Tag: North CArolina

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?

 

What were the intentions of the “original parties” to the CC&Rs?

I found this HOA case revealing of the misguided attitude, that mindset that HOAs are unquestionably solidly “legit.”  The NC appeals court cited Wise, 357 N.C. 396, 584 S.E.2d 731 (citations omitted, emphasis added) :

“As a general rule, ‘[r]estrictive covenants are valid so long as they do not impair the enjoyment of the estate and are not contrary to the public interest.’ (describing freedom of contract generally). Restrictive covenants are legitimate tools of developers so long as they are clearly and narrowly drawn. The original parties to a restrictive covenant may structure the covenants, and any corresponding enforcement mechanism, in virtually any fashion they see fit. (‘an owner of land in fee has a right to sell his land subject to any restrictions he may see fit to impose’). A court will generally enforce such covenants `to the same extent that it would lend judicial sanction to any other valid contractual relationship.’ As with any contract, when interpreting a restrictive covenant, ‘the fundamental rule is that the intention of the parties governs'”.

Id. at 400-01, Wise, 584 S.E.2d at 735-36.

Therefore, under the common law, developers and lot purchasers were free to create almost any permutation of homeowners association the parties desired. Not only could the restrictive covenants themselves be structured as the parties saw fit, a homeowners association enforcing those covenants could conceivably have a wide variety of enforcement tools at its disposal.

What is missing here is an answer to the question: Who were the “original parties”?  What were their intentions?  Well, it seems quite obvious that the original parties are none other than the declarant and his “stand-in” employees and  not at all any of the subsequent homeowners.  I mean,  what am I missing here?   It gets back to the obvious Contract Law 101 requirement of a meeting of the minds.  How can an oppressive, adhesion contract be viewed by our lofty courts as to the intents of the “original parties”, and then bind the poor homeowner who is not required by law to even read it to be bound under servitudes (covenant) law.

And let’s not get into the judicial scrutiny requirements that all  “contracts” must pass to bind the surrender of one’s rights, privileges, immunities and freedoms under state laws and the Constitution.  I mean, isn’t this still America?

See Bodine v. Harris Village POA, No. COA09-1458, (N.C. App., September 7, 2010). (http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=inncco20100907514).

Do homeowner regulations go too far?

  So his homeowners association levied fine after fine and put a lien on his home though he’d coughed up nearly $50,000 to pay fines and other related costs. Eventually, his home was foreclosed because Darius still owed $24,591.

On Aug. 15 – after losing his one-story home and two days before he would be evicted – Darius’ next door neighbor heard an explosion about 2:20 a.m. Patti McCallister ran outside, saw Darius’ home burning and called 911.

Firefighters found Darius’ badly burned body lying on the floor of his living room in the back of his home.

Do homeowner regulations go too far?     By Matt Tomsic
Matt.Tomsic@StarNewsOnline.com

Sep 3, 2010

 

My Reply:  

HOAs will continue to have serious problems because:

1.  They are based on an  undemocratic authoritarian legal scheme that does NOT place the individual rights and freedoms of the members first, as does our Constitution, but the monetary goal of maintaining property values.

2.   Consequently, this un-American private government  exists outside the Constitution and its protections of the people.  All the legal court battles are attempts to restore those lost rights.

3.   The misleading claims of agreement by homeowners is superficial and would not stand up to judicial scrutiny for the valid surrender of one’s rights.  The mere filing of CC&Rs with the county clerk is sufficient to legally bind lot owners, sight unseen, and is a mockery of both Constitutional and contract law.

4.  Then there is the unspoken alliance of local governments, state legislatures, consumer protection agencies, and public interest firms who shout “individual rights” and “no government interference”, but see no problem with private government interference.  And that also includes CAI.

5.   Community Associations Institute (CAI) was formed back in 1973 to address these problems with the HOA legal scheme, yet these problems continue to exist in spite of all that “education” provided for board members, managers, and legislators.  Would you hire a training firm with that record?  State and local governments seem not have a problem and hire “the failure to get results” CAI.

6.   CAI is on record in its amicus brief to the NJ appellate court in the Twin Rivers case, cautioning the court about the “unwise extension of constitutional protections to homeowners” in HOAs.   The common law synopsis of court decisions regarding covenants takes a decided editorial opinion rather than a neutral summary of the cases when it states, for example, that if there’s a difference between servitudes law (covenants) and constitutional law, servitudes law should apply (§ 3.1, comment h).

6.  The media, even in this article, takes the premise and presumption that the  HOA unquestionably has the right to act, and that its motives are pure and for the benefit of the community.  None of the above substantive issues are ever delved into.

In order to avoid another 40-odd years of continued injustice and discontent, government authorities and legislatures must address the above issue of substance, and stop their participation in the unspoken alliance of “No negatives about HOAs”.