Tag: oversight

NC reform bills need your support

Three very material and important bills seeking meaningful HOA reforms are before the North Carolina General Assembly (legislature): H311, S312, and H542.  (See ‘There is no oversight’ Proposed bills call for changes to HOAs in North Carolina). These bills address the two categories of reform legislation as I have defined them: constitutional and operational.

It has been my experience over some 23 years that reform legislation falls into two categorical levels: constitutional seeking to change the systemic HOA scheme, and operational seeking to apply the existing day-to-day laws and governing documents in a fair and just manner.

The average homeowner does not quite understand the broader constitutional issues but well feels the effects of the current day-to-day conditions. AN example of operational reform would be to change the time frame or approval percentage of an existing covenant. It’s a procedural change.

H311,

An act to establish a community association oversight division in the office of the attorney general.  In short, the AG is authorized to investigate HOA wrongdoing and to take remedial action including legal action, if so determined. The division is a rulemaking body —  adopt and change rules —  to carry out its authority. It is a constitutional 14th Amendment due process and equal protection of the laws bill.

S312,

An act that requires notice of liens and the ability to foreclose. A lengthy bill to inform the homeowner that a lien has been placed on his property and the right to work out a repayment plan. While the right to foreclose is removed, the HOA can proceed with legal action to obtain payment of the debt, like garnishment, etc. It has a constitutional aspect in removing the right to foreclose – seen as a special law for a special entity, the HOA – and an operational aspect with respect to the procedures to follow in attempting to collect the unpaid assessments.

H542,

An act placing a limit on foreclosure and notice of a lien. The lien notice is similar to S312. The bill also sets a $2,500 minimum, or 1 year of unpaid assessments not paid within 30 days. It is an operational bill dealing with everyday procedures.

I prefer S312 over H542 since HOA foreclosure rights are unreasonable, against good public policy, and whose purpose is to serve as a punishment.  What right does a private entity, that has not advanced any hard cash like a bank, have to receive foreclosure payments far in excess of the HOA assessment debt that also includes exorbitant attorney payments not found in the public sector?

[Please feel free to repost with proper credit].

Arizona HOA regulatory bill needs your support.

Last Friday, June 5th,  I emailed a revised AZ model bill to AZ legislators for sponsorship in January 2016.  It was initially drafted this past January, too late for introduction in 2015.  See model HOA regulatory agency bill.

“Summary.   This bill establishes a department of homeowners associations with full direct regulatory authority over Ch.9 and Ch. 16 associations under the direction of a commissioner. It provides for receiving complaints, investigations, filing legal actions, issuing civil penalties, rulemaking, and education as well as establishing an Advisory Board to provide recommendations to the commissioner.   Funding is provided by a $4 per unit fee per year. The processing of HOA disputes by DFBLS is stricken and processing is replaced  by the department of homeowner associations.”

Arizonans, email your legislator and demand sponsorship in 2016!  I will meet with any legislator to clarify and to answer any questions.  This bill affects the general public across the state and attempts to restore law and order to HOA-Land.  It deserves to be made law ASAP!

As you all know, HOAs are private persons and lawmaking is mandated to state legislatures as set forth in their respective constitutions. And you know that the state does not supervise HOAs, but has adopted a ‘hands off’ posture — no penalties for HOA board violations, for instance. “[i]t is a well established theory that a legislature may not delegate its authority to private persons over whom the legislature has no supervision or control.” (McLoughlin v. Pima, 58 P.3d 39 (2002).  This bill would provide constitutionally required legislative supervision and control.

Read the proposed regulatory bill:  Regulatory agency