First, the bill contains just technical corrections, word changes, and division name changes in the last part, after page 40 or so. The first part deals with the enforcement powers given to the division on condos and HOAs, and the next part deal with some regulatory changes – how HOAs are to operate. This is not a complete rewrite of Chapter 720 as occurred with California’s Davis-Stirling Act that regulates HOAs.
Second, as to changes in the law, opposing the bill because it does not contain a revision that you feel is necessary is not rational. If the bill proposes changes that you do not like, try to get the sponsor to see it your way. Others may not see it your way. But this condition can be handled in subsequent bills. However, if you feel that the bill’s “bad” seriously outweighs any “good,” then it is understandable that you may be opposed to the bill.
Third, as to some of the general objections made that the bill is too big and is not properly written legislation, I object. I’ve read many bills from several states, and like law suit filings, the format and organization of the bills varies according to the existing structure and organization of a state’s statutes or code.
The substantive changes in SB 596 deal with the new enforcement statutes, and some improved changes to the existing statutes. They are not overwhelming compared to many pro-HOA bills that have been adopted by states. I do agree that some changes really need to be fixed if they are to be consistent with the intent to protect homeowners, but not so serious as to oppose the bill.
Fourth, it should be remembered, as Alexander Hamilton once said, “If there is no penalty [for] disobedience, the resolutions or commands which pretend to be laws will, in fact, amount to nothing more than advice or recommendation“(Federalist Papers #15). And that’s the overriding intent of this bill — accountability through enforcement. No more free rides for HOA boards.
Homeowners should be concerned about a watering down of the enforcement provisions, as has occurred in other states, than with nit-picking other issues. The enforcement is by the state, as it should be, and not out of the homeowner’s pocket. Florida cannot say that not punishing violators of the law is good public policy.
And, in contrast to the “sky is falling” clamor, accountability will not do in HOAs. This country has survived for some 230 years subject to the constraints and restrictions of the US Constitution. So can HOAs, but perhaps those who live off the unjust current state of affairs cannot?
As an alternate to making HOA governments a state entity, the creation and establishment of a bona fide, legitimate state agency established by an effective and meaningful enabling act will accomplish HOA reforms. Couple the clear and precise intent to provide for checks and balances – meaning state oversight – with a dedicated head of the agency to carry out the agency’s mission, the independent HOA principalities will now be accountable to the state as they should be.
Florida’s SB 596, sponsored by Senator Hays, proposes such a state agency over HOAs. It proposes the following addition, among other things, to FS 720.302(2):
Having provided certain powers and authority to homeowners’ associations and in deed restrictions created by developers of mandated properties in residential communities, the Legislature recognizes that it is necessary to provide regulatory oversight of such associations in order to ensure compliance with federal and state laws and local ordinances. It is the intent of the Legislature to protect the rights of parcel owners by ensuring that the powers and authority granted to homeowners’ associations and in deed restrictions created by developers of mandated properties in residential communities conform to a system of checks and balances in order to prevent abuses by these governing authorities. (emphasis added).
From first glance, this bill creates a typical regulatory agency to make laws, set rules, investigate, handle complaints and enforce the law in courts. Among the provisions in this lengthy 124 page bill are penalties, fines, HOA cease and desist orders, and restitution enforceable in the courts by the agency, FBPR, and not having to be brought by the individual homeowner. The proposed agency is not a “let’s study the problem” typical political tactic to do nothing by creating just an investigatory agency, which insults homeowners with its “we don’t believe you” attitude. SB 596 is a very good step short of making HOAs state agencies.
It should be obvious to all that what will be argued as government involvement has been brought about precisely because of the abuse within the industry. It is the failure of those “stakeholder,” specil interest moneyed vendors to police the industry. It is the failure of the homeowners themselves to police their boards. And consequently, it falls to state governments to promote the general welfare and protect its citizens against abuse by a stronger faction within the community.
Furthermore, making this bill law will help keep the legislature from hearing HOA reform bills year after year.
In order to establish justice and fair play for all homeowners, it remains to insure that the laws are themselves fair and just. The pro-HOA laws must be amended or revoked. The misguided doctrine that permits CC&Rs and servitude law to supersede constitutional law and contract law must stop.
The legal doctrine of Monell claims appears to be suited for those instances where public policy permits violations of constitutional rights under 42 US 1983, “Civil action for deprivation of rights”.[i]These claims can pertain to police departments and county attorneys, planning boards, and real estate departments and other HOA commissioners or ombudsmen officials if they have adopted such a policy. In other words, if it is the policy of a planning board, or the police department and/or county attorney to ignore or dismiss legitimate complaints against HOAs then this policy allows for the application of civil rights protection under federal law.
In Nevada, Bob Frank and Tim Stebbins have filed such a federal claim[ii] against Henderson Police Department for false arrest and malicious prosecution relating to their whistle-blowing, which involved IRS rules violations relating to tax refunds to HOAs. Without probable cause and an independent audit, the police arrested the two homeowners under filing a false claim. Subsequent to their arrest, the IRS completed its audit that did indeed substantiate the allegations of Frank and Stebbins.
Basically, a Monell Claim involves a claim “against a government unit [with] sufficient facts to show (1)the existence of a government policy or custom and (2)that the unconstitutional act was taken pursuant to that policy or custom.”[iii] Further clarification of what constitutes “policy” was provided in Pembaurv. City of Cincinnati[iv] decision that held, among other things,
“We hold that municipal liability under § 1983 attaches where — and only where — a deliberate choice to follow a course of action is made from among various alternatives by the official or officials responsible for establishing final policy with respect to the subject matter in question.”
In other words, the policy or custom must come from a high-level official who can be said to speak for the agency, and thus the municipality. For example, Commissioners and Directors who are permitted to set rules and regulations by law. Any such rule, especially an explicit policy statement, may lead to a Monell Claim. For example, in Pembaur the Prosecutor was held to be the final authority when he told the police to break into a business without a warrant. In Frank, it is shown that the Police Chief and Municipal Judge approved the probable cause claim for the criminal arrest warrant. See this link for current documents in this case.
When the “unspoken alliance of no negatives about HOAs” becomes incorporated into an agency policy, then Monell Claims may arise.
Notes
[i] “Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected to . . . the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable . . .” (emphasis added).
[ii]Frank v. City of Cincinnati, 2:12-cv-01988-GMN-GFW (D. Nev.) (not decided).
“We are not final because we are infallible,
but we are infallible because we are final.”[i]
This Commentary excerpts relevant arguments from the court’s opinion in Poris v. Lake Holiday[ii] relating to police powers and false imprisonment. I find it necessary to use excerpts so you, the reader, can follow the issues and analysis as they actually occurred before the court. I believe this is the best way to understand public policy and how the laws are interpreted by the HOA attorneys and courts. Please read through this lengthy commentary, and discuss with others.
FIRST, let’s look at the analysis of the appellate court’s finding that the stopping of the member for an HOA rule violation was unlawful. The appellate court held,
“Specifically, plaintiff [homeowner] argued that: the Association was not authorized by law to stop vehicles and detain drivers;
“[S]ecurity guards occupy the same status as private citizens.
“[HOA] security officers were attempting to assert police powers that they had neither the right nor the power to assert. [my emphasis].
“Because [the HOA] restrained plaintiff for violating an Association rule, not a criminal law, plaintiff established the elements necessary for his false imprisonment claim.”
It is important to understand the detailed reasoning as to why the HOA had no powers to arrest was given:
“The appellate court concluded that security officers are without legal authority to stop and detain drivers for violating Association rules, because those rules are enacted by the Association, not the General Assembly, and therefore do not constitute an ’offense’ . . . .”
NOW, let’s see how the 7 wise men of the Illinois Supreme Court saw the law.
Police powers.
“Plaintiff contends that only the Illinois legislature has the authority to create a private or public police department. . . . Plaintiff and the appellate court err in viewing this issue as one involving private citizens improperly attempting to assert police powers. . . . The appellate court failed to consider the Association’s enforcement of its rules and regulations in the context of its authority as a voluntary association to enact and enforce those rules and regulations.
“[Since] courts generally will not interfere with the internal affairs of a voluntary association absent mistake, fraud, collusion or arbitrariness. . . . plaintiff generally complains that the Association was unlawfully exercising police powers and authority . . . . However, plaintiff does not, and cannot, argue that the Association and its security officer did not act consistently with its bylaws, or its rules and regulations . . . . ¶
”Plaintiff also argues that the Association is exceeding the legislative powers granted to not for profit homeowner’s associations in enacting and enforcing its traffic rules. . . . each corporation shall “have and exercise all powers necessary or convenient to effect any or all of the purposes for which the corporation is formed.” [IL statute]. . . . Regulating and enforcing traffic rules is reasonably necessary to maintain the Lake Holiday roadways.
¶
“The Association rules and regulations were enforced only on Association property, and citations for violations of the rules and regulations were only issued to Association members. Consequently, the Association was not unlawfully exercising police powers that it did not possess, but rather was acting within its authority as a voluntary association to adopt and enforce its own rules and regulations.
“We can discern no logic in allowing a private homeowners association to construct and maintain private roadways, but not allowing the association to implement and enforce traffic laws on those roadways.”
And finally, false imprisonment.
“[T]he appellate court erred in analyzing [the HOA’s] stop of plaintiff in terms of a private citizen effecting a citizen’s arrest, rather than analyzing the stop as pursuant to Association rules and regulations. . . . These facts would lead a person . . . to believe or entertain a strong and honest suspicion that plaintiff was guilty of violating Association rules. Consequently, [the HOA] had probable cause to believe that an offense was committed by plaintiff, which is an absolute bar to plaintiff’s claim for false imprisonment. [my emphasis].”
My perspective
In Poris we have another instance of a state supreme court holding private contracts superior to the Constitution (See NJ supreme court opinion in Twin Rivers[iii]). Apparently, the only thing that the Constitution has to say is an absolute “no contract interference.” Note how the court adopted a narrow reading of the laws as it parsed and examined the precise wording of the laws, not stepping back in its alleged legal wisdom seeing only the trees and not the ugly forest.
The court cleverly ignored the question of detaining non-members, and the question of public streets.
Think of the implication that a non-profit, any non-profit, can enforce its rules even by detain and arresting its member. And think of the impact on the US Supreme Court question, and Arizona laws (SB 1070), dealing with similar issues of detention, probable cause, and reasonable suspicion by police officers to demand “your papers” to uncover illegal immigrants.
I can summarize the Illinois opinion with the simple statement by William Pitt, part of which appears on the façade of the Arizona Supreme Court building:
Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it: and this I know, my lords, that where law ends, tyranny begins!”[iv]
[i] Justice Robert Jackson, Brown v. Allen, 334 US 443 (1953). (Robert H. Jackson was also US Attorney General and chief US prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials).
[ii]Poris v. Lake Holiday, 2013 IL 113907 (Jan. 25, 2012). (It should be noted that I cannot find any record of the amicus curiae for the HOA, an Illinois Association of Lake Communities).
[iii]Committee for a Better Twin Rivers v. Twin Rivers, 929 A.2d 1060 (NJ 2007).
[iv] This statement was made by Lord Chatham (William Pitt) to the British House of Lords in January 1770.
The failures and continued actions of the Sanford, FL police department, with respect to the failure to uphold the laws on arrest in the Trayvon slaying, is disturbing. It reeks of a total disregard for justice and fair play. It causes me to consider what if your neighborhood HOA had these powers? The public policy with respect to HOAs has been a hands-off policy with and no accountability under the law – let them do as they please. Just as it seems the Sanford police department has adopted with its failure to arrest Zimmerman.
And yet, the Arizona Legislature sees no serious issue with the unrestricted delegation of regulatory powers to HOAs over parking on public streets as set forth in HB 2030.
“An association may regulate the parking of noncommercial vehicles on any roadway for which the ownership has been dedicated to or is otherwise held by a governmental entity . . . .”
My suggested amendment was ignored, “may regulate the parking . . . only with respect to parking by the members of the HOA who have waived their right to public parking on public streets within the HOA governed subdivision.” And the legislature rejected the position that the HOA can get a variance if it has legitimate parking concerns, like everybody else! The legislative intent to allow further unrestricted powers to these independent HOAs has become much clearer.
Would this bill put us on the slippery slope path that can produce an event like the Trayvon slaying? In Arizona, you can carry concealed weapons almost anywhere. The bill does not create any new laws, but is simply a re-affirmation for all to know of who runs local government. If this bill becomes law, then I believe we are on the slippery slope to the “law and order” of the wild, wild west by the power factions, like the cattle barons, railroad, and mining interests of the Old West. Arizona already had one incident where two HOA board members were killed in 2000 during a board meeting.
Although the bill is only about parking at this point, the real import of this bill is the starting out on the slippery pathway to further lawlwssness by HOAs. Where does it say that the the uniformed and arm-banded “HOA Security,” the police arm of the HOA, cannot stop and detain – that means ‘arrest’ — people on public streets? And Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio doesn’t want to do police public streets in HOA subdivisions. And we well know the great care and concern for proper procedure and obedience to the laws as exhibited by HOAs today in other areas. Can an incident like in Sanford happen with this grant of unrestricted powers?
Won’t happen here? Too far fetched? Wanna bet? To a lesser extent lawlessness is happening everyday in HOA-Land, with respect to such issues as, failing to respond to records requests, making up rules on the fly, arbitrarily fining people, “political machine” elections, and going to court on the most trivial grounds, etc. Now what will these rogue boards do next?
HOA Constitutional Government 