Tag: Twin Rivers

HOA-Land Organic Laws

Organic Law is “the set of foundational laws or regulations, like those in a constitution or charter, which establish the essential framework of a government.” It is the fundamental basis of a government.

The U.S. Code defines the organic laws of the United States to include the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Northwest Ordinance, and the U.S. Constitution. (See US Statutes At Large, 1789 –1875, Vol. 18, Part I, Revised Statutes (43rd Congress, 1st session), p. v and vi).

In contrast, The Homes Association Handbook and UCIOA constitute, in my view, the organic law for HOA-Land. Together with their derivatives, as applied to HOA Declarations, they set the HOA’s  political tone and governing policies, which clearly rejects the US Constitution as the law of the land.

National defender of HOA-Land legal structure, Community Associations Institute, CAI, had this to say in its amicus curiae to the NJ appellate court in Twin Rivers (2006).

“In the context of community associations, the unwise extension of constitutional rights to the use of private property by members (as opposed to the public) raises the likelihood that judicial intervention will become the norm, and serve as the preferred mechanism for decision-making, rather than members effectuating change through the democratic process. [p. 19].”

collective writings — immediate release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                 Contact: George K. Staropoli, 602-228-2891

The battle for HOA Constitutional Government

Surprise, AZ – February 1, 2024 — For over 60 years, since 1964, the controversial issue as to the validity and constitutionality of Homeowners associations (HOAs, PUDs, POAs, condos) has been ignored by state legislatures, attorney generals, the judiciary, and the media.

In order to set the record straight and to educate and reorient the policy makers, the constitutionality of HOAs is raised in the collective writings of long time HOA reform activist and nonlawyer, George K. Staropoli. In his  January 9, 2024 published HOA Constitutional Government: the continuing battle,  he has presented 56 of his 1,300 social media posts over his 24 years as a reform activist.

These posts – as originally written and not as legal advice or opinion — contain his views based on documented legislation, case histories,  statements and various releases by the parties including the lobbyist entity, in their  own words.

The case is made that 1) the HOA declaration of CC&Rs is ab initio unconstitutional and invalid; 2) the CC&Rs are a devise to escape the application of constitutional protections; 3)  HOAs are permitted to do things municipal governments are not allowed; 4) there is no genuine, valid support for “agreed to be bound” under the application of equitable servitudes constructive notice doctrine; and 5) the judiciary has failed to educate  judges and law students on laws and principles affecting the HOA legal scheme.

It is argued that this irresponsible state of affairs is primarily the result of the dominance and influence on the policy makers by the national HOA lobbying trade group.  All the state HOA “Acts” and laws constitute “new law,” and the HOA legal scheme has been treated as sui generis; mixing laws of the land with new meanings and definitions to sell the HOA legal scheme to all Americans.

These Acts are nothing more than parallel laws to the Constitution, and superseding the Constitution in many court decisions. In a selected entry Staropoli quotes CAI’s brief to the NJ court in 2006:

“In the context of community associations, the unwise extension of constitutional rights to the use of private property by members . . . raises the likelihood that judicial intervention will become the norm.”

* * * *

Get HOA Constitutional Government – amazon.com

HOA Constitutional website: http://pvtgov.info. Staropoli has had his per se AZ Supreme Court amicus briefs challenging HOA constitutionality accepted by the court.

Can and will constitutional scholars reply to 4 HOA questions?

In March 2006 I wrote Christopher Durso, editor of the Community Associations Institute’s (CAI) monthly house organ, Common Ground, asking four questions in regard to the constitutionality of HOA’s  (CID, POA, planned unit development, etc.) legal scheme.  My concern was that CC&Rs are a devise for de facto HOA governments to escape constitutional government as presented in  the 1964 “bible” that brought forth the legal scheme, The Homes Association Handbook. 

As of this date, these questions remain unanswered by CAI, by state legislatures and attorney generals, by constitutional think tanks such as the CATO Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Federalist Society, and by the many constitutional scholars. Is it because any response would be seen as an attempt to defend the indefensible as it would require a rejection of the Constitution and a recognition of the HOA community secession from the Union.  State governments, including the judiciary, exhibit a willful blindness that makes the Constitution a meaningless piece of paper that can be ignored by private contracts unassailable from government interference.

Replacing democratic local governments with authoritarian private governments: Is this good public policy? “Public policy today rejects constitutional government for HOAs allowing them to operate outside the law of the land. The policy makers have failed to understand that the HOA CC&Rs have crossed over the line between purely property restrictions to establishing unregulated and authoritarian private governments.”

Here are the four questions:

 1. Is it proper for the state to create, permit, encourage, support or defend a form of local government of a community of people, whether that form of government is established as a municipal corporation or as a private organization that is not compatible with our American system of government?

2. Is it proper for the state to permit the existence of private quasi-governments with contractual “constitutions” that regulate and control the behavior of citizens without the same due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment; that do not conform to the state’s municipal charter or incorporation requirements; or do not provide for the same compliance with the state’s Constitution, statutes or administrative code as required by public local government entities?

3. When did “whatever the people privately contract” dominate the protections of the US Constitution? The New Jersey Appeals Court didn’t think so (CBTR v. Twin Rivers, 2006). Does “constructive notice,” the “nailing to the wall,” the medieval method of notice, measure to the requisite level of notice and informed consent to permit the loss of Constitutional protections?

4. Please state what, if any, are the government’s interests in supporting HOAs that deny the people their constitutional rights?

Once again  I await their replies.

Cc:  HOA Constitutional Government

From NJ Supreme Court Twin Rivers to Dublirer: HOAs are separate but unequal governments

In a parallel that can be made with Plessy v. Ferguson (163 U.S. 537,1896) and its enlightened reversal in Brown v. Bd of Education (347 U.S. 483,1954), the NJ Supreme Court’s opinion in Dublirer v. 2000 Linwood Avenue Owners (2014) accomplished the same necessary correction of its earlier opinion in CBTW v. Twin Rivers (929 A.2d 1060, 2007) with respect to HOA constitutionality.

In Plessy, the “separate but equal” doctrine was developed to uphold segregationist laws. In Brown, it was successfully argued that “separate but equal” did not apply to the education of black children and integrated schools were necessary.

(I have read the court filings and briefs in the following cases thanks to the people at the Rutgers Constitutional Litigation Clinic, Frank Askin, Director).

In Twin Rivers, addressing the one issue of many dealing with the equivalent of separate but equal free speech for HOA members, the Court found that alternate means of member free speech was available – that is, the alternate methods were separate but equal – and upheld the constitutionality of the HOA’s restrictions.  The HOA was not open to the public and was entirely a private entity and not a municipality (factual statement).

The trial court favored the HOA, while the appellate court favored the members. “In a published opinion, the Appellate Division reversed the trial court, holding that the Association was subject to state constitutional standards with respect to its internal rules and regulations.”

At the NJ Supreme Court,

Plaintiffs [homeowners] asserted that the community room policy denied them equal protection of the laws and unreasonably and unconstitutionally violated their right to access the community room on a fair and equitable basis. They sought temporary and permanent injunctions “to allow [p]laintiffs to utilize the community room in the same manner as other similarly situated entities.

They urge that political speech is entitled to heightened protection and that they should have the right to post political signs beyond the Association’s restricted sign policy. Plaintiffs further contend that the excessive fees charged for the use of the community room are not reasonably related to the actual costs incurred by the Association. Finally, plaintiffs claim that the State Constitution requires that the Association publish plaintiffs’ views on an equal basis with which the Association’s views are published in its newspaper.

The NJ Supreme Court held,

We conclude that the limited nature of the public’s invitation to use the property does not favor a finding that the Association’s rules and regulations violated plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.

We find that the minor restrictions on plaintiffs’ expressional activities are not unreasonable or oppressive, and the Association is not acting as a municipality.

In Dublirer,

The [condo] Board, citing a ‘House Rule’ that barred soliciting and distributing any written materials, denied the request. On prior occasions, though, the Board had distributed written ‘updates’ under apartment doors throughout the building, which criticized the Board’s opponents. The resident filed a lawsuit and claimed that the House Rule was unconstitutional.

The panel [appellate decision] noted that Dublirer’s expressional activity was ‘political-like speech’ because it related to the management and governance of the common-interest community. The panel found that the restriction left Dublirer without reasonable alternative means to convey his message.

Thus, even though Dublirer did not run for public office, his message was akin to and should be treated as political speech, which is entitled to the highest level of protection in our society. . . . If anything, speech about matters of public interest, and about the qualifications of people who hold positions of trust, lies at the heart of our societal values. . . . We therefore find that the Board’s House Rule violates the free speech guarantee in New Jersey’s Constitution.

So we see how the NJ Supreme Court recognized the de facto political government nature of HOAs, representing a shift in attitude from ‘HOAs are just businesses’ agreed to by its members to the need for constitutional protections. The Court essentially declared that the HOA’s restrictions in regard to campaigning were not separate but equal methods as used by the board itself.  Further, it appears that this Court believes that HOAs are akin to public governments and the election of board members is tantamount to a local public election and must be constitutionally protected.

To ensure that local community government works for the member-owners, shouldn’t due process protections and the equal protection of the laws under the 14th Amendment require judicial support and enforcement against HOA violations?  And that these rights deserve supremacy over privately drafted contracts that have as their objective the dismissal of constitutional protections?  I think so!  So should state legislators!

When can a homeowner withhold HOA assessments?

In January the Illinois Supreme Court agreed to hear the condominium case, Spanish Court Two Condominium Association v. Lisa Carlson, No. 115342, that breaks with the commonly held legal doctrine that HOA members are not permitted to withhold paying assessments, even when the HOA has failed to make necessary structural repairs to the condominium. Courts have held that HOAs are subject to servitudes law foremost, and that the common good required for the survival of the HOA is paramount.  Therefore, payments must not be withheld in spite of any outstanding controversy.

 In Spanish Court the appellate court held that a HOA condominium owner could withhold paying assessments because the relationship between the owner and HOA was similar to that of a tenant and landlord.  The contract in both situations involved mutual promises of making payments in return for HOA services to maintain and repair the property.  The court held that under contract law the withholding of payments was permitted. This decision broke with precedent, bringing justice to homeowners against special laws for HOAs.

 The courts in other cases and in other states have held that the declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) are a contract to be interpreted as a contract, but then apply servitude law over contract law, and even over constitutional law.  (See the Restatement Servitudes, § 3.1, comment h and§ 6.13, comment a).

 For example, this holding stands in contrast to the January 2013 Illinois Supreme Court ruling in Poris v. Lake Holiday POA (No. 113907) that allowed HOA security personnel to stop and detain drivers who are violating HOA rules, and not municipality ordinances. Here, servitude law prevailed over constitutional law.  And, in 2007 the Twin Rivers HOA (NJ) free speech case (CBTW v. Twin Rivers, 929 A.2d 1060) held that the business judgment rule would protect homeowner rights, and that there may be some instances where constitutional concerns could come into play.

 The Illinois appellate court admitted to the fact that its opinion stood alone in favor of the homeowner and contract law when HOAs are involved.  If the preponderance of the cases is to control, then homeowners can expect an Illinois Supreme Court reversal of the appellate decision as it did in Poris. Homeowners and justice should not be too enthusiastic about the right to withhold assessments in HOAs.