Tag: state actors

AZ bill returns homestead protection against HOA claims.

We must make the injustice visible. We must provoke until they respond and change the laws.[1]

Arizona alert – strike everything HB 2648 (2024)  returns homestead protections against HOA claims.  

“ARS 33-1807 and 33-1256. “B. THE COMMON EXPENSE ASSESSMENT LIEN PRESCRIBED BY THIS SECTION IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION.”

Let’s go back into the forgotten history of the homestead exemption in Arizona, starting in 2004,[2] 2007[3] and 2023.  The issue was and is the use of statutes to mimic the common boilerplate of the CC&Rs:   Statutory vs consensual lien. “A 12 item list is presented mimicking the CC&Rs, a common tactic to legitimize contractual challenges to the governing documents.”[4]

In 2004, still learning the ropes, I did not follow up on the state actors controversy based on the ARS statutes saying (my emphasis), “‘The association has a lien on a unit for any assessment.” 

“Representative Farnsworth made quite clear that ARS33-1807(A), which opens with, ‘The association has a lien . . . . is a statutory lien and not a consensual lien – the homeowner has no choice in the matter whatsoever.” (emphasis added).”

This can only be interpreted as a mandatory statute making the HOA an arm of the state, acting in place of the state – a state actor.[5] No, and, if, or buts! It is not a consensual lien if mandated by the state!

A second argument raised many times subsequent to 2004 questions the validity of a genuine consensus – “an agreement to be bound.”  In short, the argument raised in Common Sense[6],

“First, the application of contract law to the CC&Rs agreement reveals the many invalid aspects of the CC&Rs as a bona fide contract.  It is obvious from a simple review of contract law.  Yet, courts have held that the CC&Rs are a contract or are to be interpreted as a contract, and have even analyzed the meanings of CC&Rs in the same manner as a contract. But, the courts do not question the validity of the CC&RS contract with respect to contract law.  The courts resort to equitable servitudes law, which simply requires the acceptance of a deed in order to bind the home buyer to the CC&Rs sight unseen.”

On this point alone, HB2468 must be strongly supported. The controversy of statutory vs consensual is avoided to the relief of homeowners.

It is the Achilles heel of CAI’s reason for being  — cruel foreclosure and no homestead exemption as a punishment to coerce obedience.

Notes

[1] Mahatma Gandhi, fighting for India’s independence from British rule, 1948.

[2] HOA Homestead Exemption Exclusion (SB1470) (2023) (A 2004 look back and a comment by Fred F).

[3] See, The constitutionality of legislation: AZ Gov. vetoes homestead exemption bill (2007);

Arizona SB1330 restores lost homestead protection in HOAs (2007).

[4] See, All state “may/shall” statutes imply HOAs as state actors.

[5] See in general, Are HOA state actors created by statutory use of shall/may? (Section 2, paragraphs 5 +). (2019).

[6] HOA Common Sense, No. 4: Consent to be governed

All state “may/shall” statutes imply HOAs as state actors

The use of the words “shall” and “may” have generally accepted meanings in state laws and statutes. Their use in bills and laws relating to HOA-Land raises the highly controversial question of: Are HOAs state actors?  “The overlooked impact and consequence of this word is to legalize activities and actions that were all-to-fore not legal rights granted to the HOA.”[1]

Arizona’s HB 2575 creates HOAs as state actors with the slick use of the legal differences between these terms. BUT, as applied to sui generis HOAs, implicitly create state actors. The bill introduces a new section (emphasis added) with, “ARS 33-1820. Powers of the association. Subject to the provisions of the declaration, the association may:” A 12 item list is presented mimicking the CC&Rs, a common tactic to legitimize contractual challenges to the governing documents. Very clever!

Item 4 is particularly onerous because of the use of the introductory “the association may.” A 12 item list is presented mimicking the CC&Rs, a common tactic to legitimize contractual challenges to the governing documents. Very clever!

Item 4 was particularly onerous because it permitted the HOA Board to lobby in the name of the members.

“[the association may ] 4. Institute, defend or intervene in litigation or administrative proceedings in its own name on behalf of itself or two or more members on matters affecting the association or planned community or the members’ interests.”

After 3 sessions ending with “ret on cal,” (retain on calendar)  I emailed my may/shall state actor argument (as summarized here) to the legislative leadership resulting in the sponsor’s amendment rewording item (4). In relevant part, “the association may not institute, defend or intervene in litigation or arbitration in its own name on behalf of itself or a member.”

Thus, a potential constitutionality challenge was avoided as I had instituted in 2013, and won, with the help on a nonprofit legal organization, Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest (ACLPI).[2]

Although the bill passed out of the House with the other argument that the 12 items also reflect an implied state arm it was a major victory 1) on a broad constitutionality issue and 2) a punch in the nose to CAI who actively sponsored this bill, according to the AZ Homeowners Coalition.  CAI can be beat!

There are other arenas to challenge and expose CAI for what it is and stands for.  I present some 56 events over 24 years that serve to guide what worked and what did not work for advocates to successfully challenge the Evil Empire. Organized into 4 sections: On Reform Legislation, On The Bill of Rights, On the Judiciary, and On Civics.[3]  Available on Amazon, paperback or Kindle.

References

[1] See in general, Are HOA state actors created by statutory use of shall/may? (Section 2, paragraphs 5 +). (2019).

[2] Suing the AZ Legislature: AZ Attorney General admits SB 1454 HOA to be invalid and without effect.

[3] Read the book, HOA Constitutional Government: the continuing battle. 

Business Judgment Rule: an outstanding con job!

In short, the business judgment rule (BJR) is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative powers to a private entity.  The rule essentially allows the judge to defer to the HOA board as best to decide the matter,  denying the due process of law for citizens to be heard in court.  It is an unequal protection of the laws! However, the lawsuit was before the court to obtain an independent and supposedly unbiased application of the law. Think about it! The court is rubberstamping the BOD’s decision. Say what!

It’s nothing more than an understandingly successful con job fostered upon HOA members.  The BJR is a poster child for the need for advocates to be fully educated about the laws, government, and the courts.  STOP THE CON!

First, be aware that you will not find “business judgment rule” anywhere in state statutes and codes, that’s why it’s referred to as a “rule.”  What the reader will find are references to the duties and obligations of directors and officers to be fair, without conflicts, and acting in the best interest of the HOA. This is the basis for the misguided presumption.

Let me explain as best as I could and keep this complex issue as simple as possible. The courts’ adoption and continuing support for  the BJR avoids and ignores several constitutional issues at play: 1) delegation of legislative powers, 2) the HOA as a state actor, functioning in the place of municipal government, and 3) the judicial scrutiny doctrine testing the constitutionality of a laws. 

Read the full paper here: the con job

CAI is worried about homeowner reasonable expectations

I am confused by two CAI Arizona supreme court briefs in defense of the HOA in CAO v. Dorsey;[i] one by Scott Carpenter and the other by Krupnik,  a former Carpenter attorney and, along with Scott, a member of the CAI attorney’s group, the College of Community Associations Lawyers (CCAL).  In my view dealing with CAI over 23 years in several states, it reflects the awareness by CAI of the potential loss of its dominance over HOA boards and state legislatures.

The CAI Krupnick brief

In Krupnick’s brief, she argues that condos are a creature of state law otherwise they could not exist. We all know that state HOA laws and Acts favor the HOA against member rights.

“Sui generis presents a view of HOAs as private government principalities supported by your state legislature and is used to justify special laws for a special organization, the HOA. But the condominium is a unique form of real property ownership and . . . are created and governed by specific statutory schemes that deal with ownership, administration, transfer, and termination of commonly held property interests. More fundamentally, it is that statutory scheme, not the common law, that frames the issues in this controversy”[ii]

Does that make them state actors —  arms of the state?[iii] Existing constitutional law is inadequate to support this model of local governance [sui generis] and so, in violation of US and state constitutions,  we see all those HOA/PUD/condo “Acts” in almost every state.  These Acts constitute a parallel supreme law of the land with sharp contrasts to the US Constitution.

Krupnik stresses state laws control and “reasonable expectations”[iv] is not involved. “the amendment to A.R.S. § 33-1228 . . . does not significantly impinge on the parties’ reasonable expectations.” Her argument is that it would create problems for the administration of the HOA to have so many grandfathered clauses as the governing documents are amended from time-to-time. Gee, for over 247 years we have lived with the protection of grandfathered clauses in the public domain. What’s the problem?  The fear mongered survival of the HOA and CAI’s member income stream, that’s what!!

In my early days a CAI member emailed me saying: “What are you doing, George? We have a good thing going here.”

The CAI Carpenter brief

I focus on an important aspect of this brief.

Carpenter follows Krupnick’s argument on the need for uniformity, citing a precedent which held that “majority and minority owners alike were subject to a uniform set of rules which were consistent with the parties’ collective expectations at the time of contract.” Adding, “If left unchecked, the Opinion will very quickly leave Arizona community associations struggling to discern which versions of the state’s robust statutory  schemes apply to which owners in their communities.”

Carpenter raises a valid question, one that I concluded with in my commentary on CAO, should the HOA need to ask each owner if he agrees to be bound by  state law? And also asked for agreement to reasonably expected future amendments to forced sale in a takeover scenario. How can one agree to something ill defined?   This is a question to mislead the focus of the lawsuit.  Carpenter ignores contract law that requires a bona fide meeting of the minds and an  understanding of the explicit terms, and any assertion to be bound by iffy amendments in the future is without validity.

Obviously, contract law implicitly raises the question of surprises and a true meeting of the minds. No putting one past the other party in a violation of good faith. We know that there is wide misrepresentation in the selling process!

“By focusing on the amorphous concept of an owners’ reasonable expectations at the time they took title subject to an association’s declaration, the Court of Appeals has ignored an important reality: the statutes which apply to owners and associations must be applied uniformly, unless they contradict a pre-existing express term of the contractual covenants.”

He is arguing that ex post facto HOA amendments are valid, and the constitutional protections  do not apply to private contracts. After all, according to CAI HOAs are sui generis and have their own “constitution” outside the US Constitution. Carpenter makes the anguished plea — my interpretation –

“By creating an untenable and unworkable rule which deeply burdens associations and the owners who comprise them, the Court of Appeals’ Opinion will make it nearly impossible for any future association to effectively terminate their condominium.”

Poor baby! It’s a cost of doing business under the HOA legal scheme, but CAI wants more favorable treatment.  It’s an HOA defect because of the limited number of payees to support the HOA —  the members who are severally and jointly responsible for the viability of the HOA. (If Pete can’t pay, we’ll get it from Joe or Mary who can pay).  Is that a reasonable expectation of members?? I don’t think that have any idea of their financial obligations.

Please note that five other amicus briefs were filed in favor of the homeowner, CAO, including one by the Cato Institute and one by Arizona’s Goldwater Institute.  Only CAI opposed the appellate decision.

Notes

[i] CAO v. Dorsey, CA-CV 21-0275 (Ariz. App. Div.1, 2022).

[ii] Why aren’t HOAs held as state actors based on USSC criteria? (2019).

[iii] Id. The US Supreme Court has held state laws  that are “supportive”, “cooperating,” “encouraging,” and “entwined” in both public policy . . . and in the “management and control” of the HOA create state actors.

[iv] See HOA constitutional “takings” and reasonable amendments.

Why aren’t HOAs held as state actors based on USSC criteria?

Allow me to congratulate Deborah Goonan on her fine article, “USSC rules in favor of property rights — how will this affect HOAs?”[1], on constitutionality as applied to HOA-Land.  I also congratulate her for venturing in into the long standing, highly controversial and muddied waters of state actor legal doctrine.

State actor doctrine is too deep and complex to be fully addressed in a blog. I have followed this is for over 15 years having read most of the cases cited by the USSC.  Consequently, I will state some views that I feel will help her subscribers/readers to better understand a broader picture of this doctrine.

First,  the 2 fairly recent USSC cases, Knick and Manhattan, mentioned in Deborah Goonan’s post well illustrate the loss of homeowner constitutional and fundamental rights resulting from the fact that HOAs are not subject to the Constitution as are all other governmental entities; and that state legislatures have refused to make it so.

Second, the rationale for the public policy lack of vigorous pursuit of state actor doctrine in the case of the well documented and pervasive conduct of HOA boards is a slippery-slope fear factor.  This fear is stated by the USSC in Manhattan as:

Consistent with the text of the Constitution, the state-action doctrine enforces a critical boundary between the government and the individual, and thereby protects a robust sphere of individual liberty. Expanding the state-action doctrine beyond its traditional boundaries would expand governmental control while restricting individual liberty and private enterprise. We decline to do so in this case.

And so, interfering and applying state action to HOAs appears to be avoided to protect your individual freedoms.  I’m somewhat confused. Are you?  Adopting this state policy with respect to HOAs is highly misguided!

Third, although Goonan quotes the USSC use of 3 requirements for state action, the Court did reference the 2001 Brentwood v. Tennessee Secondary School[2] opinion that contained a summary of the criteria the USSC set for determining state action.  Omitting the obvious “exercising exclusive government functions” that requires no further discussion I listed these state actor criteria:

    1. From the State’s exercise of “coercive power,”
    2. when the State provides “significant encouragement, either overt or covert,”
    3. when a private actor operates as a “willful participant in joint activity with the State or its agents
    4. when it is controlled by an “agency of the State,”
    5. when it has been delegated a public function by the State
    6. when it is “entwined with governmental policies,” or
    7. when government is “entwined in [its] management or control.”

In regard to the institutionalization of HOAs, or as I refer to it, HOA-Land, the above tests 1 – 3, and 5 -6 would provide clear and convincing evidence that the policies of state legislatures, as demonstrated by the enacted pro-HOA laws, have created HOAs as state actors who willingly undertake state actions

Fourth, As you can see, there is plenty of “ammunition” to argue that HOAs are state actors.  By the simple use of the word “may” in the statutes raises the highly controversial question of: Are HOAs state actors? “May” is commonly found as “the board may set the time of the annual meeting,” or “may charge . . . .”  The overlooked impact and consequence of this word is to legalize activities and actions that were all-to-fore not legal rights granted to the HOA.  They are now made a legal activity, if your BOD so chooses.[3]

That’s easily “supportive”, “cooperating,” “encouraging,” and “entwined” in both public policy – more taxes from high value properties – and in the “management and control” of the HOA as we see how state laws mimic the governing documents, thereby legalizing them.

Fifth, HOAs have been described as sui generis – one of a kind.[4]  Sui generis presents a view of HOAs as private government principalities supported by your state legislature and is used to justify special laws for a special organization, the HOA. Existing constitutional law is inadequate to support this model of local governance and so, in violation of US and state constitutions,  we see all those HOA/PUD/condo “Acts” in almost every state.  These Acts constitute a parallel supreme law of the land with sharp contrasts to the US Constitution.

 

Finally, state actor doctrine can be a very powerful tool in the hands of HOA reformers, but the public policy of a feared slippery-slope defense must be overcome. It can be overcome IF advocates make a strong case that this public policy as applied to HOA-Land is misguided; and the failure of the courts to apply state actor doctrine harms the people living in HOAs.

In the name of justice, a serious look into this doctrine with regard to HOAs must be undertaken by independent think tank political scientists under the auspices of a Congressional mandate. Like setting up and independent counsel to conduct the investigation into HOA-Land.

 

References

[1] “USSC rules in favor of property rights — how will this affect HOAs?”, Deborah Goonan,  IAC, July 15, 2019. Contains links to the 2 USSC cases.

[2] Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Ass’n, 531 U.S. 288 (2001). I have made frequent reference to Brentwood in my Commentaries in HOA Constitutional Government.

[3] “Are HOA state actors created by statutory use of shall/may?,” George K. Staropoli, HOA Constitutional Government (April 2019).

[4] A non-inclusive list: Tyler P. Berding, “The failure of the HOA to protect against obsolescence”; Steven Seigel, attorney who analyzed Twin Rivers NJ decision, Wm & Mary Bill of Rights Jnl 1998.