gross injustice of HOA foreclosures

The gross injustice of HOA foreclosures is slowly being realized by the courts. In Brooks, the Tennessee appellate court heard an appeal on a non-judicial foreclosure whereby the HOA sold, and bought, a “free and clear” home valued in excess of $321,740 for just $12,828, of which about half, $6,734, were attorney fees.

That’s more than 25 times the “damages” to the HOA, and more than the 10 times limit set by the US Supreme Court for punitive damages. See State Farm v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003). And, the Rivertown HOA failed to acknowledge that the homeowner had paid part of this amount before the foreclosure.

The court held, emphasis added,

In addition to finding that the foreclosure sale price shocked the conscience of the court, the trial court determined that various irregularities in Rivertown’s bookkeeping justified setting aside the sale. In its January 27 order, the trial court found that it was “unclear as to what amount would have brought Plaintiff to a zero balance on assessments[.]”

Brooks v. Rivertown on Island, No. W2011-003260COA-R3-CV (Tenn. App., Dec. 6, 2011).

Mr. President: require all HOAs to be subject to the Constitution

By virtue of an unconscionable adhesion private contract favoring the subdivision developer and HOA board of directors, homeowners associations are allowed to deny constitutional protections and the application of the laws of the land. Over 20% of Americans, who are homeowners living in these private governments, live at the “suffrage of the board,” with state laws that do not punish board violations of the laws or of the governing HOA documents.

The alleged “consent to agree” fails all contract law requirements, and does not pass judicial scrutiny for such a waiver or surrender of one’s freedoms, liberties, immunities and privileges as a citizen of his state or as an American citizen. The selling process is ripe with misrepresentation, half-truths, and unspoken material facts about life in an HOA. There are no fair election laws or due process procedures for a fair and just hearing as are provided by public protections.

Foreclosure rights are granted to HOAs as an intimidation and punishment vehicle, and are not found anywhere else where corporations  do not advance hard cash as do banks or mortgage companies.  The HOA does not advance hard cash! A homeowner can lose all his equity for a debt less than 10% of the value of his equity. The foreclosure process is discriminatory against those who have high equity — those who have paid their mortgages and HOA dues for a very long time. It is only from these good people that the HOA can expect to obtain any payment of its debt, provided there is sufficient equity to make a payoff.

Are we united or are there two forms of political government within this great country?  If America is to remain a united people, it is time that the US prohibits the writing of private contracts, Declarations of CC&Rs, subject to common law servitudes in order to subvert the application of the US Constitution.  It is time that these private local governments be made subject to the US Constitution and stop being treated as independent principalities.

“and justice for all” not available by HOA due process clause

The Dec. 1, 2011 Condo Issues.com blog by Tyler Berding has, as it title, the long hoped for condition sought by homeowners: “And Justice for All.”  Except the author, Steve Weil, fails to make the case that such is the condition in HOAs with their disgraceful, commonly found  due process clause: “after notice and an opportunity to be heard.” Period. Citing almost identical California law only supports the legislature’s pro-HOA authoritarian regime and its denial of fundamental protections of individual rights and liberties. Apparently he never saw the 1979 Al Pacino movie by the same title.

Weil goes on to make his “expert” legal view by citing the Aliusi v Fort Washington Golf Club case, which is not a private government HOA dispute. He speaks of 1) revealing the name of the accuser, 2) the submission of evidence, and 3) makes a good point on the details required by a proper notice, or “indictment,” of wrong-doing. He buries the principles of “and justice for all” in his discussion of issues 1 and 2 above, but, reading between the lines, agrees with the right to confront witnesses and to see and challenge the evidence. Weil concludes with, “the reason for “due process” is to give one who is the target of a hearing a fair chance to defend him/herself.”

However, he makes the pro-HOA assumption, an ipse dixit, that the board, the “jury”, is indeed interested in justice, for if it truly were, it would establish an independent tribunal for hearings. “Giving the owner this opportunity helps reveal the real and relevant facts and thus also aids the board’s decision-making process.”

Finally, the author well understands the moral and ethical aspect of legitimate government and laws. He ends with the need for homeowner acceptance of HOA justice with, “an owner who feels they were given a “fair shake” is much more likely to agree with the board’s disciplinary decision and comply with the governing documents.” It is a long established doctrine, going back to the Greek philosophers, that the legitimacy of government depends on fair and just laws, and the fair and just enforcement of these laws. It is well established that HOA private governments are unjust and authoritarian in structure with a façade of democracy — just because a member can vote does not make an entity a democracy.

There are no due process protections for homeowners in HOAs that would pass judicial scrutiny. Arguments that buyers agreed to be bound to the CC&Rs and bylaws is a mockery of the facts, as the selling process is ripe with misrepresentation — false statements, half-truths, and “no negatives.” See Truth in HOAs disclosure poll — please vote your conscience.

Too hot for NC HOA committee – withdraws legal-academic “experts”

The North Carolina Select House HOA Committee scheduled a meeting for Nov. 16, as stated by a NC Legislative Assistant,

The meeting notice indicates that the House Committee will “hear from legal and academic experts on matters pertaining to Homeowners Associations. Commentary from the public is also welcome.”

In response, I sent the committee co-chairs, among other issues, my frequently asked, but unanswered, questions:

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.

The response from the committee later that day was,

The agenda for tomorrow’s meeting has changed, and instead of the legal and academic experts, it will be Research Staff from the General Assembly who are presenting information on past actions dealing with homeowner’s associations. There is NO public comment tomorrow.

There you go again! No one, including all those so called public interest nonprofits who claim that they are fighting for individual rights, has dared answered these questions. Welcome to the New America of HOA-Land.

See The CAI ‘Philosopher-kings’ are best to rule HOAs?