Tag: punishment

Supreme Court finds taking excess foreclosure funds unconstitutional

The Supreme Court landmark decision in Tyler v. Hennepin County (No. 22-166, May 23, 2023), addressed an appeal by a  non-HOA homeowner in Minnesota who was foreclosed on by the state.  She brought “claims under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment.” It has an immense impact on the constitutionality of HOA foreclosures. The Takings Clause is applicable to the action of states by means of the 14th Amendment.

(These claims of unconstitutional foreclosures and excess fines as a punished were argued in my 2013 pamphlet, HOA Common Sense: rejecting private government, No. 8, “Draconian punishment and intimidation.”)

In Tyler, the Court maintained that while states have imposed property  taxes,

“Such taxes are not themselves a taking, but are a mandated “contribution from individuals . . . for the support of the government . . . for which they receive compensation in the protection which government affords.”

And it posed, “The question is whether that remaining value is property under the Takings Clause, protected from uncompensated appropriation by the State.”  The Court answered,  “Our precedents have also recognized the principle that a taxpayer is entitled to the surplus in excess of the debt owed.” 

The Court’s reasoning extended the Takings Clause to other arenas beyond taxes,

“Finally, Minnesota law itself recognizes that in other contexts a property owner is entitled to the surplus in excess of her debt. Under state law, a private creditor may enforce a judgment against a debtor by selling her real property, but “[n)o more shall be sold than is sufficient to satisfy” the debt, and the creditor may receive only “so much [of the proceeds) as will satisfy” the debt. . . . Likewise, if a bank forecloses on a home because the homeowner fails to pay the mortgage, the homeowner is entitled to the surplus from the sale.”

The Supreme Cout concluded,

“Because we find that Tyler has plausibly alleged a taking under the Fifth Amendment, and she agrees that relief under “the Takings Clause would fully remedy [her] harm,” we need not decide whether she has also alleged an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment.”

In a broad, extended view of this decision, one can say that any state law that does not allow excess funds from foreclosure to belong to the debtor, by public or by private foreclosures, would be deemed unconstitutional.  And that goes for HOA foreclosures!  No longer need we address the opposition that HOAs are private contracts and the Constitution and laws of the land do not apply.  This momentous Supreme Court decision has knocked down the doors for homeowners in HIOAs.  

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].

Dual HOA punishments: no homestead protection & foreclosure

The unreasonable HOA take all foreclosure right is a cruel and unusual punishment. (Courts finally realizing the gross injustice of HOA foreclosures). It is linked to the denial of the homestead exemption which in effect, crushes without exception the dastardly homeowner for not paying up! 

The Arizona Legislature is considering SB 1470 that attempts to restore homestead protection and correct this shameful treatment of good people. The opposition offers no justification, and the “general interest” argument is without merit as it denies fundamental rights. It’s a simple one-liner to be deleted. The case for the exemption was well stated in 2007 by California’s L. A. Times columnist Donie Vanitzian, JD,

“It is the titleholder’s personal asset that functions as a kind of perverse collateral, requiring the owner to pay assessments to the association-entity or lose his asset. . . . On purchase of that home and without anything more, the titleholder’s asset became a personal risk and personal liability for the owner. Instantly, the titleholder’s asset also became collateral for the association-entity.”

(California Common Interest Developments — Homeowner’s Guide, Donie Vanitzian, p. xviii, xix, Thomson – West 2006).

The Arizona 9 page, plus addendums, residential purchase agreement of some 400 lines does not inform the buyer that his home is security for the survival of the HOA. It is a statutory lien created by the state and not a voluntary agreement. On the other hand he is informed that his home is security for the mortgage.

Please protect the sanctity of the home and restore the homestead exemption to HOA homes.  Pass SB 1470!