Tag: supreme court

AZ Supreme Court denied hearing the Gelb Petition to restore ALJ adjudication of HOA disputes

Yesterday, May 24th, the Arizona Supreme Court simply DENIED hearing this Petition to vacate the lower court ruling that the Arizona agency, DFBLS, had violated the separation of powers doctrine when hearing  HOA disputes .  Disappointing, but not surprising given the new laws to take effect on July 20th, that addressed the separation of powers opinion. It still allows DFBLS to deny accepting complaints since ARS 41-2198(3), the statute authorizing DFBLS, was not vacated. It still stands.

Consequently, in the event that a complaint is filed on or after July 20th and DFBLS denies accepting the complaint, another challenge to the constitutionality of the law would be necessary. If DFLS accepts the complaint, rest assured that Darth Vader is ready with another challenge.

Why is this possible? Doesn’t the appellate court opinion serve as precedent and that’s that? NO, the door was opened by the Court! The Court in addition to its regular fashion of terse announcements, DENIED or ACCEPTED, added an order under its powers to do so, AZ Supreme Court Rule 111(g), that the Gelb decision was not to be published. Not being published means that it is not binding authority, or precedent. It seems then that the door is open and res judicata – already decided – doesn’t apply.

Why allow another shot” at constitutionality? Maybe, as I have argued, the arguments in support of the law relied on the same two cases, Cactus Wren and Hancock, accepted as controlling in both Gelb and in Waugaman (in the only other case that involved a decision, the superior court decision Troon v. DFBLS, Waugaman, LC2007-000598, Maricopa County), left something to be desired. Like the entire body of constitutional law and on the administrative procedures act concerning the acceptance of quasi-judicial authority of executive agencies. Yes, sharing does occur, and none of the applicable rulings were based on the extent of the agency’s regulatory functions, as the DFBLS cases were, (Gelb essentially followed the arguments in Waugaman).

July 20th will be the next phase of the fight by homeowner rights advocates for due process and the equal protection of the laws. The AZ Supreme Court just “punted.”

See AZ Supreme Court to decide whether  or not to proceed on Gelb and HOA adjudication

Arizona OAH restoration: SB 1148 signed; supreme court “paused”

 

SB 1148 was signed by the Governor today – will become law 90 days after end of session.
 
The AZ Supreme Court did not reach a decision and the case is listed as “Continued”, probably at the next conference scheduled for May 24 (not yet on the agenda).
 
Congratulations to Sen. Biggs on behalf of all homeowners living in HOAs seeking justice!

FL supreme court upholds private contract over constitution

 

This decision sounds really exciting, but . . . . . Read the relevant part of the Florida Supreme Court opinion (emphasis added):

 

The Grand’s declaration, which was filed in 1986, adopts the terms of “the Condominium Act of the State of Florida (Florida Statute 718, et seq.) in effect as of the date of recording this Declaration” and does not contain “as amended from time to time” language subjecting it to future statutory changes to the Condominium Act. See Angora Enters., Inc. v. Condo. Ass’n of Lakeside Vill., 796 F.2d 384, 386 (11th Cir. 1986) (noting that express agreement by parties in the declaration of condominium regarding application of future statutes to the association may determine whether parties have a “constitutional protection against future amendments to the Florida Condominium Act which, absent such an agreement, might arguably impair a party’s contract obligation”).   Cohn v. The Grand Condo Assn., SC10-430, (Fla.  3/31/2011).

 

In essence, the court is saying, as I’ve always opposed, that the people have the right to determine via a private contract whether the supreme law of the land, and of the state, applies to them.  And by constructive notice alone, without explicit consent, the courts hold that you surrendered your rights! This is wrong!  This “opt out” is ridiculous!  And it is an essential defect in the HOA/condo legal scheme – private parties can draft and file a document, especially a declaration, that exempts them from the application of the Constitution and laws protecting the people. So, why bother to have a constitution anyway?

 

Another advance for The New America of HOA-Lands. 

HOAs in America: the illusion of democracy in a dysfunctional republic

In order to understand the public policy toward homeowner associations with its manufactured appearance of bona fide homeowner consent, we need to examine the political climate and value system within our society.

See short video paralleling the decline of Rome. 

1. The empty value system – anything goes

The Declaration of Independence provided the fundamental basis for the unalienable rights that no government may take away from the people. Unfortunately, contemporary political and judicial leadership has failed to retain and uphold our unalienable rights in a replacement value system of ethics and morality.

2.  The decline in the caliber of elected officials and the rise of political party ideology

 The political system has evolved to a point where the vast majority of elected officials in each party feel comfortable only in advancing ideas acceptable to their core supporters. The political system now rewards ideology over pragmatism. . . . What’s unusual now is that the political system is more polarized than the country. Rather than reducing the level of conflict the ideology increases it.

3.  Legitimate government and the illusion of justice

And speaking of justice, the necessary ingredient for the claim to the legitimacy of government and to be obeyed in conscience, Allen offers Machiavelli’s advice, “Because the [right] to rule is rather the appearance of justice rather than justice itself, the appearance of injustice defeats every [right] to rule.”

4.  The rise of authoritarian private HOA governments

“Therefore this Restatement is enabling toward private governance. The question of whether a servitude unreasonably burdens a fundamental constitutional right is determined as a matter of property law [meaning these servitudes], not constitutional law.” And, “What has been deliberately and carefully made ‘socially acceptable’ was, not too long ago, thought to be irresponsible — both financially and morally.”

5. The transformation of society and the acceptance of the New America of HOA-Lands.

 There are parallels between the acceptance and establishment of the HOA as an institution, and the influence and acceptance of Nazi doctrine in Germany before and during WW II. Both offered benefits and serious drawbacks, but only the pluses were seen and not the negatives. The rationale of the defenders of Nazism follow a similar pattern to that of the defenders of the HOA authoritarian, private government.

Mayer wrote that the “good” Germans went along “in the usual sincerity that required them only to abandon one principle after another, to throw away, little by little, all that was good.”

 

Read the complete article HOAs in America.

AZ bill, HB 2441, is a bill of attainder and an act of tyranny

 

Arizona’s HB 2441 is an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder under the US (Art. I, § 9, cl. 3) and Arizona Constitutions (Art. 2, Section 25).  It is a violation of the “separation of powers” doctrine as the legislature has acted to punish certain members of its citizenry — the taking of private property rights from homeowners living in HOAs — by a “trial of the legislature” and a legislative exercise of a judicial function.  As such, a bill of attainder has been described as an act of tyranny (US v. Brown, 381 US 437 (1965)). 

A careful reading of the Senate amended version of HB 2441 . . . permit and declare it is not illegal to so act by minority vote, the taking of private property rights from Arizona citizens without their consent, and in violation of their contractual rights. This bill, by its “blessings” that it has now been declared legal for a minority to so act and therefore incumbent on the homeowner to be obey, opens the “barn door” to the establishment of the oligarchical control of the community.

In Brown, the Supreme Court held,

“The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended to implement the separation of powers among the three branches of the Government by guarding against the legislative exercise of judicial power.

“A statute which inflicts its deprivation upon named or described persons or groups constitutes a bill of attainder whether its aim is retributive, punishing past acts, or preventive, discouraging future conduct.”

HB 2441 repudiates the fundamental premise of democracy — majority rule. This bill is a special law for a private party and is prohibited under state and federal constitutions.

Read the complete Commentary here.