Tag: Twin Rivers

Calif. HOA laws and community service districts

November 18, 2010

                                                                                                                                   email letter

Mr. Brian Hebert

Executive Secretary

California Law Review Commission
4000 Middlefield Road, Room D-1
Palo Alto, California 94303-4739

                                                                                       re: Study H-855

                                                                                       Memo 2010-8

                                                                                       CID Law

Dear Mr. Hebert:

 I am quite disappointed with the Commission’s continued effort to replace the Davis-Stirling using a carbon copy with revisions dealing with the minutia of CID operations.  And still refusing to recognize CIDs as de facto governments, much as Cuba is an unrecognized but de facto government.  Furthermore, CLRC has seen fit to retain the placement of these special laws for the governance of communities under the Civil Code. 

 It appears that the special interest agenda, promoted by the national lobbying trade organization, Community Associations Institute (CAI), still dominates the Commission’s thinking.  Is the Commission aware of CAI’s repudiation of the US Constitution when it wrote in its amicus brief to the NJ appellate court in Twin Rivers that, “In the context of community associations, the unwise extension of constitutional rights to the use of private property by members . . . ” ? Committee For A Better Twin Rivers v. Twin Rivers Homeowners Association (TRHA), Docket No. C-121-00, 2004.

Davis-Stirling and the Commission’s proposed rewrite continue to reflect the State’s exercise of “coercive power”, and “significant encouragement, either overt or covert”  with regard to CIDs.  The CID Laws portray the CID  in a “symbiotic relationship” with the state, “entwined with governmental policies,” and the state government is “entwined in [the CID’s] management or control.”  Such conditions give easy rise to declaring the CID as a state actor.  (See the summary of state action criteria as set forth by the US Supreme Court in Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Ass’n, 531 U.S. 288, 2001).

I cannot understand why the Commission continues to permit agreements by private parties to create local, private governments that are authoritarian and that deny homeowners their rights and freedoms to which they would otherwise be entitled.  These “declarations” and CC&Rs are just that – devises to circumvent the application of constitutional protections and prohibitions with respect to local communities.  The unsuspecting public is bound to these so-called agreements by virtue of taking hold on their deed sight unseen, without ever having to read, understand or sign these CC&Rs.  The filing of these CC&Rs alone are necessary and sufficient to bind the homeowner, under servitude laws, and not contract law; where the legal-academic aristocrats offer advice that if a conflict exists between servitude law and constitutional law, servitudes law should prevail. (See Restatement Third, Property: Servitudes, § 3.1, comment h).

 It is even more disturbing when existing California law, and similar laws in other states, permit the ability to attain the advertised benefits to the greater community of California and to the local CID community under municipality laws.  In general, they are the special taxing district laws, and in California they are the District and Community Service District Codes (see Government Code, Title 6, §§ 58000 and 61000 et seq. below for the relevant excerpts).  If town hall democracy, local autonomy and the “voice of the community” are indeed the objectives of good government, then the District Code  will meet these objectives, where the replacement of Davis-Stirling is nothing more than a top-down imposition on the local community of special laws for private organizations.  The CID would be subject to the 14th Amendment as are all other public entities, and the laws of the land would indeed be equal for all people.

 I outline the simple method for accomplishing the transformation of CIDs to taxing districts in Chapter 2 of
Understanding the New America of HOA-Lands  (attached for your edification and convenience).  Chapter 3  explores ideal HOA constitutions and Chapter 4 is a lengthy discussion of the two forms of American political government:  HOAs and public entities.


 The Commission should cease and desist its current efforts to further promote the establishment of the second form of American political government, the CID, and return to supporting the principles of democratic government under the US and California Constitutions.

 

Respectfully,

George K. Staropoli

President

Citizens for Constitutional Local Government

 

References

California  Government Code Title 6,  Districts, Division 1, General, § 58000 et seq., and in particular Division 3, Community Service Districts, § 61000 et seq. as relevant.

 

§ 61001.

(a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:

(1) The differences among California’s communities reflect the broad diversity of the state’s population, geography, natural resources, history, and economy.

 

(b) The Legislature finds and declares that for many communities,community services districts may be any of the following:

(1) A permanent form of governance that can provide locally adequate levels of public facilities and services.

(3) A form of governance that can serve as an alternative to the incorporation of a new city.

 

(c) In enacting this division, it is the intent of the Legislature: (1) To continue a broad statutory authority for a class of limited-purpose special districts to provide a wide variety of public facilities and services.

(3) That residents, property owners, and public officials use the powers and procedures provided by the Community Services District Law to meet the diversity of the local conditions, circumstances, and resources.

 

HOAs in the punishment business

I have argued that the HOA is in the punishment and intimidation business, especially with respect to foreclosure “damages”  and fines under failed due process procedures —  the kangaroo courts.  Here’s a recent NJ case that addresses penalties as a punishment.  In this instance, the HOA had a covenant that granted it the right to access a flat 20% charge as liquidated damages rather than attempting to determine just what were the actual damages incurred by the HOA.

Let me clarify.  When seeking damages, the damaged party must submit to the court the actual damages it incurred.  For example, what are the damages to the HOA if your grass height violated the arbitrary rule for well kept lawns?  Or you painted an unapproved house color?  Anybody?  Well, that gets down to simply attorney fees and court costs of which the HOA sees nada.  That’s why there are no actual damages to the HOA itself submitted by the HOA.  So, are these actions by the HOA really a punishment rather than a recovering  of damages inflicted on it by the homeowner?  Hell yes!

The NJ opinion contained,

As we have previously noted, the 20% payment was not “interest.” It constituted a liquidated damages provision established in the By-laws of the Association in lieu of an assessment of counsel fees in instances in which legal action on the Association’s behalf was required.

A clause is a liquidated damages provision if the actual damages from a breach are difficult to measure and the stipulated amount of damages is “a reasonable forecast of the provable injury resulting from [the] breach.  Such clauses are deemed “presumptively reasonable” and therefore enforceable, and “the party challenging [a stipulated damages provision] should bear the burden of proving its unreasonableness.”  Because the harm is necessarily incapable of accurate estimate, “`reasonableness’ emerges as the standard for deciding the validity of stipulated damages clauses.  The amount fixed is unreasonable if it serves not as a pre-estimate of probable actual damages, but rather as “punishment,” grossly disproportionate to the actual harm sustained.

We are certain that if counsel submitted an accounting of the time required to prepare for and conduct the two-day trial held in this matter, the resultant counsel fees would have been substantially higher. However, as the result of the By-laws, the Association has waived the right to that higher award.

Mazdabrook Commons HOA v. Khan, No. A-6106-08T3, (N.J. App.,  Sep. 1, 2010).

That about says it all when a $200,000 home is lost for a $2,000 fine, plus $3,000 in attorney fees.  The homeowner loses everything after building up his equity over 10 -30 years.  This ratio of 40 times the $5,000 is far in excess of the 10 times standard set by the US Supreme Court for punitive damages in product liability cases.  And yet, the HOA had not been damaged as it had not lost a penny of its own! 

It’s called punishment, pure and simple!  How else can an authoritarian regime like an HOA obtain obedience and acceptance of its rules and regulations (“laws”)?

Note that the attorney has no say in the matter, because unlike its erroneous attitude — you owe me $nnn in fees  — in all those dunning letters, it is not a party in the issue, but just a hired hand of the HOA.  So, why are HOAs being so nice to attorneys?  They undoubtedly agree with the attorney that how else can they coerce compliance except through  punishment?  And if lawyers refuse employment because the fees are so low, no coercion.

And, while we are at it,  doesn’t a flat fee of even 20% sound nice?   The above $2,000 foreclosure amount would cost only an extra $400 and not $3,000 to the attorney.  Now that sounds like a leveling of the playing field without HOA attorney fee churning — we need to make a living — obstructing  justice.

De facto NJ private HOA governments granted liability immunity

While reading the NJ Superior Court case, Fernicola v. Pheasant Run HOA[i],  I was surprised to find that New Jersey statutes grant an HOA greater immunity than granted to public entities.  In this case, a homeowner was injured as a result of tripping on an uneven section of common ground sidewalk.  One adjacent slab was 2 inches  above the other, of which the HOA was well aware.  But, this was just one such incidence of an  uneven sidewalk.    The HOA was not found guilty of gross negligence.

Negligence is a wrong under a duty of care doctrine, to which  HOAs and public governments are held accountable.  In short, from my lay knowledge of the law, a complaint must show that a duty of care existed, and that the accused violated that duty resulting in damage to another caused by this failure of care.   In general, public entities are granted either absolute or partial immunity from such liability[ii], under the logic that who would work for the government if all employees were made liable for their actions.   Apparently, to even a higher degree of protection,  this logic was applied to  de facto, private, contractual government HOAs.

Following is the appropriate section of the N.J. statutes.  Note that, once again, the law defers to, and makes legal, privately drafted contractual provisions. The presumption is that all members to these CC&R servitude contracts agreed to each and every surrender of rights and protections.  Note, too, the deliberately awkward wording of subsection (b), which obscures the fact that the HOA has immunity except from any of the enumerated factors.  N.J.S.A. 2A:62A-13 provides as follows:

a. Where the bylaws of a qualified common interest community specifically so provide, the association shall not be liable in any civil action brought by or on behalf of a unit owner to respond in damages as a result of bodily injury to the unit owner occurring on the premises of the qualified interest community.

b. Nothing in this act shall be deemed to grant immunity to any association causing bodily injury to the unit owner on the premises of the qualified common interest community by its willful, wanton or grossly negligent act of commission of omission.

Under real property tort law liability[iii], there are three categories of a duty of care toward others by property owners.  We would expect this common law doctrine to apply to HOAs were it not for special laws for private organizations.  Under tort law, there is not duty of care for trespassers — they enter at their own risk.  Licensees are people you invite on to your property, such as social guests.  With this class, the owner must only inform of conditions that he is aware of. The last class, Invitees are those whom the owner invites on to the property to conduct business, or that has public services, such as a public phone, etc.  The owner has a duty to inspect and to  inform this class of people of any situations that might prove harmful, such as faulty construction, etc.  However, given the above special statute, the HOA has almost no accountability to its member-owners; they would get a better deal from belonging to de jure public government.

IT SHOULD BE CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD that these grants of special privileges to private organizations, as the various state HOA and condo laws can be described, occur without any justifications or consideration being offered to the homeowners as to enhanced rights to deal with any abuse of these special grants.

AND LET US NOT FORGET the wisdom of the NJ Supreme Court in Twin Rivers[iv] that homeowners are protected by the business judgment rule, and not to worry about constitutional protections.  The Court failed to note the this rule was also designed to protect the HOA entity and not the people from abuse, in contradiction to the principles found in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

 

Notes

[i] Fernicola v. Pheasant Run HOA, No. A-2027-08T1, N.J. Super. App. Div., July 2, 2010.

[ii] Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the government can be sued for negligent acts or omissions that need not rise to the level of willful or gross negligence. See Tort Law for Legal Assistants, Linda L. & J. Stanley Edwards, eds. p. 218 0 219(Thomsom-Delmar Learning, 3rd ed. 2004).

[iii] Id, p. 86-88.

[iv] See generally A choice for Americans: the US Constitution or authoritarian, private HOA government.

Government of the people, by the people, for the HOA

 

The following email letter from Mr. Brown to the Arizona legislative leaders reflects his concern about democracy in America.  (For more information on this HOA bill, please see public streets: the battleground for private or public government control).   

hoa constitution
hoa constitution

My dear President Burns, Chairman Tibshraeny, Vice-Chairman Harper, Members of the Senate Government Institutions Committee, Senator Bunch, Representative Barto, Co-Sponsors of HB2153 and Representative Barnes:

“From time to time we read in the newspapers, or hear on the radio, about policies and procedures and practices in the Arizona legislature. Most often that which we read or head is critical of how the legislature goes about its business. Words such as “fair” and “open” and “level playing field” are used, as if to imply that the legislature should operate in a significantly different manner that it does.” Senator Randall Gnant, “From Idea…..To Bill…..To Law, The Legislative Process in Arizona,” February 2000

The Guest Opinion, “Who controls public streets,” Arizona Capitol Times, April 1, 2010, is on-point re the proposed HB2153 legislation as well as the global issues respecting associations’ control of property not owned by an association, associations’ control of the conduct and actions of Arizona citizens clearly not subject to the association’s governing documents and associations’ coveted power and dominion over homeowners subject to the association’s governing documents, the sacrosanct “private contract.”

Association stakeholders opposed to HB2153 regularly blur the lines between their long-held belief in “private contracts” not to be interfered with by federal, state, county and/or municipal governments and certainly not the legislature unless and until it suits the stakeholders and their client associations’ interests as evidenced by associations’ growing reliance on “what can government do for” stakeholders and associations today. (See Community Resource, Issue 1 / 2010, “What Your Local Government Can Do For You,” Community Associations Institute / Central Arizona Chapter, attached)

“Getting a hearing on a bill is a crucial first step for individual citizens, lobbyists, special interest groups and state agencies..in the Senate, bills that receive a hearing have a high likelihood of passing the full Senate. So, while failure to secure a hearing is a virtual disaster for a bill, getting a hearing takes a bill on the longest step towards becoming law.” (Gnant)

Please include HB2153 on the Committee On Government Institutions’ agenda, Consideration of Bills, permitting the peoples’ representatives in the Senate to vote on the bill’s passage as your brethren in the House, the people’s other representatives, did so on February 17, 2010 (43/14/03).

Respectfully,

William M. Brown