Tag: linkedin

Twin Rivers and NJ HOA free speech rights, redux

Here we go again! Once again revisiting the question of free speech rights to display signs in a New Jersey HOA. In Mazdabrook v. Khan the appellate court revisited Twin Rivers and the underlying “test case’, State v. Schmidt, but with a different outcome in favor of free speech. I find it very interesting how our judicial system analyzes and bisects broad legal principles into 1001 “and, if or buts” micro-segments. How is the average person to know what is legal and what is not? Must he go to an attorney, who may or may not know but will take you to court to find out?

In Mazdabrook the homeowner placed campaign signs for his election as major of the town, not a for sale sign, but the HOA had governing documents permitting only for sale signs and no others. The court said No, No, No, that’s content-based restriction on commercial advertising and a constitutional violation of free speech rights and a total ban on other signs. In contrast to Twin Rivers, the HOA sign restriction to allow a sign in every window and one outside sign no more than three feet from the house was held not to be an unreasonable burden on the owner’s free speech rights. It cited the Restatement of Property “suggestion” that a covenant is not valid if it “not mentioning the obvious that a covenant is also invalid if it were unconstitutional.”

See, as to another question of reasonableness, the NJ Esposito case, In NJ, HOA boards do not have to be reasonable, and go figure how our judicial system works. See also the link to the Paula Franzese and Steven Siegel critique of the Twin Rivers decision in Rutgers Journal articles on HOAs and Twin Rivers case.

OF SPECIAL INTEREST and importance is the dissenting opinion of a judge who addressed such questions as: the waiver of one’s rights when simply taking possession of his deed, the implied consent to be governed, and a surprising reference to the waiver of ex post facto rights. Where did he get that from??? I wonder?

I’ve been told that the appellate decision has been appealed to the very same NJ Supreme Court, but oral arguments have not yet been heard. Also, the Rutgers Constitutional Law Clinic under Frank Askin, the party that represented the homeowners in Twin Rivers, has filed an amicus curiae brief for ACLU, and will be allowed to make an oral argument.

Cases

Mazdabrook v. Khan (N.J. Super. A.D., 2010, unpublished).

CBTR v. Twin Rivers, 929 A.2d 1060 (2007).

State v. Schmidt, 423 A.2d 615 (1980).

In NJ, HOA boards do not have to be reasonable

Nor in any other state that stands by the Business Judgment Rule (BJR) doctrine.

 

Re: Esposito v. Riviera at Freehold HOA, No. A-6001-09T1, (NJ Supr.Ct App. Div. April 2011).

 

This appellate court decision reflects what’s wrong with our judicial system with its doctrine of binding precedents, stare decisis, that is used to uphold earlier decisions even if they may be obviously unjust by anyone’s standard. It perpetuates injustice and judicial bias, as we see with HOA decisions. In Esposito, the court cited the protections for homeowners based on the Twin Rivers NJ Supreme Court opinion,

 

The protections for common interest residents were described by the Court in [Twin Rivers]. The Court noted that (emphasis added):

 

First, the business judgment rule protects common interest community residents from arbitrary decision-making. . . . Pursuant to the business judgment rule, a homeowners’ association’s rules and regulations will be invalidated (1) if they are not authorized by statute or by the bylaws or master deed, or (2) if the association’s actions are “fraudulent, self-dealing or unconscionable.” Our Appellate Division has uniformly invoked the business judgment rule in cases involving homeowners’ associations.

 

[It should be noted that this ipse dixit (a dictum in the courts) that homeowners were protected by the business judgment rule was an “offering” to mollify homeowners who just had their constitutional protections to free speech rejected by the NJ Supreme Court.]

 

Note the BJR absence of reasonableness in board decision making as found in the Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes, § 3.1(2) – (4), and elsewhere. However, the homeowners were well aware of reasonableness as a criteria for valid decisions and argued the “material adverse effect” standard that includes reasonableness as a criteria instead of the BJR. Unfortunately, the Court quickly perceived that this standard only applied to condominiums as indicated in the court decision (Billig v. Buckingham Condominium Association I, Inc., 287 N.J.Super. 551 (App. Div. 1996)).

 

The Court decided that, emphasis added,

 

The trial judge held that since the Association was not a condominium association, the Condominium Act did not apply, and he refused to extend the “reasonableness” and “material adverse effect” standard in Billig to this matter. After a careful review of the record and weighing of the evidence, we see no reason to disturb the judgment requiring replacement of the door. We reach this decision based on the finding of facts by the trial court, which are adequately supported by the evidence, and essentially for the legal conclusions expressed in [the trial judge’s] comprehensive and thoughtful opinion.

What about justice? Why is reasonableness required for justice to be served in condos but not in HOAs? HOAs are sui generis, a combination of nonprofit and governmental functions. They are not just another run-of-the-mill nonprofit with ease of entry and access, and without liens or foreclosure penalties. Don’t they deserve a heightened degree of homeowner protection as provided under the “material adverse effect” and Restatement doctrines? Are we a nation of laws to serve justice or a nation of men to decide as they please?

 

[As to the nature of this complaint, the homeowner replaced his “colonial” style door with a “gothic” style door, which I am told are quite different. Esposito claimed that the property manger gave him a verbal OK, which he relied on, but submittted a change approval after the fact. The ACC, as we all could anticipate, denied the after-the-fact request. And so the suit progressed. Why, it can be reasonbly asked without fears of lost income, didn’t the board or ACC simply say it was quite unreasonable to replace a colonial with a gothic? You don’t need a King Solomon to nake this rational, reasonable, decision. Well, maybe so if you accept McKenzie’s view that incompetent people are conscripted to run HOAs and who affect the individual homeowner’s finances. Was it undue lawyer influence based on the fear of lost fees?]

 

Returnng to the argument at hand, judicial bias against HOAs, as I wrote previously in Judicial precedent and HOA bias,

The researchers found that the doctrine of stare decisis, itself, falls victim to the preferences of the judges. “Stare decisis is the rule of law that imports the aura of legitimacy on the judicial process by holding future decisions to be bound by prior decisions that serve as “precedent.” The doctrine of stare decisis ‘permits society to presume that bedrock principles are founded in the law rather than in the proclivities of individuals, and thereby contributes to the integrity of our constitutional system of government. Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 US 254 (1986).’

 

In HOAs in America, I quoted William B. Allen’scomments on Machiavelli’s The Prince, which helps illuminate my argument. In his commentary Allen wrote that “the role of morals in politics is mainly to cultivate illusions,” and that “politics is merely appearance and morality is merely pretense.” And speaking of justice, the necessary ingredient for the claim to the legitimacy of government and to be obeyed in conscience, Allen offers Machiavelli’s advice, “Because the [right] to rule is rather the appearance of justice rather than justice itself, the appearance of injustice defeats every [right] to rule.”

HOA limitations: conscripting people who cannot run an HOA

Highlights of the The Urban Institute Forum, June 30, 2011, Private Community Associations: Boon or Bane for Local Governance?

Sadly, Robert Nelson’s pro-HOA opening statement was filled with the myths, misconceptions and half-truths that perpetuate the laissez-faire attitude from government. Legislatures that have failed to reign in these undemocratic private, second political system of government known as HOAs. He is part of what I term the legal-academic aristocrats. McKenzie’s response rejected what he called Nelson’s theoretical, alternate form of government, saying that, “If you actually look at the reality of the way these [HOAs] . . . function, they do not fit these assumptions at all.”

McKenzie said that, for example, this “volunteerism” simply doesn’t happen, since, as it appears that,as all the “common people” know, the agreements are created by the developer’s attorneys and handed down. There is no give and take in creating this form of individualized local government, so often touted as town hall government at work in HOAs. McKenzie described these declarations as “boiler plate”, and mentioned seeing covenants relating to elevators when there were none in the subdivision.

“People are “conscripted” into these associations if you buy the lot”, he further added. They are then told “that they consented to the agreement, but that’s a legal fiction.” “And realtors don’t even tell them anything about it.” In reality, he continued, “the people really don’t control their association, the dead hand of the developer does” since changing the CC&Rs is difficult to do. [With respect to the past attempt at Arizona legislation to allow 1/3 of the members to change the CC&Rs for everyone does not address the problem of ex post facto contracts].

Addressing the contractual legal scheme, McKenzie stated that, “This [HOA legal scheme] is a model . . . that trickled down from the top of the income distribution . . . . It is probably a form of governance that would work reasonably well if practiced by 1% of the population.” The wealthy and reasonably affluent with money “who can hire lawyers and who came in with their eyes open and knew what they were getting into.” In other words, a specialized, utopian, perhaps cult community for the wealthy. As I’ve written many times, McKenzie said the mass merchandising [my words] was driven not by the people demanding HOAs, but by the developers and municipalities that are increasingly mandating only HOA regimes for new developments. There is no free market system at work, no freedom of choice.

As this mass marketing proceeds, “you begin to conscript people into this mass housing who cannot run it.” In particular in today’s climate, the failure to establish adequate capital reserves to offset decreased income. Well, isn’t that also a failure of the national HOA educational organization that “certifies” HOA managers for the past 40 years?

“The idea of private government is fine,” according to McKenzie, “for people who can afford to operate it. Imposing this on people, which we have done, who cannot run it, who don’t know how to run meetings, who won’t go to board meetings at all . . . . What we are seeing is professional people, managers and lawyers actually running the associations.” You know, the “hired hands.” “The priority on foreclosure is driven by the professionals. It is not driven by what’s best for the community.”

“The owners are not loyal to their association. They put up flagpoles because they don’t think they are legitimate.”

The policy makers and public interest ‘influencers” should pay attention to the realties before them, and cease their dogmatic, unworkable ideology. This Forum is a good start.

“Beyond Privatopia” – understanding the economic theories that brought about the New America of HOA-Land

Beyond Privatopia: Rethinking Residential Private Government, Evan McKenzie (Urban Inst. 2011)

 

Once again, a short book, 168 pages, by McKenzie is packed with very important information for those seriously interested in understanding the HOA phenomenon. A must reading for the public interest nonprofits, the legal-academic aristocrats, and all state legislators who have failed over the years to face the realities of the social and political impact of HOAs on our democratic system of government.

 

In his Preface, McKenzie proclaims that “this book is written in my own unusual hybrid perspective”, having one foot in the legal-academic club and the other foot amongst the homeowner rights advocates. He names names of leading advocates (p. 121, n. 4): Shu Bartholomew, Jan Bergemann, Pat Haruff, George Starapoli [sic], Fred Pilot and Monica Sadler. Yet, my impression so far is that the book is addressed to the legal-academic aristocrats to remind them that America was not founded on the state being an neoclassic economic force, a business, concerned with efficiency, productivity, wealth redistribution, or rational choice But, that America was founded on principles of democratic government as set forth in the Preamble to the US Constitution (my interpretation):

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfectUnion, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide forthe common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure theBlessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity . . . .

In Chapter 3 McKenzie discusses the libertarian views of Robert H. Nelson and Nozick, among others. He references Nelson with, “They contend that CIDs [McKenzie’s generic term for HOAs] are more efficient and more democratic [my emphasis] than municipalities and should replace them.” (p. xi). He present’s Nozick’s 1974 argument (p. 47) for “minimal states” that lead to “private protective associations.” Minimal states and protective associations have become today’s call for less public government and the CC&Rs enforcement agency known as the HOA.

 

Nozick’s defense of minimal states, according to McKenzie, is that “This [minimal] state would be legitimate, even though it may infringe on the liberty of individuals [my emphasis], because from the bottom up it would have been based on voluntarism and the rights of contract.” Sounds eerie doesn’t it? We hear these arguments today in defense of the HOA legal scheme, but as McKenize argued, they are based on myths. “The notion that individual owners agreed among themselves to perform these services for each other, and subsequent owners took over from them, is entirely fictional.” (p. 60).

 

Enough for now. More to come . . . .

In search of the elusive ideal HOA agreement

 

I received an email from a well-intentioned homeowner in Georgia. He was on the committee to rewrite the CC&Rs to make it fair both to the 692 homeowners and the HOA, which, I hope he realizes, is the current board of directors. He asked for my input, so I wrote in return:

 

  1. Do you think the Committee can create a more perfect union than that attempted in writing the US Constitution?

  2. Do you think 692 people can agree on everything in the CC&RS that you are putting together?

  3. Do you think 692 people really care about HOA government participation, or did they just want to buy a home?

  4. Would the Committee and the HOA Board sign, along with the 692 owners, the  Truth in HOAs Disclosure Agreement?

  5. Would the Committee include a guarantee that the HOA will maintain property values in exchange for the various waivers and surrenders of the owner’s private property rights and interests, both explicitly stated or implied by the CC&Rs, or by future court rulings? If not, then what is the buyer getting from the HOA? In a true democracy, people give up certain of their rights to the government in exchange for gurantees, justice, protections against more powerful factions, and to obtain an orderly, smooth-running society.

  6. Would the Committee include a prohibition on“ex post facto” amendments to the CC&Rs, similar to that in the US Constitution? That is, honor all prior CC&Rs versions existing at the time of each owner’s purchase? In other words, they are all grandfathered.

  7. Would the Committee include wording to the effect that the HOA irrevocably agrees to be bound and subject to the US Constitution and Bill of Rights in the same manner as if it were a local public government entity, as all other forms of are bound and subject? The phrase, “in the same manner as if it were a local public government entity,” is mandatory. Simply agreeing to obey the Constitution, as found in some CC&Rs, is meaningless would not subject the private HOA entity to the 5th and 14th Amendments.

Now, I hope you will realize the impossibility of your task and its expected failure. No one can expect a bona fide acceptance and willingness to obey any CC&Rs that are created as a mass marketing device to be sold to the public at large. And one that cannot be modified by the buyer in a true give and take exchange necessary for a valid and binding contract.