Tag Archives: foreclosure

Great Proposed HOA Bill In Colorado

      3 Comments on Great Proposed HOA Bill In Colorado
Guest blog by Stan Hrincevich

SB 15-177 concerns proposed construction defects litigation in Colorado. No Bill is perfect and in the world of HOA homeowners’ rights we seize the moment for any reform especially when it reins in the influence of HOA lawyers, property managers, and abusive Boards. This Bill would require HOA homeowners to approve the use of HOA funds in litigation.

Homeowners would have to be apprised of any intended litigation, informed on the substance and estimated costs, the consequences of unsuccessful litigation such as special assessments, and how the lawsuit is to be financed. A majority vote would be required to use HOA funds. HOAs can still bring legal action for construction defects and individuals can still pursue legal action using their own funds.

The Community Associations Institute (CAI) and HOA lawyers hate this Bill as it reins in their mostly open and easy access to HOA funds for litigation by requiring homeowners to first approve of such action. This can save large amounts of money for homeowners and safeguard reserve funds that can now be used for lawsuits. The CAI’s latest and weak argument on this Bill contends a Board would require a homeowner to vote for legal counsel on everyday, routine matters but no such verbiage is in the Bill and this is called desperation. See the article below for more information.

Please take a few minutes to write your legislator asking them to support SB 15-177. If the content of the Bill changes to lose our support we will let you know. Your email does help and helps home owners. Get involved!

CAI Threatened If Homeowners Are Empowered

(article from HOAforum.org)

The Community Associations Institute (CAI), long incorrectly identified as a homeowner-centric organization in the press and by State legislators, is again attacking the idea of HOA homeowners’ rights. The CAI represents the interests of property managers and HOA lawyers and not homeowners. This time they are objecting to a provision in proposed Colorado SB 15-177 (construction defects) that requires HOA homeowners to approve the use of HOA funds in litigation. Why the opposition? The CAI and HOA lawyers view the HOA as a profit center and easy money. Empowering homeowners on how their funds are used considered disruptive and meddling.

Too often HOA lawyers raid HOA bank accounts for legal fees and costly legal cases that should never have been litigated. That leaves homeowners with depleted reserve funds, special assessments to pay legal costs, and/or increases in HOA dues to replenish reserve funds. HOA Boards can currently enter into litigation without apprising homeowners of their intent, the cost and consequences of litigation or how they intend to finance legal fees. Boards can incur unlimited legal expenses and even take out debt instruments to pay legal fees. Home owners in too many cases only know of the financial consequences after the case has been litigated and they are stuck with the bill. This Bill simply reins in the authority of an HOA Board (that is highly influenced by HOA lawyers and property managers) in making decisions on litigation that can have significant if not catastrophic financial impact.

SB 15-177 would not preclude legal action but require a majority of home owners to approve litigation. This would mitigate the number of law suits and the abusive practice of an HOA Board suing on behalf of a very few (as few as two) vs. the community at large. More cases would be handled in the less expensive legal venue of arbitration thus saving HOAs significant sums of money. Home owners could still pursue individual actions using their own funds.

The CAI is fabricating a tall tale in contending that any legal fees paid to an HOA lawyer related to routine advice and counsel would take a majority vote of home owners. This Bill doesn’t get involved in regulating or interfering with the operations and daily functions of the HOA. Legal counsel on enforcing covenants, controls, restrictions, and debt collection or other issues involving common and routine HOA issues would not require a majority vote of homeowners. It’s just not in this Bill. Payment of routine legal counsel doesn’t require a lawsuit today nor would it under this Bill. This Bill is directed at legal cases filed in a court of law that are specific, unique, non-recurring and financially impacting. The CAI is embarrassing itself by claiming that any payment to an HOA lawyer would have to be voted upon. Obviously, the CAI is desperate to kill this bill.

The winner in this Bill will be homeowners in HOA community associations, not the Community Association Institute. Homeowners will now have more control over how HOA assets are used. They will still retain the right to litigate construction defects. This Bill does not impair the ability of any HOA Board to govern but contributes to open governance.

 

Another Crude One from Comcast

      No Comments on Another Crude One from Comcast

Being a customer of Comcast is mandated in Homeowners Associations across America. HOA boards and managers make backroom deals to allow only one company to service customers. Setting up a monopoly with utiltities supposedly saves money for homeowners. But money isn’t as big a problem as the quality of service.

Obviously, not all customers are satisfied with Comcast customer service. But for the second time in two weeks we hear of the ‘special’ way some customers are treated by the company’s billing department.

(link to story on mary super-b1tch bauer)

 

Orange County officials dealing with Blossom Park, Tymber Skan Residents living in unsafe condos

      5 Comments on Orange County officials dealing with Blossom Park, Tymber Skan Residents living in unsafe condos
guest blog by Deborah Goonan

I have blogged about the Blossom Park condo conversion recently. In recent weeks, Orange County Fire Department has stationed one of its trucks at the scene, and a structural engineer has examined the buildings, including the staircases and upper decks, deeming most of them unsafe. An official report is due this week, and in the WFTV report linked below; Orange County officials expect to order an official evacuation within days.

The County is now providing financial assistance to move the residents – mostly low-income tenants – to safe housing.

Court-appointed receiver, Frank Barber of Deer Run Realty & Management Company, insists that the problems are not that dire, and has reportedly urged residents to stay. He is relying on fees collected to pay for needed repairs, and — let’s not miss the obvious — to pay for services provided by his company.

Left unsaid in the many news reports: the taxpayers of Orange County are footing the bill to assist Blossom Park residents. And the bill must be substantial, as it includes increased police protection due to high crime and three recent murders in Blossom Park, stationing the Fire Department adjacent to the condo complex, assigning a structural engineer to inspect the condo buildings, and evacuating and then providing 30-days of free housing to hundreds of low-income residents.

Nearby Tymber Skan is another troubled condo complex, complete with squatters, criminals, dilapidated structures, and rats climbing the walls. Taxpayers have paid hundreds of thousands to cover unpaid water bills, police protection, demolition of buildings, and relocation of residents. This has been going on for several years, and its still not over.

So are HOAs really “no-impact” or “low-impact” tax revenue cash cows for local governments? Perhaps in the short term, but what about over the long term?

And are County officials now “heroes” stepping in to save the day? Hardly. Where have they been all these years, when these distressed condos have been left mainly to their own defenses, living conditions growing progressively worse? No one has been held accountable for allowing residents to live in squalor, for failure to manage the financial affairs of these failed Associations, for creating the conditions that allow violent crime and blight to flourish unchecked.

Better yet, how were these condo projects approved in the first place, with such shoddy construction, and why weren’t regular inspections done to ensure deficiencies were identified and repaired early on? It should have been clear to planning and development commissions that many of these developments and redevelopments were doomed to failure and premature obsolescence.

And what about the social impact to residents and surrounding neighborhoods, where people fear for their health and safety? Can we really put a price on the total costs? Decades of neglect by local governments – preferring to allow thousands of HOAs to attempt to govern themselves and manage their own affairs, while collecting property tax revenues from owners – has led to this chaos.

From deteriorating infrastructure to Bully Boards to neighborhoods divided over how their money is being spent, more and more of these stories are being reported and brought to the attention of the public. And what we see reported on the news is only a small percentage of the problems, because, in many HOAs, owners resist going public for fear of scaring away future buyers (or tenants) and reducing property values. In fact, the outspoken owner is often intimidated, harassed, or ostracized for daring to air the dirty laundry, so to speak. It’s a sick, twisted mindset that threatens the very foundation of the American Dream for millions of Americans.

(link to WFTV story on Blossom Park)

(link to Tymber Skan story)

Update: Osceola delegation denies HOA residents’ third request to make Poinciana a city

      4 Comments on Update: Osceola delegation denies HOA residents’ third request to make Poinciana a city
guest blog by Deborah Goonan

A few months ago I blogged about a very large Florida HOA with over 45,000 residents, and the fact that a homeowner’s group (PINCHOS) has been trying for three years to incorporate as a city. In all, Poinciana has nearly 60,000 residents. Under the latest proposal, roughly 47,000 live within boundaries that were to create a new municipality.

News reports indicate that Osceola County Legislative Delegation vote was split 2-2, along party lines on the matter, with two representatives not present at the time the vote was taken. A Department of Revenue report, based on a feasibility study, has concluded that Poinciana meets the financial requirements of a city, and stands to take in millions in revenue if it incorporates as a municipality.

At the hearing conducted last month, the delegation reportedly heard from residents both in favor of the proposal and opposed. Those opposed fear that becoming a city would lead to a tax increase, despite a feasibility study’s conclusion to the contrary.  Debate on the finer points has been put on hold for yet another year.

One of the reasons PINCHOS is in favor of municipal incorporation: typical of large HOAs, Poinciana is divided into 9 Villages, and the President of each Village Board serves on the Master HOA. Property owners elect the Master Board, but many of those owners are not actually residents of Poinciana. Meanwhile tenants have no voting rights to elect their leaders. That’s equivalent to taxation without representation! Predictably, the HOA Developer and the Board spoke against Poinciana becoming a city at the Delegation meeting.

According to another recent television news report, Poinciana has been struggling with crime and vandalism. Because they don’t have City status, they cannot have their own police department. Therefore the HOA has decided to spend $100,000 on increasing security staff and adding security cameras.

Keith Laytham, spokesperson for the owners’ group in favor of municipal incorporation says his group will continue to work with State Rep. John Cortes to put Poinciana on the map as a city in its own right.

(Bay News 9 article on controversy) 

(Orlando Sentinel article on Poinciana)

(Letter to Ledger.com from a Keith Laytham)

(WFTV video, Poinciana HOA to spend $100,000 on increased security)

(Previous blog about Poinciana, and why many residents want to create their own city)

Dr. Solomon Wins A Round

      6 Comments on Dr. Solomon Wins A Round

One of the heroes of our movement, Dr. Gary Solomon, has won a round in his own battle against an out-of-control HOA in Nevada. It involved an idiotic fine of $100 so he tried to get it heard in Small Claims Court, where it really belongs. That court kicked him upstairs to District Court which really has no business hearing 100 dollar claims. After two years, Solomon has won the right to take the case back to Small Claims. Here’s the decision:

Minutes
12/09/2014 3:00 AM
– This is an appeal from a Small Claims Judgment entered in the Las Vegas Township Justice Court. By this Judgment filed May 5, 2014, the court found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this case, and that it had to be filed in District Court instead. This case involves a fine of $100 imposed by Respondent Palm Hills Home Owners Association (the HOA ). Petitioner Dr. Solomon ( Solomon ) disputed the imposition of the fine. It appears that a lien was placed by the HOA against the subject property as well. Pursuant to NRS 38.310, because this dispute involved the interpretation, application or enforcement of the community’s CC&R s, the dispute first had to be submitted to arbitration or mediation with the Nevada Real Estate Division ( NRED ). Solomon filed a complaint with NRED which resulted in a ruling in favor of the HOA and against Solomon. The arbitrator also awarded the HOA $7348.17 for attorney s fees and costs incurred. Pursuant to NRS 38.330(5), within 30 days after the final decision and award in this nonbinding arbitration, Solomon was permitted to commence a civil action in the proper court concerning the claim which was submitted for arbitration. This action would be a de novo proceeding. Solomon filed this case in Small Claims Court in the Las Vegas Justice Court. The Justice Court found it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed the case, holding that NRS Chapter 38 . . . requires that such disputes be adjudicated in District Court. However, nothing in chapter 38 specifies that this de novo proceeding must be filed in District Court. Moreover, the case the HOA relies on, Hamm v. Arrowcreek Homeowners Association, 124 Nev. 290, 183 P.3d 895 (2008), does not address the question of jurisdiction as between district court and justice court. The HOA also argues that the lower court lacked jurisdiction pursuant to NRS 4.370(2) because this is an action in which the title of real property . . . [is] involved. However, in the Hamm case, the Nevada Supreme Court held that even a dispute about HOA fines where a party sought to release a lien imposed does not relate to title to the property. Additionally, while the HOA disputes whether Solomon ever held title to the property at issue in this case, this defense of the HOA is not to be considered in evaluating subject matter jurisdiction, which instead is based on an evaluation of the face of the complaint. The fact that the HOA may challenge Solomon s ability to proceed as a real party in interest does not deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction. Thus, this case in which Solomon filed a small claims complaint for less than $7500 was properly filed in Small Claims Court and that court s dismissal was in error. Accordingly, the Small Claims Judgment is hereby reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this Court s ruling. CLERK’S NOTE: The above minute order has been distributed to: Gary Solomon, 1001 Calico Ridge Dr., Henderson Nv. 89011, & Troy Dickerson (Angius & Terry) 1/28/15 kr